57822 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to 

provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 302 

Air pollution control, Chemicals, 

Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act, Extremely 

hazardous substances, Hazardous 

chemicals, Hazardous materials, 

Hazardous materials transportation, 

Hazardous substances, Hazardous 

wastes, Intergovernmental relations, 

Natural resources, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, 

Waste treatment and disposal. 

40 CFR Part 355 

Air pollution control, Chemical 

accident prevention, Chemical 

emergency preparedness, Chemicals, 

Community emergency response plan, 

Community right-to-know, Contingency 

planning, Disaster assistance, 

Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act, Extremely 

hazardous substances, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Natural resources, Penalties, Reportable 

quantity, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund Amendments 

and Reauthorization Act, Threshold 

planning quantity. 

Dated: September 27, 2005. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, it is proposed to amend title 

40, chapter I of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 302—DESIGNATION, 

REPORTABLE QUANTITIES, AND 

NOTIFICATION 

1. The authority citation for part 302 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9602, 9603, 9604; 33 

U.S.C. 1321 and 1361. 

2. Section 302.6 is amended by 

adding paragraph (e) to read as follows: 

§ 302.6 Notification requirements. 

* * * * * 

(e) The following releases are exempt 

from the notification requirements of 

this section: 

(1) Releases in amounts less than 

1,000 pounds per 24 hours of nitrogen 

oxide to the air which are the result of 

combustion and not the result of an 

accident or malfunction of equipment. 

(2) Releases in amounts less than 

1,000 pounds per 24 hours of nitrogen 

dioxide to the air which are the result 

of combustion and not the result of an 

accident or malfunction of equipment. 

PART 355—EMERGENCY PLANNING 

AND NOTIFICATION 

1. The authority citation for part 355 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11002, 11004, and 

11048. 

2. Section 355.40 is amended by 

adding paragraph (a)(2)(vii) to read as 

follows: 

§ 355.40 Emergency release notification. 

(a) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(vii) Any release in amounts less than 

1,000 pounds per 24 hours of nitrogen 

oxide or nitrogen dioxide to the air that 

is the result of combustion and not the 

result of an accident or malfunction of 

equipment. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–19872 Filed 10–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 372 

[TRI–2005–0073; FRL–7532–8] 

RIN 2025–AA14 

Toxics Release Inventory Burden 

Reduction Proposed Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Under section 313 of the 

Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

proposes to revise certain requirements 

for the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). 

The purpose of these revisions is to 

reduce reporting burden associated with 

the TRI reporting requirements while 

continuing to provide valuable 

information to the public that fulfills the 

purposes of the TRI program. ‘‘Burden’’

is the total time, effort, or financial 

resources expended by persons to 

generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or 

provide information to or for a Federal 

agency. The Agency will continue to 

provide valuable information to the 

public pursuant to section 313 of 

EPCRA and section 6607 of the 

Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) 

regarding toxic chemical releases and 

other waste management activities. 

If adopted, today’s proposed action 

would increase eligibility for the Form 

A Certification Statement for nonPersistent Bioaccumulative and Toxic 

(PBT) chemicals by raising the 

eligibility threshold to 5000 pounds for 

the ‘‘annual reportable amount’’ of a 

toxic chemical. It would also, for the 

first time, allow limited use of Form A 

for PBT chemicals where total releases 

are zero and the PBT annual reportable 

amount does not exceed 500 pounds. 

Dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are 

excluded from consideration for 

expanded Form A eligibility. Today’s 

proposal applies to the reporting of 

individual chemicals and is not 

intended to apply automatically to all 

reports that a facility may be required to 

file. 

For non-PBTs under the current 

regulations, the annual reportable 

amount is the combined total quantity 

released at the facility, treated at the 

facility, recovered at the facility as a 

result of recycle operations, combusted 

for the purpose of energy recovery at the 

facility, and amounts transferred from 

the facility to off-site locations for the 

purpose of recycling, energy recovery, 

treatment, and/or disposal. This 

combined total corresponds to the 

quantity of the toxic chemical in 

production—related waste, i.e., the sum 

of Sections 8.1 through and including 

Section 8.7 of the Form R. Today’s 

proposal would define a PBT annual 

reportable amount that would also 

include amounts managed and reported 

under Section 8.8 of the Form R. Greater 

detail on how reporters can qualify for 

increased Form A eligibility is provided 

later in today’s proposal under Section 

III. 

DATES: Comments, identified by the 

Docket ID No. TRI–2005–0073, must be 

received on or before December 5, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. TRI–2005–

0073, by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s 

electronic public docket and comment 

system, is EPA’s preferred method for 

receiving comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: oei.docket@epa.gov 

• Fax: 202–566–0741. 

• Mail: Office of Environmental 

Information (OEI) Docket, 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57823 

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail 

Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention 

Docket ID No. TRI–2005–0073. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, 

(EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20004, telephone: 202–566–1744, 

Attention Docket ID No. TRI–2005–

0073. Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation (8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays). Special arrangements should 

be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. TRI–2005–0073. EPA’s 

policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket 

without change and may be made 

available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ 

edocket, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information for which 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through EDOCKET, http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or e-mail. The 

EPA EDOCKET and the Federal 

regulations.gov Web sites are 

‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

EDOCKET or http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: EPA has established an 

official public docket for this action 

under Docket ID No. TRI–2005–0073. 

The public docket contains information 

considered by EPA in developing this 

proposed rule, including the documents 

listed below, which are electronically or 

physically located in the docket. In 

addition, interested parties should 

consult documents that are referenced 

in the documents that EPA has placed 

in the docket, regardless of whether 

these referenced documents are 

electronically or physically located in 

the docket. For assistance in locating 

documents that are referenced in 

documents that EPA has placed in the 

docket, but that are not electronically or 

physically located in the docket, please 

consult the person listed in the 

following FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the EDOCKET index 

at: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., CBI or other information for which 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically in 

EDOCKET, or in hard copy at the OEI 

Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 

B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The Public Reading 

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

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number 

for the Public Reading Room is 202–

566–1744, and the telephone number for 

the OEI Docket is 202–566–1752. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

more specific information or technical 

questions relating to this rule, contact 

Kevin Donovan, Toxics Release 

Inventory Program Division, Office of 

Information Analysis and Access 

(2844T), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460; telephone 

number: 202–566–0676; fax number: 

202–566–0741; e-mail: donovan.kevine@epa.gov. The press point of contact 

for this rule is Suzanne Ackerman, 

Office of Public Affairs, 202–564–4355. 

For general inquiries relating to the 

Toxics Release Inventory or more 

information on EPCRA section 313, 

contact the TRI Information Center 

Hotline, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Mail Code 5101, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460; toll free: 1–800–424–9346, in 

Virginia and Alaska: 703–412–9810, or 

toll free TDD: 1–800–553–7672. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Index 

I. Background and General Information 

A. Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in 

this Document 

B. Does this Document Apply to Me? 

C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My 

Comments for EPA? 

1. Tips for Preparing Your Comments 

2. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) 

D. What Are the Toxics Release Inventory 

Reporting Requirements and Who Do 

They Affect? 

E. Why Is EPA Proposing to Reduce 

Burden Associated with TRI Reporting 

Requirements? 

F. What Actions has EPA Taken in the Past 

to Streamline TRI Reporting? 

1. TRI–ME and Reporting Assistance 

2. Form A Certification Statement 

3. Stakeholder Dialogue 

G. Burden Reduction Estimation 

Methodology Used in Today’s Proposal 

1. Summary of Basic Methodology 

Table 1—Estimated Hours of Burden for a 

TRI Form 

II. What Is EPA’s Statutory Authority for 

Taking this Action? 

III. What Reporting Requirement Changes Are 

Being Proposed? 

A. Reference Guide for Burden Reduction 

Options 

Figure 1—Section 8 of Form R 

Table 2—Burden Reduction Terms 

Figure 2—Form R 

Figure 3—Form A 

B. Background on the Form A Certification 

Statement 

C. Form A Eligibility—PBT Chemicals: 

Allows PBT Reporting Facilities with No 

Releases to the Environment To Use 

Form A Provided They Do Not Exceed a 

1,000,000 Pound ‘‘Alternate Threshold’’

and Have 500 Pounds or Less of Total 

Other Waste Management Quantities. 

1. Description of Proposed Change and 

Considerations 

a. What Is this Approach to Burden 

Reduction? 

b. Is the Approach Available to All TRI 

Chemicals? 

c. Why Is this Approach Being Considered 

for PBT Chemicals? 

i. Lead and Lead Compounds 

ii. PACs and Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 

iii. Mercury and Mercury Compounds 

d. How Often Is this Approach Available 

to TRI Facilities? 

e. What Are the Reporting Requirements? 

f. Do My Recordkeeping Requirements 

Change? 

2. Estimates of Potential Impacts 

a. What Are the Potential Impacts for 

Reducing Burden? 

b. What Are the Potential Impacts to Data 

Users? 

c. Are There Other Potential Impacts? 

3. Rationale for Expanding Form A 

Eligibility to PBT Chemicals 

D. Expanding Form A Eligibility—Non-PBT 

Chemicals: Allows Non-PBT Reporting 

Facilities To Use an Alternate Reporting 

Threshold Provided They Do Not Exceed 

5000 Pounds of Total Other Waste 

Management Quantities. 

1. Description of Proposed Change 

a. What Is this Approach to Burden 

Reduction? 

b. Is this Approach Available to All TRI 

Chemicals? 

c. How Often Is the Approach Available to 

TRI Facilities? 

d. What Are the Reporting Requirements? 

e. Do My Record Keeping Requirements 

Change? 

57824 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

2. Estimates of Potential Impacts 

a. What Are the Potential Impacts for 

Reducing Burden? 

b. What Are the Potential Impacts to Data 

Users? 

Table 3—Potential Incremental Effects of 

All Newly Eligible Reporters Using Form 

A for non-PBTs 

3. Rationale for Expanding Form A 

Eligibility for Non-PBT Chemicals 

IV. Requests for Public Comment 

V. What Are the Statutory and Executive 

Order Reviews Associated With This 

Action? 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

1. Methodology 

2. Cost and Burden Savings Results 

Table 4—Potential Annual Cost and 

Burden Savings of the Phase II TRI 

Burden Reduction Proposal 

3. Impacts to Data 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as 

Amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Environmental Justice 

I. Background and General Information 

A. Acronyms and Abbreviations Used in This 

Document 

ARA—Annual Reportable Amount 

CAA—Clean Air Act 

CBI—Confidential Business Information 

CDX—Central Data Exchange 

CFR—Code of Federal Regulations 

E.O.—Executive Order 

EPA—U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

EPCRA—Emergency Planning and 

Community Right-to-Know Act 

ICR—Information Collection Request 

MACT—Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology 

NA—Not Applicable 

NTTAA—National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

OEI—Office of Environmental Information 

(EPA) 

OMB—Office of Management and Budget 

(Executive Office of the President) 

PAC—Polycyclic Aromatic Compound 

PBT—Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic 

PDR—Public Data Release 

PPA—Pollution Prevention Act 

PPM—Parts per million 

PRA—PBT Reportable Amount 

RCRA—Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act 

RFA—Regulatory Flexibility Act 

RY—Reporting Year 

SBREFA—Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

SIC—Standard Industrial Classification 

TEQ—Toxic Equivalency Quotient 

TPRW—Total Production Related Waste 

(total disposal and other releases plus all 

other production related waste 

management activities) 

TRI—Toxics Release Inventory 

TRI–ME—Toxics Release Inventory—Made 

Easy 

UMRA—Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

U.S.C.—United States Code 

B. Does This Document Apply to Me? 

This document applies to facilities 

that submit annual reports under 

section 313 of the Emergency Planning 

and Community Right-to-Know Act 

(EPCRA) and the Pollution Prevention 

Act (PPA). It specifically applies to 

those that submit the TRI Form R or 

Form A Certification Statement. (See 

http://www.epa.gov/tri/report/ 

index.htm#forms for detailed 

information about EPA’s TRI reporting 

forms.) To determine whether your 

facility would be affected by this action, 

you should carefully examine the 

applicability criteria in part 372, subpart 

B, of Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations. If you have questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, consult the person 

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

This document also is relevant to 

those who utilize EPA’s TRI 

information, including State agencies, 

local governments, communities, 

environmental groups and other nongovernmental organizations, as well as 

members of the general public. 

C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

b. Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest options and substitute language 

for your requested changes. 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

options. 

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible. 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

2. Submitting Confidential Business 

Information (CBI). Do not submit 

information that you consider to be CBI 

electronically through EPA’s electronic 

public docket or by e-mail. Commenters 

wishing to submit proprietary 

information for consideration must 

clearly distinguish such information 

from other comments and clearly label 

it as CBI. Send submissions containing 

such proprietary information directly to 

the following address only, and not to 

the public docket, to ensure that 

proprietary information is not 

inadvertently placed in the docket: 

Attention: OEI Document Control 

Officer, Mail Code: 2822T, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460. You may claim information 

that you submit to EPA as CBI by 

marking any part or all of that 

information as CBI (if you submit CBI 

on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

CBI). EPA will disclose information 

claimed as CBI only to the extent 

allowed by the procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

In addition to one complete version of 

the comment that includes any 

information claimed as CBI, a copy of 

the comment that does not contain the 

information claimed as CBI must be 

submitted for inclusion in the public 

docket and EPA’s electronic public 

docket. If you submit the copy that does 

not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, 

mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM 

clearly that it does not contain CBI. 

Information not marked as CBI will be 

included in the public docket and EPA’s 

electronic public docket without prior 

notice. If you have any questions about 

CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, 

please consult the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section. 

D. What Are the Toxics Release 

Inventory Reporting Requirements and 

Who Do They Affect? 

Pursuant to section 313 of the 

Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), certain 

facilities that manufacture, process, or 

otherwise use specified toxic chemicals 

in amounts above reporting threshold 

levels must submit annually to EPA and 

to designated State officials toxic 

chemical release forms containing 

information specified by EPA. 42 U.S.C. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57825 

11023. These reports must be filed by 

July 1 of each year for the previous 

calendar year. In addition, pursuant to 

section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention 

Act (PPA), facilities reporting under 

section 313 of EPCRA must also report 

pollution prevention and waste 

management data, including recycling 

information, for such chemicals. 42 

U.S.C. 13106. These reports are 

compiled and stored in EPA’s database 

known as the Toxics Release Inventory 

(TRI). 

Regulations at 40 CFR part 372, 

subpart B, require facilities that meet all 

of the following criteria to report: 

• The facility has 10 or more full-time 

employee equivalents (i.e., a total of 

20,000 hours worked per year or greater; 

see 40 CFR 372.3); and 

• The facility is included in Standard 

Industrial Classification (SIC) Codes 10 

(except 1011, 1081, and 1094), 12 

(except 1241), 20–39, 4911 (limited to 

facilities that combust coal and/or oil 

for the purpose of generating electricity 

for distribution in commerce), 4931 

(limited to facilities that combust coal 

and/or oil for the purpose of generating 

electricity for distribution in 

commerce), 4939 (limited to facilities 

that combust coal and/or oil for the 

purpose of generating electricity for 

distribution in commerce), 4953 

(limited to facilities regulated under 

RCRA Subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et 

seq.), 5169, 5171, and 7389 (limited to 

facilities primarily engaged in solvents 

recovery services on a contract or fee 

basis), or under Executive Order 13148, 

Federal facilities regardless of their SIC 

code; and 

• The facility manufactures (defined 

to include importing), processes, or 

otherwise uses any EPCRA section 313 

(TRI) chemical in quantities greater than 

the established thresholds for the 

specific chemical in the course of a 

calendar year. 

Facilities that meet the criteria must 

file a Form R report or, in some cases, 

may submit a Form A Certification 

Statement, for each listed toxic chemical 

for which the criteria are met. As 

specified in EPCRA section 313(a), the 

report for any calendar year must be 

submitted on or before July 1 of the 

following year. For example, reporting 

year 2004 data should have been 

postmarked on or before July 1, 2005. 

The list of toxic chemicals subject to 

TRI reporting can be found at 40 CFR 

372.65. This list is also published every 

year as Table II in the current version of 

the Toxics Release Inventory Reporting 

Forms and Instructions. The current TRI 

chemical list contains 581 individuallylisted chemicals and 30 chemical 

categories. 

E. Why Is EPA Proposing To Reduce 

Burden Associated With TRI Reporting 

Requirements? 

As noted above in the summary, 

‘‘burden’’ is the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by persons 

to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or 

provide information to or for a Federal 

agency. 44 U.S.C. 3502(2). That includes 

the time needed to review instructions; 

develop, acquire, install, and utilize 

technology and systems for the purposes 

of collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and 

maintaining information, and disclosing 

and providing information; adjust the 

existing ways to comply with any 

previously applicable instructions and 

requirements; train personnel to be able 

to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. EPA is 

proposing this action because the 

Agency believes it will reduce burden 

and save resources for regulated entities, 

while continuing to provide valuable 

information to the public that fulfills the 

purposes of the TRI program. 

EPA has made considerable progress 

in reducing burden associated with its 

various information collections through 

streamlining, consolidating, and 

harmonizing regulations, guidance, and 

compliance assistance, and 

implementing technology-based 

processes (i.e., electronic reporting 

using the Toxics Release Inventory—

Made Easy (TRI–ME) software and 

EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX), 

making use of data submitted to the 

Agency through other EPA programs, 

and using geospatial information to prepopulate data fields). These measures 

have reduced the time, cost, and 

complexity of existing environmental 

reporting requirements, while 

enhancing reporting effectiveness and 

efficiency and continuing to provide 

useful information to the public. 

In July 2005, the Agency promulgated 

the TRI Reporting Forms Modification 

Rule (70 FR 39931, July 12, 2005), 

which streamlined the current forms by 

eliminating some fields and simplifying 

completion of others. The purpose of 

today’s action is to propose additional 

burden reduction that will continue to 

provide valuable information on toxic 

chemical release and other waste 

management information that is 

necessary to fulfill the purposes of the 

TRI program. 

Today’s proposal provides burden 

reduction for facilities that report small 

quantities of PBT and non-PBT 

chemicals, though with different 

eligibility thresholds. Those familiar 

with the Stakeholder Dialogue that EPA 

conducted between November 2002 and 

February 2004 will note that the Agency 

is pursuing Option 3, Expanding 

Eligibility for the Form A Certification 

Statement, but modified to include a 

limited option for PBT chemicals. (More 

detail on the ‘‘Dialogue’’ is provided 

below in Section I.F.3). While the 

Agency has considered a much broader 

range of alternatives, many were 

determined to provide only limited 

opportunity for burden reduction, or to 

be inconsistent with the purposes of the 

TRI program. In a separate notice in 

today’s Federal Register, EPA is also 

announcing its notice to Congress of the 

intention to initiate a rule-making that 

would modify the reporting frequency 

for some or all TRI reports. 

The Agency believes that today’s 

proposal will provide meaningful 

burden reduction while still 

maintaining the value of the TRI 

information and will hereafter refer to 

this action as the ‘‘Phase 2’’ burden 

reduction rulemaking. In developing 

this approach, EPA considered input 

provided by stakeholders, and identified 

a number of criteria to guide the 

development of the approach that is 

presented here today. These criteria 

include making sure that this proposal 

maintains the integrity of the TRI 

database by providing meaningful data 

to users that fulfills the purposes of the 

TRI program; providing an overall 

burden savings in hours needed for 

reporting, adding to the time saved by 

streamlining the forms and instructions 

in the Forms Modification Rule; 

providing benefits to both non-PBT and 

PBT reporting facilities as appropriate; 

ensuring that the approach is relatively 

easy to implement; and creating 

incentives for pollution prevention. 

F. What Actions Has EPA Taken in the 

Past To Streamline TRI Reporting? 

1. TRI–ME and Reporting Assistance 

Throughout the history of the TRI 

Program, the Agency has implemented 

measures to reduce the TRI reporting 

burden on the regulated community 

while still ensuring the provision of 

valuable information to the public that 

fulfills the purposes of the TRI program. 

Through a range of compliance 

assistance activities, such as the Toxic 

Chemical Release Inventory Reporting 

Forms and Instructions (which is 

published and mailed every year), 

industry training workshops, chemicalspecific and industry-specific guidance 

documents, and the TRI Information 

Center (a call hotline), the Agency has 

shown a commitment to enhancing the 

57826 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

quality and consistency of reporting and 

assisting those facilities that must 

comply with EPCRA section 313. 

EPA has also done extensive work to 

make reporting easier for the TRI 

reporting community through the 

development and use of technology 

such as EPA’s Toxics Release 

Inventory—Made Easy software, 

otherwise known as TRI–ME (http:// 

www.epa.gov/tri/report/trime/). TRI–ME 

is an interactive, user-friendly software 

tool that guides facilities through the 

TRI reporting process. By leading 

prospective reporting facilities through 

a series of logically-ordered questions, 

TRI–ME facilitates the analysis needed 

to determine if a facility must complete 

a Form A or Form R report for a 

particular chemical. For those facilities 

required to report, the software provides 

guidance for each data element on 

Forms A and R. TRI–ME also has a onestop guidance feature, the TRI 

Assistance Library, that allows keyword 

searches on the statutes, regulations, 

and many EPCRA section 313 guidance 

documents. It also offers a ‘‘load 

feature’’ that enables the user to upload 

almost all of the facility’s prior year data 

into the current year’s report. Finally, 

TRI–ME checks the data for common 

errors and then prepares the forms to be 

sent electronically over the Internet via 

EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). 

Reporting forms generated by TRI–ME 

may also be submitted offline via 

magnetic media or on paper. In the 

spring of 2003, EPA distributed 

approximately 25,000 copies of TRI–ME 

in preparation for the 2002 reporting 

year deadline of July 1, 2003. 

Approximately 90% of the roughly 

84,000 Form R’s filed in 2003 were 

prepared using the TRI–ME software. 

2. Form A Certification Statement 

In 1994, partially in response to 

petitions received from the U.S. Small 

Business Administration Office of 

Advocacy and the American Feed 

Industry Association, an EPA 

rulemaking established the Form A 

Certification Statement as an alternative 

to Form R. This burden-reducing 

measure was based on an alternate 

threshold for quantities manufactured, 

processed, or otherwise used by those 

facilities with relatively low annual 

reportable amounts of TRI chemicals. A 

facility may use an alternate, higher 

reporting threshold for a toxic chemical 

for which it has an annual reportable 

amount not exceeding 500 pounds. The 

annual reportable amount (ARA) is the 

total of the quantity released at the 

facility, the quantity treated at the 

facility, the quantity recovered at the 

facility as a result of recycling 

operations, the quantity combusted for 

the purpose of energy recovery at the 

facility, and the quantity transferred offsite for recycling, energy recovery, 

treatment, and/or disposal. This 

combined total corresponds to the 

quantity of the toxic chemicals in 

production-related waste (i.e., the sum 

of sections 8.1 through and including 

section 8.7 on the Form R). The 

reporting threshold for chemicals with 

an ARA less than or equal to 500 

pounds is one million pounds 

manufactured, processed, or otherwise 

used. Facilities that meet the ARA 

eligibility requirement and fall below 

the one million pound reporting 

threshold for a particular toxic chemical 

may so certify by using Form A, and 

thus avoid having to submit a detailed 

Form R. 

When EPA lowered reporting 

thresholds in the subsequent PBT rule, 

EPA determined that allowing the Form 

A certification for PBT chemicals at that 

time would be inconsistent with the 

intent of expanded PBT chemical 

information (64 FR 58732, October 29, 

1999) and so disallowed the use of Form 

A for PBT chemicals. EPA cited 

concerns over releases and other waste 

management of these chemicals at low 

levels and said that, based on the 

information available to the Agency at 

that time, EPA believed that the level of 

information from Form A was 

insufficient to do meaningful analyses 

on PBT chemicals (Id. at 58733). EPA 

also stated ‘‘the Agency believes that it 

is appropriate to collect and analyze 

several years worth of data at the 

lowered thresholds before EPA 

considers developing a new alternate 

threshold and reportable quantity 

appropriate for PBT chemicals’’ (Id. at 

58732). 

3. Stakeholder Dialogue 

In an effort to further explore burden 

reduction opportunities, EPA conducted 

a TRI Stakeholder Dialogue between 

November 2002 and February 2004. A 

summary is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/tri/programs/ 

stakeholders/outreach.htm. The 

dialogue process focused on identifying 

improvements to the TRI reporting 

process and exploring a number of 

burden reduction options associated 

with TRI reporting. In total, EPA 

received approximately 770 

submissions as part of this Stakeholder 

Dialogue. Of those, approximately 730 

were substantive public comments, and 

the remaining documents were either 

duplicates or correspondence 

transmitting public comments to the 

online docket system. The public 

comments expressed a range of views, 

with some supporting burden reduction 

and others opposing it. Approximately 

63% of the comments came from private 

citizens; another 16% came from 

environmental groups, public interest 

groups, and public health groups; 

approximately 15% came from industry 

and trade group representatives; and 

about 6% came from government 

agencies, including nine States, three 

Federal agencies, and one municipality. 

You may view and obtain copies of all 

documents submitted to EPA by 

accessing TRI docket TRI–2003–0001 

online at http://www.epa.gov/edocket or 

by visiting the EPA Docket Public 

Reading Room in Washington, DC. 

As a result of the Stakeholder 

Dialogue and subsequent comments 

from stakeholders, the Agency 

identified several burden reducing 

options that could be implemented 

while continuing to provide valuable 

information to data users. These options 

fall into three broad categories: (1) 

Relatively minor changes or 

modifications to the reporting forms and 

the TRI–ME software; (2) expanding 

Form A eligibility; and (3) reducing the 

frequency of reporting for some or all 

reports. 

EPA decided to address the three 

categories of changes through separate 

rulemakings, the first of which was 

promulgated in July 2005. The 

promulgated changes eliminated some 

redundant or seldom-used data 

elements from Forms A and R, and 

modified others that could be shortened, 

simplified, or otherwise improved to 

reduce the time and costs required to 

complete and submit annual TRI 

reports. They also improved data 

consistency and reliability by replacing 

some elements on the forms with 

information extracted from the EPA’s 

Facility Registry System (FRS) which 

includes QA/QC’d data on most 

facilities subject to environmental 

reporting requirements across EPA 

programs. 

Today’s rulemaking, the second of the 

three sets of changes, will expand 

eligibility for Form A reporting for nonPBT chemicals, and allow limited Form 

A reporting in some cases for PBT 

chemicals with zero releases. In a 

separate notice in today’s FR, EPA is 

announcing notice to Congress of its 

intention to initiate a rulemaking to 

address the third option, modifying the 

reporting frequency for all or some TRI 

reports. EPCRA Section 313(i)(5) 

requires one-year advance notification 

to Congress before initiating such a rule 

making. This notification is being 

delivered today, concurrent with the 

publication of this notice. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57827 

G. Burden Reduction Estimation 

Methodology Used in Today’s Proposal 

1. Summary of Basic Methodology 

The burden methodology used in 

today’s proposal is based on currently 

approved estimates of the time required 

to complete a Form R or Form A and is 

summarized in the economic analysis 

contained in the docket for this 

proposal. Basically, allowing 

respondents to file a Form A in lieu of 

a Form R significantly reduces the 

calculation and form completion burden 

and also makes a small difference (2 

hours) in recordkeeping and form 

submission costs. The beneficiaries of 

today’s proposal will almost exclusively 

be subsequent year reporters (i.e., 

current Form R respondents). The 

currently approved burden estimates for 

calculations and form completion are 

shown below in Table 1. 

TABLE 1.—ESTIMATED HOURS OF BURDEN FOR A TRI FORM

Type of form First year 

reporter 

Subsequent 

year reporter 

PBT Response on Form R ...................................................................................................................................... 69 47.1 

Non-PBT Response on Form R .............................................................................................................................. 37 25.2 

Non-PBT Form A Response .................................................................................................................................... 25.1 17.6 

PBT Form A Response* .......................................................................................................................................... 45.6 31.6 

Form R Recordkeeping and Submission ................................................................................................................ 5 5 

Form A Recordkeeping and Submission ................................................................................................................. 3 3 

* Note: PBT Form A’s do not presently exist so burden estimated using approved non-PBT Form A approach. 

EPA is also using today’s notice to 

seek comment on a proposed 

methodology for improving the 

estimation of calculation and form 

completion burden. The approach taken 

by the Agency in developing the new 

burden estimation methodology was to 

assemble a team of persons with 

knowledge or experience related to the 

preparation of TRI reports who then 

applied their best professional judgment 

to break down the reporting 

requirements into separate item-specific 

tasks, and then estimate the average 

time required to complete each task. 

This report was internally vetted 

through Agency TRI program personnel 

in the Regions and at Headquarters. The 

resulting estimates are assembled and 

described in a July 16, 2004, 

memorandum entitled TRI Reporting 

Burden Estimates from Hilary Eustace, 

David Cooper, and Susan Day of Abt 

Associates to Paul Borst, EPA which is 

contained in the docket for this 

rulemaking. 

The resulting burden estimates 

derived from that engineering analyses 

for PBT and non-PBT chemicals are 

substantially lower than the current 

burden estimates in the OMB-approved 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

supporting statement for Form R. For 

example, under the current ICR, the 

subsequent year Form R burden 

estimates for PBT and non-PBT 

chemicals for form completion and 

calculation are 47.1 and 25.2 hours 

respectively. Form A calculation burden 

is estimated to be 64% of the Form R 

burden. To this amount, 1.4 hours of 

form completion time is added, 

resulting in Form A calculation and 

completion estimates of 31.6 hours for 

PBT chemicals and 17.6 hours for nonPBT chemicals. 

Under the Agency’s new engineering 

estimates, Form R estimates for PBT and 

non-PBT chemicals are reduced to 6.7 

and 7.6 hours for PBT and non-PBT 

chemicals respectively. Under the new 

methodology, the average burden for 

Form A for both PBT and non-PBT 

chemicals is 1.4 hours. If these new 

numbers had been used in the 

estimation of the burden reduction from 

today’s proposal, the estimated burden 

reduction would have been about threefourths of what is estimated using the 

currently approved numbers. 

The Agency conducted an external 

peer review of this new analysis to 

assess the reasonableness of the new 

methodology and specific burden 

estimates. The peer review panel was 

generally favorable to both the general 

methodology used in the engineering 

analysis (summing across Form R 

elements to derive total burden) and the 

specific form completion steps 

described. However, the panel felt that 

the time allocated for many of the tasks 

should be increased. The panel 

disagreed with the assumption in the 

Agency’s engineering analysis that a 

typical TRI reporting facility was 

reasonably modern and well-organized. 

A majority of the panel thought that 

EPA overestimated the experience and 

knowledge that a typical TRI reporting 

facility would have in completing its 

Form R and thus underestimated the 

time it would take to complete the 

Form. 

The Agency has placed both its 

engineering estimate and the peer 

review summary in the docket for 

today’s proposed rule. The Agency 

solicits comment on the reasonableness 

and accuracy of the methodology, form 

completion steps and specific burden 

estimates as well as on the conclusions 

of the external peer review. 

II. What Is EPA’s Statutory Authority 

for Taking This Action? 

This proposed rule is being issued 

under sections 313(f)(2) and 328 of 

EPCRA, 42 U.S.C. 11023(f)(2) and 

11048. In general, section 313 of EPCRA 

and section 6607 of the Pollution 

Prevention Act (PPA) require owners 

and operators of facilities in specified 

SIC codes that manufacture, process, or 

otherwise use a listed toxic chemical in 

amounts above specified threshold 

levels to report certain facility-specific 

information about such chemicals, 

including the annual releases and other 

waste management quantities. This 

information is submitted on EPA Form 

9350–1 (Form R) or EPA Form 9350–2 

(Form A) and compiled in an annual 

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Each 

covered facility must file a separate 

Form R for each listed chemical 

manufactured, processed, or otherwise 

used in excess of applicable reporting 

thresholds which were initially 

established in section 313(f)(1). EPA has 

also established an alternate threshold 

for non-PBT chemicals with low annual 

reportable amounts. Facilities making 

use of the alternate reporting threshold 

must file a Form A certification 

statement listing their toxic chemicals 

that qualify for the alternate threshold. 

EPA has authority to revise the 

threshold amounts pursuant to section 

313(f)(2); however, such revised 

threshold amounts must obtain 

reporting on a substantial majority of 

total releases of the chemical at all 

facilities subject to section 313. In 

addition, Congress granted EPA broad 

rulemaking authority to allow the 

Agency to fully implement the statute. 

57828 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

EPCRA section 328 authorizes the 

‘‘Administrator [to] prescribe such 

regulations as may be necessary to carry 

out this chapter.’’ 42 U.S.C.11048. 

Today’s proposed approach would 

raise the reporting thresholds for a 

specific class of chemical reports. 

Congress set statutory default reporting 

thresholds of 25,000 pounds for 

manufacturing, 25,000 pounds for 

processing, and 10,000 pounds for the 

otherwise use of a listed toxic chemical 

in EPCRA section 313(f)(1). EPCRA 

section 313(f)(2), however, provides 

EPA with authority to establish different 

reporting thresholds. EPA may, at the 

Administrator’s discretion, base these 

different thresholds on classes of 

chemicals or categories of facilities. 

EPCRA specifies that the revised 

threshold adopted by EPA ‘‘shall obtain 

reporting on a substantial majority of 

total releases of the chemical at all 

facilities subject to the requirements of 

this section.’’ 42 U.S.C. 11023(f)(2). 

EPA has raised the reporting 

thresholds for a class of chemical 

reports once previously. In 1994, EPA 

finalized a rule that created the Form A 

Certification Statement (59 FR 61488). 

That rule raised the reporting thresholds 

for manufacturing, processing, and the 

otherwise use of listed toxic chemicals 

to 1 million pounds for a category of 

facilities whose total annual reportable 

amount for a particular chemical was 

500 pounds or less. In that rulemaking, 

EPA discussed the value of information 

that is collected on the Form A as 

follows: ‘‘EPA believes that the 

proposed annual certification will 

provide information relating to the 

location of facilities manufacturing, 

processing, or otherwise using these 

chemicals, that the chemicals are being 

manufactured, processed, or otherwise 

used at current reporting thresholds, 

and that chemical releases and transfers 

for the purpose of treatment and/or 

disposal are [500 pounds or less] per 

year (i.e., within a range of zero to [500] 

pounds per year).’’ (59 FR 38527) EPA 

further indicated that the information 

collected on the Form A helped to 

ensure that the revised thresholds 

continued to obtain reporting on a 

substantial majority of releases. 

The burden reduction approach in 

today’s proposal is modeled after the 

approach taken in the 1994 Form A 

rulemaking. Expanding Form A 

eligibility for Non-PBT chemicals and 

allowing limited eligibility for PBT 

chemicals raises the reporting threshold 

for eligible chemicals at a specifically 

defined category of facilities. As 

explained below, eligibility is 

determined on a chemical-by-chemical 

basis, rather than a facility-wide basis. 

Under the expanded Form A eligibility, 

facilities qualifying for the raised 

threshold for a given chemical would 

continue to file an annual certification 

statement in place of a Form R. Through 

its narrow definition of the category of 

facilities eligible for the raised threshold 

for certain chemicals and through the 

information collected on the 

certification statements, EPA is ensuring 

that reporting under the raised 

thresholds will continue to ‘‘obtain 

reporting on a substantial majority of 

total releases of the chemical at all 

facilities subject to the requirements of 

this section.’’

III. What Reporting Requirement 

Changes Are Being Proposed? 

Today’s proposal applies to all TRI 

chemicals except dioxin and dioxin-like 

compounds, which are excluded from 

consideration. Allowing Form A for PBT 

chemicals affects those chemicals 

identified by EPA as ‘‘chemicals of 

special concern’’ under 40 CFR 372.28 

(except for dioxin and dioxin-like 

compounds, discussed below). 

Currently ‘‘chemicals of special 

concern’’ include only certain chemicals 

that have been found to be ‘‘persistent, 

bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT).’’

Therefore, for the reader’s convenience, 

we will refer to the chemicals in 40 CFR 

372.28 as ‘‘PBT chemicals’’ in today’s 

proposal. 

For PBT chemicals, today’s proposal 

would allow facilities reporting on PBT 

chemicals with no disposal or other 

releases of a chemical to use the Form 

A Certification Statement provided they 

do not exceed the 1 million pound 

reporting threshold and have 500 

pounds or less of total other waste 

management quantities. The other waste 

management quantities include 

recycling, energy recovery and 

treatment for destruction. For non-PBT 

chemicals, facilities would now be able 

to use Form A if their annual reportable 

amount (ARA), which is the sum of 

Form R Sections 8.1 through Section 8.7 

and is also referred to as Total 

Production Related Waste (TPRW), is 

5000 pounds or less. This is an increase 

from the current ARA threshold of 500 

pounds. 

Increased eligibility for the Form A 

Certification Statement is based on the 

reporting of individual chemicals, and 

does not apply to facility reporting as a 

whole. For example, if a facility has 

determined it must report on four 

chemicals in a given reporting year, it 

must consider each of its chemicals 

individually to determine its eligibility 

to use Form A. In doing so, facilities 

must ensure that they are using the 

correct eligibility requirements for each 

toxic chemical, depending upon 

whether or not the chemical is a PBT. 

As noted above, PBT chemicals, except 

dioxin and dioxin-like compounds may 

now be eligible to use the Form A 

Certification Statement. Dioxin and 

dioxin-like compounds have been 

excluded from this expanded eligibility. 

Because of the high toxicity of some 

dioxin and dioxin-like compounds and 

the wide variation in toxicity between 

forms of dioxin, EPA recently proposed 

to add toxic equivalency (TEQ) 

reporting for the dioxin and dioxin-like 

compounds category (70 FR 10919, 

March 7, 2005). EPA proposed this 

revision in response to requests from 

TRI reporters that EPA create a 

mechanism for facilities to report TEQ 

data to provide important context for 

the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds 

release data. In addition, EPA believes 

that the public will benefit from the 

additional context and comparability of 

data provided by TEQ reporting. The 

Agency has decided to wait until the 

Dioxin TEQ rulemaking is finalized and 

until the Agency has appropriate data 

before considering whether this class of 

PBT chemicals should be considered for 

Form A eligibility. 

A. Reference Guide for Burden 

Reduction Options 

In this section, Figure 1 and Table 2 

are intended as reference guides to help 

readers understand the proposed 

eligibility requirements for Form A use. 

By increasing eligibility for Form A, the 

Agency is providing an alternative to 

Form R for facilities required to report 

to TRI. A basic understanding of the 

information a Form R respondent would 

be required to submit in Section 8 of 

Form R is necessary to understand the 

proposed new requirements for Form A 

eligibility. Figure 1 presents the Section 

8 portion of Form R to facilitate 

understanding of the proposal. Table 2 

summarizes the proposed new 

eligibility requirements. Readers are 

encouraged to refer to the descriptions 

here and in Table 2 of this section for 

summary information, but should read 

through the subsequent text discussion 

for more detail about the proposed new 

eligibility requirements. 

One term that is used frequently in 

this proposal and may need some 

clarification is ‘‘releases.’’ EPCRA 

defines the term ‘‘releases’’ to include 

activities such as air and water 

discharges, and land disposal. 

According to 42 U.S.C. 11049(8), the 

‘‘term ‘release’ means any spilling, 

leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, 

emptying, discharging, injecting, 

escaping, leaching, dumping, or 

disposing into the environment 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57829 

(including the abandonment or 

discarding of barrels, containers, and 

other closed receptacles) of any toxic 

chemical.’’ Beginning with the Public 

Data Release (PDR) for the 2003 

reporting year, in an effort to provide 

additional context to the TRI data and 

to remind readers that the definition of 

‘‘releases’’ is broad, the Agency refers to 

total ‘‘releases’’ as total ‘‘disposal or 

other releases.’’ However, within the 

legal context of the TRI program, 

‘‘disposal’’ is a subset of release, not a 

separate waste management activity 

from ‘‘release.’’ EPA carries the term 

‘‘disposal or other releases’’ over to this 

rulemaking, but also uses the term 

‘‘releases’’ by itself for brevity and 

because this is the term used in the 

statute. In both cases, the Agency is 

referring to all types of releases, 

including disposals. 

In addition, another point of possible 

confusion is the term ‘‘chemicals of 

special concern’’ which was used in the 

October 1999 PBT rule to identify 

chemicals subject to a lower reporting 

threshold and not eligible for Form A. 

As noted above, currently all of the 

chemicals that are of special concern are 

PBTs. Therefore, for simplicity, the term 

‘‘PBT chemical’’ is used in lieu of 

‘‘chemicals of special concern.’’ For 

purposes of this proposal, the Agency 

will also refer to non-PBT chemicals, 

when referring to the larger group of TRI 

chemicals that are not PBTs (i.e., not 

chemicals of special concern). Should 

the Agency identify additional 

chemicals of special concern in the 

future, at that time the Agency will 

consider whether it is appropriate to 

extend these or other burden reduction 

options to those chemicals. 

FIGURE 1.—SECTION 8 OF THE FORM R 

Section 8.—Source Reduction and Recycling Activities 

Column A prior 

year 

(pounds/year*) 

Column B current reporting 

year 

(pounds/year*) 

Column C following year 

(pounds/year*) 

Column D second following 

year 

(pounds/year*) 

8.1 

8.1a Total on-site disposal to Class I Underground Injection 

Wells, RCRA Subtitle C landfills, and other landfills.

8.1b Total other on-site disposal or other releases .....................

8.1c Total off-site disposal to Class I Underground Injection 

Wells, RCRA Subtitle C landfills, and other landfills.

8.1d Total other off-site disposal or other releases .....................

8.2 Quantity used for energy recovery onsite ............................

8.3 Quantity used for energy recovery offsite ............................

8.4 Quantity recycled onsite .......................................................

8.5 Quantity recycled offsite .......................................................

8.6 Quantity treated onsite .........................................................

8.7 Quantity treated offsite .........................................................

8.8 Quantity released to the environment as a result of remedial actions, catastrophic events, or 

one-time events not associated with production processes (pounds/year)*. 

8.9 Production ratio or activity index ..........................................

8.10 Did your facility engage in any source reduction activities for this chemical during the reporting year? If not, enter ‘‘NA’’ in Section 

8.10.1 and answer Section 8.11. 

Source Reduction Activities 

[enter code(s)] 

Methods to Identify Activity (enter codes). 

8.10.1 a. b. c. 

8.10.2 a. b. c. 

8.10.3 a. b. c. 

8.10.4 a. b. c. 

8.11 Is additional information on source reduction, recycling, or pollution control activities included 

with this report? (Check one box) 

Yes No 

Ÿ Ÿ 

* For Dioxin or Dioxin-like compunds, report in grams/year. 

57830 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 2.—BURDEN REDUCTION TERMS

Expanding Form A eligibility Applicable Form R sections 

PBT Chemicals * ....................................................................................... Sections 8.1a through 8.1d must equal zero and Section 8.8 cannot include positive quantities of disposal or other releases. 

Section 8.2 + Section 8.3 + Section 8.4 + Section 8.5 + Section 8.6 + 

Section 8.7+ Section 8.8 must = 500 pounds or less. 

Non-PBT Chemicals * ............................................................................... Sections 8.1 + Section 8.2 + Section 8.3 + Section 8.4 + Section 8.5 + 

Section 8.6 + Section 8.7 must = 5000 pounds or less. 

*To be eligible, must also meet 1 million pound alternate threshold for 

manufacture processing or otherwise use. 

For convenience, the entire Form R and 

Form A are reprinted below as Figures 

2 and 3 respectively. 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57831 


EP04OC05.000</GPH>
57832 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 


EP04OC05.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57833 


EP04OC05.002</GPH>
57834 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 


EP04OC05.003</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57835 


EP04OC05.004</GPH>
57836 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 


EP04OC05.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57837 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C 


EP04OC05.006</GPH>
57838 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

B. Background on the Form A 

Certification Statement 

Reporting to the TRI is required by 

section 313 of the Emergency Planning 

and Community Right-to-Know Act. The 

information contained in the Form R 

constitutes a ‘‘report,’’ and the 

submission of a report to the 

appropriate authorities constitutes 

‘‘reporting.’’ The Pollution Prevention 

Act (PPA) of 1990 (Pub. L. 101–508) 

added additional reporting requirements 

for facilities that are required to submit 

Form Rs under section 313 of EPCRA. 

These data were required beginning 

with reports for calendar year 1991. 

The purposes of the required 

‘‘reporting’’ include providing the 

public with information on the releases 

and other waste management of EPCRA 

section 313 chemicals in their 

communities and providing EPA and 

other regulators with release and other 

waste management information to assist 

them in determining the need for future 

regulations. Facilities must report the 

quantities of routine and accidental 

releases, and releases resulting from 

catastrophic or other one time events of 

EPCRA section 313 chemicals, as well 

as the maximum amount of the EPCRA 

section 313 chemical on-site during the 

calendar year and the amount contained 

in wastes managed on-site or transferred 

off-site. 

The EPA Form A Certification 

Statement was established in 1994. This 

form is based on an alternate reporting 

threshold for facilities with small 

quantities of an EPCRA section 313 

chemical released or otherwise managed 

as waste. The Form A serves to certify 

that a facility is not subject to form R 

reporting for a specific toxic chemical 

[Toxic Chemical Release Inventory 

Reporting Forms and Instructions (EPA 

260–B–04–001), pages 1–2]. 

The primary difference between 

information contained on Form R and 

the Form A Certification Statement is 

that the Form R provides details of 

releases and other waste management 

(e.g., total quantity of releases to air, 

water, and land; on- and off-site 

recycling, energy recovery), while the 

Form A does not. The Form A 

Certification Statement may be used by 

reporters in lieu of the Form R for 

chemicals other than those specified as 

chemicals of special concern (e.g., PBTs) 

if the reporter does not exceed the 

1,000,000 pound threshold for amount 

of the chemical manufactured, 

processed, or otherwise used in the 

reporting year and if the annual 

reportable amount of a chemical is no 

more than 500 pounds for the year. The 

annual reportable amount (ARA) is the 

total of all quantities released (on- and 

off-site, but excluding catastrophic 

events), treated, recovered, recycled, 

and combusted at the facility, plus all 

amounts transferred from the facility 

off-site for the purpose of recycling, 

energy recovery, treatment, and/or 

disposal. If the reporter meets the 

criteria for using the Form A, s/he need 

only report the name of the chemical 

and certain facility identification 

information. In this case, the Form A 

serves as a range report which tells the 

public that the total production related 

waste for that chemical is between zero 

and 500 pounds. Several chemicals can 

be reported on each Form A. 

C. Form A Eligibility—PBT Chemicals 

Allows PBT Reporting Facilities with 

No Releases to the Environment to use 

Form A Provided They Do Not Exceed 

a 1,000,000 Pound ‘‘Alternate 

Threshold’’ and Have 500 Pounds or 

Less of Total Other Waste Management 

Quantities. 

1. Description of Proposed Change and 

Considerations 

Commenters in the November 2003 

Stakeholder Dialogue and other venues 

have pointed out that there are a 

number of facilities that submit Form Rs 

that have zero total disposal or other 

releases in Section 8.1 of Form R. Some 

of the stakeholders expressed the 

opinion that the Agency should develop 

a simplified form for these reports. EPA 

notes that many reporters with zero total 

disposal or other releases in Section 8.1 

still report positive quantities in 

sections 8.2 through 8.8. However, EPA 

believes that communities and other 

users of TRI information are less 

concerned about small volumes of onsite waste management when a facility 

is able to achieve zero release of these 

chemicals. EPA has thus determined 

that it is appropriate to allow Form A 

for such facilities, provided they have 

zero disposal and other releases for a 

particular PBT chemical. 

The Agency believes that many 

facilities eligible for this regulatory 

option are already using more desirable 

waste management techniques as 

evidenced by the fact that they have 

zero releases. The Agency further 

believes this approach will comply with 

the goals of the PPA by encouraging 

facilities that are already not releasing 

any chemicals to accomplish further 

source reduction so that their other 

waste management totals are low 

enough to use this option (500 pounds 

or less). The Agency balanced this 

pollution prevention incentive with the 

needs of TRI data users who use this 

information for tracking and reporting 

trends in recycling, waste treatment, 

and energy recovery, and decided that 

limited Form A eligibility for PBT 

chemicals with zero releases would be 

an appropriate approach for providing 

burden relief to this group of reporters, 

while minimizing the loss of useful 

data. 

a. What Is This Approach to Burden 

Reduction? 

Form A Eligibility—PBT Chemicals. 

This approach allows facilities that 

report zero or NA for items a, b, c, and 

d of Section 8.1 of Form R (Zero Total 

Disposal or Other Releases) for a PBT 

chemical (except dioxin and dioxin-like 

compounds) and do not have any 

releases included in Section 8.8, but 

may have other waste management 

information in Sections 8.2 through 8.8 

totaling 500 pounds or less, to now use 

the Form A Certification Statement. 

Section 8.8 of the Form R details the 

non-production related activities 

occurring at a facility. These could be 

releases or other waste management 

quantities. For this approach ‘‘releases’’

reported in Section 8.8 must be zero, but 

facilities may have other waste 

management quantities in Section 8.8, 

which will be totaled with the 

production related waste management 

quantities found in Sections 8.2–8.7. 

To qualify for this option, facilities 

must manufacture, process, or otherwise 

use no more than 1 million pounds of 

a chemical, have zero disposal or other 

releases in Section 8.1 and 8.8, and have 

500 pounds or less of total other waste 

management quantities in Sections 8.2 

through 8.8. The Agency will refer to 

the sum of Sections 8.2 + 8.3 + 8.4 + 8.5 

+ 8.6 + 8.7+ 8.8 as the PBT Reportable 

Amount (PRA). This is a similar concept 

to the Annual Reportable Amount 

(ARA), which is the term referring to the 

sum of Sections 8.1 through 8.7 used to 

determine eligibility for Form A 

currently for non-PBT chemicals with 

the added restrictions that there be no 

releases requiring reporting under 

Sections 8.1 or 8.8 and the inclusion of 

Section 8.8 in determination of the PRA. 

The inclusion of Section 8.8 waste 

management amounts in the PBT 

reportable amount is different from the 

approach taken for non-PBT chemicals. 

The Agency examined data from the 

2003 reporting year and determined that 

some of the reporters which have zero 

releases had activity reported in Section 

8.8 that appears to be associated with 

ongoing CERCLA or RCRA related 

remediation. The Agency believes local 

communities may be concerned about 

the progress of these activities and may 

wish to track quantities in Section 8.8 

exceeding 500 pounds using the Form 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57839 

1See ‘‘Lead: TRI Lead and Lead Compounds 

Reporting Years 2000–2002’’ (U.S. EPA) at http:// 

www.epa.gov/tri/tridata/tri02/index.htm. 

2The Agency’s Toxic Chemical Release Inventory 

Reporting Forms and Instructions (EPA 260–B–05–

001, January 2005, Appendix B) state that it is not 

appropriate to report energy recovery and treatment 

for destruction for metals with metal compounds 

categories with the exception of barium and barium 

compounds. When a facility reports metals and 

their associated metal compounds categories it only 

reports the parent metal portion of the compounds. 

The parent metal cannot be destroyed nor can it be 

burned for energy recovery so these metals should 

not be reported as such. 

R. Accordingly, EPA is proposing that 

these amounts be considered in 

determining the PRA. As a practical 

matter, the inclusion of Section 8.8 in 

the PRA only affects a small number of 

facilities. 

Using a different basis for reportable 

amount for PBT and non-PBT chemicals 

does pose some risk of confusion among 

reporters, but PBTs already have a 

number of special provisions that are 

applicable to them. The Agency requests 

comment on the proposed approach for 

defining the PRA and specifically on 

whether Section 8.8 management 

amounts should be included in the 

definition of the PRA. The Agency also 

requests comment on whether the ARA 

(for non-PBTs) should be modified to 

include Section 8.8 management 

information which would be an 

alternate way of making the two 

approaches more consistent. EPA is also 

interested in information on the specific 

types of activities that are reported in 

Section 8.8. 

b. Is the Approach Available to All TRI 

Chemicals? 

This approach applies to PBT 

chemicals, except dioxin and dioxinlike compounds. Non-PBT chemicals 

are already eligible for the Form A 

Certification Statement provided they 

meet the current criteria for Form A use. 

(Note that Section III. C of today’s 

proposal will propose new criteria for 

Form A use for non-PBT chemicals.) 

One example of the type of facility this 

approach could benefit is a producer of 

ceramic materials, such as dishes and 

cups, where 100% of the TRI chemical 

(in this case the lead in clay) goes into 

the product. 

c. Why Is This Approach Being 

Considered for PBT Chemicals? 

The Agency is focusing on providing 

burden relief for smaller businesses that 

have zero disposal or other releases. 

From the Stakeholder Dialogue, some 

commenters pointed out that there are 

reporters with no releases, but which 

also send small amounts of TRI 

chemicals into more desirable 

management techniques like recycling 

or energy recovery. Because the Agency 

encourages reuse and recycling, it 

decided to explore whether a clearly 

demarcated group could be defined. 

Expanding Form A eligibility as 

described in this approach would 

provide burden relief for PBT reporters 

with no disposal or other releases, but 

which do have small quantities of other 

waste management activities reportable 

in Sections 8.2 through 8.8. For facilities 

that have zero releases but also report 

zero for other waste management, the 

burden relief from this approach would 

be relatively small, but they would also 

be eligible to use Form A. While the 

Agency believes that most facilities that 

would qualify for this approach will be 

smaller businesses, the universe of 

facilities could include both large and 

small facilities. 

Allowing the use of Form A for some 

PBTs is a departure from the current 

practice of excluding PBT reporters 

from Form A use. The Agency discussed 

its rationale for excluding all PBT 

chemicals from the alternate threshold 

of 1 million pounds in the PBT 

Proposed Rule (64 FR 58716, January 5, 

1999). In the PBT Final Rule the Agency 

stated: 

EPA believes that use of the existing 

alternate threshold and reportable quantity 

for Form A would be inconsistent with the 

intent of expanded PBT chemical reporting. 

The general information provided on the 

Form A, on the quantities of the chemical 

that the facility manages as waste is 

insufficient for conducting meaningful 

analyses on PBT chemicals. (64 FR 58734) 

In the PBT Final Rule, however, the 

Agency also indicated that it would 

revisit this issue after it had the 

opportunity to collect and analyze 

several years worth of data at the 

lowered thresholds (64 FR 58732, 

October 29, 1999). In particular, the 

Agency indicated that it might consider 

developing a new alternate threshold 

and reportable quantity appropriate for 

PBT chemicals. 

To conduct this analysis of an 

appropriate criterion for use of Form A 

for PBT chemicals, the Agency reviewed 

the group of chemicals that it expects 

would qualify. Based on TRI data 

submitted in previous reporting years, 

the Agency expects the group of PBTs 

that would qualify for this approach to 

total 2703 forms. Of these, 2085 also 

reported zeros for other waste 

management quantities, while 618 

report non-zero amounts for at least one 

of the sections 8.2 through 8.8 

(Economic Analysis of Toxics Release 

Inventory Burden Reduction Proposed 

Rule, EPA, August, 2005). For facilities 

with zero in all waste management 

quantities, EPA believes the loss of data 

from moving to Form A would be 

minimal. In addition, EPA believes that 

many such facilities may choose to 

continue using Form R, since the 

burden of completing Form R for such 

facilities is small, and Form R allows 

them to show the public that they are 

neither releasing nor managing as waste 

any of the PBT chemical. The latter 

portion of the eligible facilities, those 

with some other waste management to 

report, are primarily forms for lead and 

lead compounds (44%), polycyclic 

aromatic compounds (PACs) including 

benzo(g,h,i)perylene (47%); and 

mercury and mercury compounds (7%). 

Together, these three chemicals account 

for 98% of the eligible reports with nonzero waste management quantities. A 

discussion of each of these groups and 

what is known about their waste 

management practices follows: 

i. Lead and Lead Compounds 

EPA conducted an extensive analysis 

of lead reporters in conjunction with the 

2002 Public Data Release.1 Based on this 

analysis, it appears that the types of 

management and disposal activities for 

which the Agency would be foregoing 

detailed information with this approach 

would be information on the recycling 

of small amounts of lead. In addition to 

having zero releases, these facilities 

would not be conducting the activities 

of energy recovery or treatment for 

destruction, because metals may not be 

reported in those categories.2 The most 

common scenario for small lead 

producers is that they send lead waste 

off-site to a recycler. Consequently, for 

facilities filing a Form A for lead, TRI 

data users may presume that the facility 

is recycling 500 pounds of lead or less 

(e.g., the Form A serves as a range report 

of zreo to 500 pounds for recycling). 

Another factor reviewed by the 

Agency in considering a new PRA 

threshold was whether there would be 

a substantial impact on information 

reported in the annual Public Data 

Release (PDR). To evaluate this issue, an 

analysis was performed to determine the 

amount of recycling (both on and offsite) for lead reporters anticipated to be 

eligible for the option. This amount 

equals approximately 67,000 pounds of 

recycling. When compared with the 

total for amount of lead recycling for all 

TRI reporters of nearly 800 million 

pounds (TRI Explorer, RY 2002 data, 

http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer/), this 

proves to be an extremely small 

percentage (0.0084 %). Given the totals 

of the lead recycling reported by these 

Form A eligible lead reporters compared 

to recycling totals for all TRI reporters, 

the Agency believes implementing this 

57840 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

3 Ibid. 

option will not significantly impact the 

use of TRI data. 

ii. PACs and Benzo(g,h,i)perylene 

Based on a review of potentially 

eligible facilities (i.e., those with less 

than 500 pounds), the only waste 

management activities conducted on 

PACs and benzo(g,h,i)perylene are 

burning in a boiler or industrial furnace 

for energy recovery or treatment for 

destruction via incineration. These 

activities could be conducted and result 

in zero releases as a consequence of the 

extremely high destruction efficiencies 

achieved in burning as explained in the 

next paragraph. Thus, similar to the case 

with lead, the Form A would serve as 

a range report of zero to 500 pounds for 

the waste management activity of 

combustion (either for energy recovery 

or destruction). 

Facilities that produce small amounts 

of PACs (e.g., in waste) may burn the 

waste in a boiler or industrial furnace. 

Many combustion units of this type, i.e., 

boilers, furnaces, and incinerators, are 

subject to strict controls under either the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act (RCRA) or the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

Further, since the PBT rule, which 

lowered reporting thresholds for PACs, 

was published, the Agency has adopted 

new CAA Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) Standards for 

hazardous waste combustion facilities 

that, among other things, help to ensure 

that 99.99% of these chemicals are 

destroyed during either energy recovery 

or incineration. These standards cover 

hazardous waste incinerators and 

cement kilns. (See 40 CFR part 63 and 

part 264.) The MACT Standards also 

control products of incomplete 

combustion that may result. With a PRA 

limiting the total PACs treated to 500 

pounds or less, releases at the lowest 

allowable efficiency could be no more 

than 0.01% (or a maximum of .05 

pounds) for facilities that must comply 

with these strict standards. The 

Guidance for Reporting Toxic 

Chemicals: Polycyclic Aromatic 

Compounds Category (EPA 260–9–01–

01, August 2001) allows for this level of 

PACs to be rounded to zero. If, for any 

reason, treatment of PACs does result in 

a release of even one pound, the facility 

would no longer be eligible. So, while 

very small amounts of releases may 

occur from facilities combusting 500 

pounds or less the PAC chemicals are 

unlikely to be released at levels which 

would require a non-zero response in 

Section 8.1 and, therefore, the 

completion of Form R. 

The Agency also considered whether 

there would be a substantial impact on 

information reported in the annual TRI 

Public Data Release (PDR) as a result of 

the proposed rule. To evaluate this 

point, an analysis was performed to 

determine the relative amounts of these 

chemicals (PACs and 

benzo(g,h,i)perylene) reported by 

facilities that would be eligible for Form 

A. EPA analysis shows that in RY 2002, 

approximately 3,900 pounds of PACs 

were reported on 578 forms that meet 

the PRA and zero release requirements 

for Form A eligibility under the 

proposed option (Antisdel, Timothy. 

‘‘Data Requests for Phase II.’’ E-mail to 

Marc Edmonds. May 5, 2005). This 

quantity constitutes 0.023% of the 

approximately 18,000,000 pounds of 

PAC’s reported as recycled, burned for 

energy recovery or treated for 

destruction for 2002. There were 

approximately 3,200 pounds of 

benzo(g,h,i)perylene reported on 695 

Form Rs that meet the Form A eligibility 

requirements. When compared to the 

approximately 450,000 pounds reported 

in 2002 by all TRI reporters as recycled, 

burned for energy recovery or treated for 

destruction, this amounts to only 0.7% 

of the total. Because the amounts of 

PACs and benzo(g,h,i)perylene that 

would not be reported on Form R under 

this option are such a small percentage 

of the totals and there are zero releases 

involved for these forms, the Agency 

believes that this approach will not have 

a significant impact on the use of TRI 

data. 

iii. Mercury and Mercury Compounds 

As noted above, approximately 7% of 

the forms eligible for this option report 

mercury. For mercury, as with lead, the 

only permissible non-zero quantity in 

Section 8 of Form R for those facilities 

that qualify is recycling.3 One reason a 

facility would recycle but not release 

mercury is because the recycling of 

high-category mercury waste (greater 

than 260 ppm) is mandatory under 

RCRA’s Land Disposal Restriction 

program (See 40 CFR 268.40 for D009 

and U151). Because there are 

recordkeeping and management 

requirements associated with this 

program, there is an extremely low risk 

of mercury release to the environment 

from these activities. Consequently, 

similar to the case for lead, the Agency’s 

primary consideration was whether a 

new PRA limit for mercury would have 

a substantial impact on information 

reported in the annual PDR. To evaluate 

this point, an analysis was performed to 

determine the relative amount of 

mercury reported by potentially eligible 

facilities. EPA analysis shows that in RY 

2002, 3,700 pounds of mercury and 

mercury compounds were reported on 

the 186 forms that meet the eligibility 

requirements for Form A. When 

compared with the total mercury 

recycled by all TRI facilities (1,280,000 

pounds), this amounts to only about 

0.3% of the total. Because there are no 

releases and the amount of mercury that 

would not be reported is such a small 

percentage of the total, the Agency 

believes that this approach will not have 

a significant impact on the use of TRI 

data. 

As discussed above, for this approach 

the Agency is now proposing to refer to 

the Annual Reportable Amount for PBTs 

as the PBT Reportable Amount (PRA). 

This PRA will still be 500 pounds or 

less, however, unlike the current Form 

A, the reportable amount for this option 

will include quantities that result from 

non-production related other waste 

management activities that are reported 

in Section 8.8 of the Form R, and will 

only be applied once a facility has met 

the first test that they have no releases 

to the environment. Also, as with nonPBT chemicals, the facility must also 

meet the alternate one million pound 

threshold for manufacturing, processing 

or otherwise use. 

It is important to note that this new 

Form A option for PBT chemicals 

requires that there be zero release or 

disposal of the chemical. With this 

condition satisfied, the Agency believes 

the resulting other waste management 

quantities are being adequately 

addressed by facilities using recycling 

and treatment technologies through 

existing statutory and regulatory 

requirements. This approach reinforces 

these requirements by providing 

incentives for additional source 

reductions while still providing range 

reports to TRI data users on the amounts 

of chemicals recycled or otherwise 

managed as waste (without being 

released to the environment). Using EZ 

Query in Envirofacts (www.epa.gov/ 

envirofacts/) or TRI Explorer data users 

would still be able to access individual 

PBT chemicals and list specific TRIFIDs 

and names of the facilities reporting an 

individual PBT chemical even if the 

facility submitted a Form A certification 

statement rather than a Form R. 

d. How Often Is This Approach 

Available to TRI Facilities? 

This approach would be available 

annually to any reporter having a 

chemical which qualifies in a given 

year. 

e. What Are the Reporting 

Requirements? 

This approach would allow facilities 

reporting PBTs (except dioxin and 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57841 

dioxin-like compounds) that have no 

releases, either in Section 8.1 or 8.8 of 

Form R, and which have other waste 

management information in Sections 8.2 

through 8.8 totaling 500 pounds or less, 

to apply a 1 million pound manufacture, 

process, or otherwise use threshold to 

that chemical. If the facility is under the 

threshold it will be able to use the Form 

A Certification Statement. 

f. Do My Recordkeeping Requirements 

Change? 

No. The current recordkeeping 

requirements remain in effect. A facility 

must keep records for three years (40 

CFR 372.10 and 372.27(b)). 

2. Estimates of Potential Impacts 

a. What Are the Potential Impacts of 

Reducing Reporting Burden? 

From the standpoint of burden 

reduction hours, the Agency’s analysis 

indicates that approximately 2,703 PBT 

forms would qualify for Form A use 

under this proposal, saving 

approximately 47,000 hours of reporting 

burden (Economic Analysis of Toxics 

Release Inventory Burden Reduction 

Proposed Rule, EPA, September 2005). 

As presented in Table 1, the currently 

approved burden estimate assumes 

completion of a full Form R for a PBT 

chemical requires 52.1 hours (including 

recordkeeping and submission). This is 

higher than the burden for a non-PBT of 

30.2 hours due to the greater number of 

records that may need to be reviewed 

and calculations performed. Without 

today’s rulemaking, facilities that would 

otherwise qualify for today’s expansion 

of Form A eligibility to PBT chemicals 

would have to submit a full Form R. 

Even facilities without waste 

management activities to report (i.e., 

zeros in Sections 8.1 through 8.8) will 

realize burden savings from the 

finalization of this proposal. These 

savings would accrue because the 

facility would no longer need to 

determine the maximum amount of the 

TRI chemical on-site at any one time in 

Section 4 of Form R. Moreover, the 

Production Ratio, which measures the 

relative percentage of a TRI chemical 

used in a product relative to the year 

before, would not have to be calculated 

if a facility submits a Form A. 

Eliminating the need to calculate these 

and other Form R data elements that are 

not included on the Form A result in an 

estimated burden savings of 17.5 hours 

per Form A. This is the difference 

between the estimated Form R burden of 

52.1 hours and the estimated Form A 

burden of 34.6 hours. Under the revised 

methodology discussed earlier, the 

estimated burden reduction for PBT 

reporters would be approximately 

20,000 hours instead of 47,000 hours. 

Regardless of methodology used, actual 

burden savings are likely to be less, 

given that not all Form A eligible 

respondents are likely to use Form A. 

Presently, only 54% of forms that 

appear to be eligible are actually 

submitted on Form A. 

b. What Are the Potential Impacts to 

Data Users? 

Regarding impacts to data users, the 

Agency feels that expanding Form A 

eligibility to PBT reporting facilities 

who have no releases to the 

environment but have some other waste 

management activities to report, will 

have negligible impacts on the utility of 

the TRI data and the TRI database. Some 

information in Sections 8.2 through 8.8 

for facilities within the 500 pound PBT 

reportable amount will no longer be 

reported in detail. The Agency 

anticipates this will have a minimal 

impact on the national reports TRI 

generates annually because it is a low 

quantity of waste and will have a 

negligible impact on national totals. On 

an individual facility basis, data users 

will not have detailed waste 

management information for recycling, 

treatment, and energy recovery, but will 

know that the total of these amounts is 

within the range of zero to 500 pounds. 

Additionally, for some chemicals, 

information available to EPA and the 

public allows data users to reasonably 

predict the waste management 

method(s) most likely employed at the 

facility. Communities will still be able 

to access Form A facility information 

via Envirofacts or TRI Explorer. The 

Agency reiterates the importance of the 

information contained in the Form A 

Certification Statement and discussed in 

the Alternate Threshold for Facilities 

with Low Annual Reportable Amounts 

Final Rule (59 FR 61488, November 30, 

1994). In that rule the Agency indicated 

that Form A serves the purposes of 

EPCRA Section 313 by providing the 

public with the basic information that a 

facility manufactures, processes, or 

otherwise uses a listed chemical in 

excess of current thresholds, that the 

annual reportable amount (in this case, 

the PRA) is 500 pounds or less, and that 

the facility did not exceed the alternate 

threshold for reporting. This 

information will be made available in 

the TRI database. Company records 

supporting such determinations must be 

made available to EPA inspectors upon 

request. 

c. Are There Other Potential Impacts? 

The Agency feels this reporting option 

will provide an incentive to TRI 

facilities to eliminate releases and 

reduce the need for other waste 

management by allowing certification in 

lieu of reporting for facilities that 

manage to eliminate all releases and 

reduce their other waste management 

activities to a level of 500 pounds or 

less. 

3. Rationale for Expanding Form A 

Eligibility to PBT Chemicals 

EPCRA allows EPA to adjust the 

reporting thresholds consistent with 

Section 313(f)(2) so long as the adjusted 

thresholds ‘‘obtain reporting on a 

substantial majority of total releases of 

the chemical at all facilities subject to 

the requirements of this section.’’

Expanding eligibility for Form A to 

PBTs (except dioxin and dioxin-like 

compounds) would define the category 

of facilities eligible for the increased 

threshold as those facilities that have 

zero releases and 500 pounds or less of 

the PRA for a particular chemical. 

Eligibility is determined on a chemicalby-chemical basis, therefore this 

approach would maintain reporting on 

a substantial majority of total releases 

because chemicals for which a facility 

has releases are not eligible for the 

alternate threshold. Only where a 

facility would have reported zero 

releases for a chemical would the 

facility be eligible; therefore, no data on 

releases are lost. Additionally, the 

requirement to submit a certification 

statement would allow certain facility 

information and information on other 

waste management activities to be made 

available to the public. As EPA 

explained in the 1994 Form A 

Rulemaking, the certification statement 

‘‘relates to a range volume for a given 

chemical’’ of zero to 500 pounds, 

thereby providing the public with 

valuable information (59 FR 61497, 

November 30, 1994). In addition to 

comment on this proposal, the Agency 

also requests comment on whether any 

of the chemicals potentially eligible for 

this option are of sufficient concern so 

as to justify EPA excluding them from 

eligibility for Form A as is being done 

with dioxins and dioxin like 

compounds. 

D. Expanding Form A Eligibility—NonPBT Chemicals 

Allows Non-PBT Reporting Facilities 

to use an Alternate Reporting Threshold 

Provided They Do Not Exceed 5000 

Pounds of Total Other Waste 

Management Quantities. 

57842 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

4For the purposes of this proposal and as 

described above, ‘‘non-PBT chemicals’’ indicates all 

listed TRI chemicals that are not ‘‘chemicals of 

special concern,’’ which are listed in 40 CFR 

372.28. 

1. Description of Proposed Change 

a. What Is This Approach To Burden 

Reduction? 

Facilities reporting non-PBT 

chemicals would now be able to use 

Form A if they meet the 1 million 

pound alternate reporting threshold and 

have 5000 pounds or less of total 

‘‘annual reportable amount,’’ defined as 

the combined total quantity released at 

the facility, treated at the facility, 

recovered at the facility as a result of 

recycle operations, combusted for the 

purpose of energy recovery at the 

facility, and amounts transferred from 

the facility to off-site locations for the 

purpose of recycling, energy recovery, 

treatment, and/or disposal. This 

combined total corresponds to the 

quantity of the toxic chemical in 

production-related waste, i.e., the sum 

of Section 8.1 through and including 

section 8.7 of the Form R. 

b. Is This Approach Available to All TRI 

Chemicals? 

This approach applies only to nonPBT chemicals.4 Non-PBT chemicals are 

already potentially eligible for the Form 

A Certification Statement. In Reporting 

Year 2003, 12,020 non-PBT chemical 

submissions were made using Form A. 

An additional 10,000 non-PBT Form Rs 

appear to be eligible for Form A, though 

some of these may not qualify because 

they may exceed the one million pound 

reporting threshold. Today’s proposal 

would increase the ARA from 500 

pounds to 5000 pounds. Increasing the 

ARA would expand eligibility to an 

estimated 12,201 additional non-PBT 

forms. 

c. How Often Is the Approach Available 

to TRI Facilities? 

This option would be available 

annually. A facility reporting a non-PBT 

chemical may use the Form A 

Certification Statement as long as it 

continues to meet the 1 million pound 

alternate threshold and have 5000 

pounds or less for the ARA. If a 

reporting facility exceeds the 5000 

pound ARA in any reporting year, it 

would be required to submit Form R for 

that year. 

d. What Are the Reporting 

Requirements? 

Today’s proposal would allow nonPBT reporting facilities that meet the 1 

million pound manufacture, process, or 

otherwise use threshold and have 5000 

pounds or less of total production 

related waste (i.e., the Annual 

Reportable Amount equal to the sum of 

Sections 8.1 + 8.2 + 8.3 + 8.4 + 8.5 + 

8.6 + 8.7) to use the Form A 

Certification Statement in lieu of Form 

R. Form A can be found in the Toxic 

Chemical Release Inventory Reporting 

Forms and Instructions (EPA 260–B–04–

001). 

e. Do My Record Keeping Requirements 

Change? 

No. The current record keeping 

requirements remain in effect. A facility 

submitting a Form A must keep records 

for three years (40 CFR sections 372.10 

and 372.27(b)). 

2. Estimates of Potential Impacts 

a. What Are the Potential Impacts for 

Reducing Burden? 

From the standpoint of burden 

reduction, the Agency’s analysis 

indicates that this rule, if finalized, 

would extend Form A eligibility to 

around 12,200 non-PBT forms, saving 

approximately 117,000 hours of 

reporting burden (Economic Analysis of 

Toxics Release Inventory Burden 

Reduction Proposed Rule, EPA, 

September 2005). Without the 

opportunity to use Form A, facilities 

reporting non-PBTs above the current 

500 pound ARA would still complete 

Form R and would need to determine, 

the maximum amount of the TRI 

chemical on-site at any one time in 

Section 4 of Form R as well as separate 

release and other waste management 

data. Moreover, the Production Ratio, 

which measures the relative percentage 

of a TRI chemical used in a product 

relative to the year before, would have 

to be calculated when a Form R is 

submitted. The current estimate of 

burden associated with completing a 

non-PBT Form R is 30.2 hours 

(including recordkeeping and 

submission). Eliminating the need to 

calculate data elements not on the Form 

A would save an estimated 9.6 hours 

per report. This is the difference 

between the estimate for a non-PBT 

Form R and the 20.6 hour estimate for 

a Form A. As noted above, under the 

revised burden methodology on which 

EPA is today requesting comment, 

potential burden savings would be 

reduced. For non-PBTs, the reduction 

would be approximately fifteen percent 

resulting in an estimate of 

approximately 100,000 hours of burden 

reduction. For PBTs and non-PBTs 

combined, the burden reduction 

estimated by the new methodology for 

this proposal would be approximately 

twenty-five percent less than the 

estimate using the current methodology. 

Regardless of the methodology used, it 

is again important to note that actual 

burden savings may be considerably less 

if historical rates of Form A use 

continue in the future. 

b. What Are the Potential Impacts to 

Data Users? 

After several years of reporting 

experience, the Agency believes it is 

appropriate to increase the Annual 

Reportable Amount (ARA) to expand 

eligibility for the Form A Certification 

Statement, and is today proposing to 

increase that amount to 5000 pounds. 

EPA has also analyzed and will be 

taking comment on 1000 and 2000 

pound ARA levels. While the 500 

pound ARA the Agency finalized in a 

1994 rulemaking (59 FR 61488) gained 

a measure of success in reducing 

reporting burden, the Agency believes 

that increasing the ARA provides 

additional burden relief to facilities, but 

still allows the TRI program to report on 

a substantial majority of the releases. It 

also continues to provide valuable 

information to the public that fulfills the 

purposes of the TRI program. 

Today’s proposal would increase the 

number of potentially non-PBT Forms 

eligible for Form A by approximately 

12,000 to a total of approximately 

34,000. However, as noted above, only 

about half of potentially eligible 

respondents actually use Form A. Even 

if all newly eligible respondents use 

Form A, the total number of Form A 

submissions would still be projected to 

not exceed the number projected under 

the 1994 Final Rule that created Form 

A. Furthermore, even with the increase 

in eligible forms, the percentage of total 

release pounds that would be eligible to 

be reported on Form A with a 5000 

pound ARA still remains at less than 

1% of total releases reported on Form R 

nationwide. Under this higher 

threshold, approximately 14 million 

pounds of releases (0.34% of total 

releases) and 25 million pounds of total 

production-related waste (0.11% of all 

TRI total production-related waste) 

would be newly eligible for Form A 

reporting. 

Under this approach, data users will 

know that for any non-PBT chemical 

submitted on a Form A, the totals for 

both releases (Section 8.1) and total 

production related waste (Sum of 

Sections 8.1 through and including 

Section 8.7) do not exceed 5000 pounds. 

TRI data users are currently able to 

access Form A facility information 

regarding the facility via Envirofacts and 

TRI Explorer (http://www.epa.gov/ 

triexplorer/), so they would know the 

facility is a potential source. Data users 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57843 

5The Agency cannot determine with certainty 

whether a facility has exceeded the one million 

pound threshold because facilities are not required 

to report totals for manufacture, processing, or 

otherwise use. Based on factors such as typical 

industry practices, the Agency has presumed that 

certain chemicals like the examples given would be 

likely to push a facility over the one million pound 

alternate threshold. 

would also still be able to obtain 

national information such as number of 

Form As filed each year by individual 

chemical. Using EZ Query in 

Envirofacts (http:/lwww.epa.gov/ 

envirofacts), data users will be able to 

access individual chemical Form As 

along with the TRI Facility 

Identification Numbers (TRIFIDs) and 

names of the facilities submitting the 

Form As. 

Other potential impacts considered by 

the Agency in the creation of Form A in 

the 1994 rulemaking included estimates 

seeking to characterize the impact on a 

local level. That rulemaking assessed 

these impacts by attempting to estimate 

which counties might have all of the 

TRI information reported on Form A. As 

mentioned previously, the impacts 

projected in that rulemaking were not 

realized as only about half of the 

potentially eligible respondents actually 

switched to Form A. 

A similar analysis was conducted for 

this rule, but ZIP codes were used in the 

current analysis because it was believed 

that they would provide a better 

measure of local impacts. Presently, 

depending on the year examined, there 

are between 500 and 550 ZIP codes 

where all TRI reporting is on Form A. 

Under the proposed rule, this number 

has the potential to increase by up to 

655 ZIP codes (approximately seven 

percent of all ZIP codes with TRI 

reporters). However, this number is 

largely driven by the fact that many ZIP 

codes have only a few Form Rs. Of the 

655 ZIP codes where all current Form 

Rs would become eligible for Form A, 

88% currently have only one Form R 

and 10% have only two such forms. 

In addition, at 5000 pounds, the 

Agency notes that information on 

approximately 26 additional chemicals 

could potentially be reported 

exclusively on Form A, though this 

would only occur if all newly eligible 

reporters use Form A, which is unlikely 

based on past experience. The majority 

of these chemicals are presently 

reported on only one or two Form Rs. 

Detailed analyses of the impacts on 

communities (ZIP codes) and individual 

chemicals is provided in the Economic 

Analysis. Table 3 below summarizes the 

potential impacts on reporting of raising 

the ARA to 1000, 2000, and 5000 

pounds. 

TABLE 3.—POTENTIAL INCREMENTAL* EFFECTS OF ALL NEWLY ELIGIBLE REPORTERS USING FORM A FOR NON-PBTS

ARA in pounds Reports potentially 

eligible for Form A 

Number of % 

chemicals potentially reported only 

on Form A 

Percent of ZIP 

codes where all 

Form R’s potentially converted to 

Form A’s 

Percent of total 

releases potentially reported on 

Form A 

Percent of total 

production related 

waste potentially 

reported on Form 

A 

1000 ....................................................... 3,184 7 2 0.03 0.01 

2000 ....................................................... 6,838 16 3 0.11 0.03 

5000 ....................................................... 12,201 26 7 0.34 0.11 

* Note: All estimates are incremental to current 500 pound ARA threshold. 

A list of the chemicals can be found 

in the Economic Analysis (See 

Appendix A, TABLE A–2, Chemicals 

Where 100% Of Total Releases Would 

Potentially No Longer Be Reported on 

Form R Under the Expanded Eligibility 

For Form A: Non-PBT Chemicals 

Option). 

3. Rationale for Expanding Form A 

Eligibility for Non-PBT Chemicals 

One suggestion raised by a number of 

stakeholders for burden reduction was 

to increase the Annual Reportable 

Amount (ARA) from 500 to 5000 

pounds. The Agency evaluated this 

suggestion and concluded that little 

information would be affected (i.e., 

about 0.1% of Total Production Related 

Waste), if we extended the ARA for nonPBTs to 5000 pounds. Also, as described 

above in relation to lead, mercury, and 

PACs, a data user may be able to predict 

based on individual chemicals what 

waste management activity is likely to 

be used at a facility. The range of 

information provided by a Form A can 

be supplemented with information on 

typical industry practices and other 

regulatory frameworks that might apply 

to a specific chemical. 

This Option is consistent with the 

authority given to EPA by EPCRA 

section 313(f)(2). As described above, 

EPCRA allows EPA to adjust the 

reporting thresholds so long as the 

adjusted thresholds ‘‘obtain reporting on 

a substantial majority of total releases of 

the chemical at all facilities subject to 

the requirements of this section.’’ Under 

this option, Form A eligibility would be 

extended for Non-PBT chemicals with 

Annual Reportable Amounts not 

exceeding 5000 pounds. Because the 

change will not affect significant 

amounts of data on releases or other 

waste management activities, this 

approach obtains the reporting on a 

substantial majority of total releases as 

required by the statute. Additionally, 

each Form A serves as a range report 

which informs the public that total 

releases, as well as total production 

related waste (which includes releases) 

is in the range of zero to 5000 pounds. 

Among the other factors considered 

by the Agency was existing Form A 

utilization. The Agency observed that 

only slightly over half of the forms 

(54%) potentially eligible for Form A 

use take advantage of that option. There 

are a number of potential reasons for 

this utilization rate. First, a number of 

facilities may be using in excess of the 

1 million pound alternative threshold 5

(e.g. users of feedstock chemicals like 

nitrapyrin and producers of pesticides 

or pharmaceuticals) and are therefore 

ineligible for Form A. Other facilities 

may report on Form R out of a desire to 

showcase their pollution prevention 

efforts. Still other facilities find the 

Form R to be an efficient mechanism for 

tracking their material balances. A 

facility, having collected all of this 

information, may also be making a Form 

R submission to demonstrate good 

environmental stewardship. 

Regardless of the factors that prompt 

facilities to use Form R when they may 

be eligible for Form A, the Agency does 

not believe the rate of Form A 

utilization is likely to be significantly 

higher at a 5000 pound threshold than 

it currently is at the 500 pound ARA 

threshold. EPA consequently projects 

that, in practice, the total number of 

additional Form A submissions as a 

result of the higher threshold would 

also be about half of the newly eligible 

Form Rs. This means that the total 

number of Form As that would be filed 

would be comparable to what was 

originally projected for Form A at the 

57844 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

500 pound threshold assuming full 

utilization by all eligible filers. The 

Agency indicated in the original 

alternate threshold rulemaking (59 FR 

61495) that it believed the 500 pound 

threshold would ‘‘limit the loss of 

detailed information currently available, 

while providing industry with a 

reasonably attainable level [of burden 

reduction].’’ The Agency believes this 

conclusion continues to be valid for the 

5,000 pound ARA threshold. As noted 

above, Table 3 provides a summary of 

the potential impacts of changes to the 

ARA threshold from 1000 up to 5000 

pounds. There are 26 additional 

chemicals for which releases may no 

longer be reported on Form R. Of those 

chemicals, the majority are pesticides. 

Chemical intermediates represent the 

second most occurring major class 

behind pesticides. As discussed above, 

the Form A certifications for these 

chemicals will provide a range by which 

waste management quantities and 

practices may be estimated. EPA 

believes that, taken together, the Form 

Rs and Form As that will be filed as a 

result of this rule will continue to 

provide valuable information to the 

public that fulfills the purposes of the 

TRI program. The Agency requests 

comment on its proposal to increase the 

Form A Certification Statement Annual 

Reportable Amount to 5000 pounds as 

well as on alternate ARA thresholds of 

1000 and 2000 pounds. The Agency also 

seeks comment on whether changes to 

the ARA would adversely impact 

chemical specific or local community 

uses of the information. 

IV. Requests for Public Comment 

The Agency recognizes that some 

chemicals may be of particular concern 

and therefore extending the ARA to 

5000, 2000, or 1,000 pounds for those 

chemicals may have a disproportionate 

impact on TRI data users. EPA notes 

that one known category of concern, 

PBTs, is not being considered under this 

Form A option, but recognizes that there 

may be other chemicals of particular 

concern as well. EPA requests comment 

on whether any of the chemicals 

potentially eligible for this option are of 

a sufficient level of concern so as to 

justify EPA excluding them from 

eligibility for the Form A at the higher 

ARA. Based on comments received and 

analyses conducted, we could decide to 

identify some set of chemicals that 

would not be eligible to use a higher 

ARA, should one be promulgated. EPA 

also recognizes that some stakeholders 

may be concerned about data no longer 

on the Form R when facilities instead 

file a Form A and requests comment on 

possible modifications to the Form A to 

address this concern. 

The following is a list of items 

discussed in this document on which 

EPA solicits comment. This list is 

provided for the reader’s reference. The 

Agency encourages commenters to 

review the relevant portions of the 

preamble that pertain to each area in 

order to provide a more complete 

response. 

(1) The Agency solicits comment on 

the reasonableness and the accuracy of 

the methodology, engineering steps and 

time estimates of its July 2004 revised 

estimate of TRI reporting burden, as 

well as on the conclusions of the 

external peer review. 

(2) The Agency requests comment on 

its proposal to increase the Form A 

Certification Statement Annual 

Reportable Amount to 5000 pounds as 

well as on alternate ARA thresholds of 

1000 and 2000 pounds. The Agency also 

seeks comment on whether changes to 

the ARA would adversely impact 

chemical specific or local community 

uses of the information. EPA requests 

comment on whether any of the 

chemicals potentially eligible for this 

option are of a sufficient level of 

concern so as to justify EPA excluding 

them from eligibility for the Form A at 

the higher ARA. 

(3) EPA requests comment on how 

extending Form A eligibility to PBT 

chemicals (except dioxins and dioxin 

compounds) will impact the reporting of 

TRI chemicals. EPA also requests 

comment on whether any of the 

chemicals potentially eligible for this 

option are of a sufficient level of 

concern so as to justify EPA excluding 

them from eligibility for the Form A. 

(4) The Agency requests comment on 

the proposed approach for defining the 

PRA and specifically on whether 

Section 8.8 management amounts 

should be included in the definition of 

the PRA. The Agency also requests 

comment on whether the ARA (for nonPBTs) should be modified to include 

Section 8.8 management information 

which would be an alternate way of 

making the two approaches more 

consistent. EPA is also interested in 

information on the specific types of 

activities that are reported in Section 

8.8. 

(5) To estimate the cost savings, 

incremental costs, economic impacts 

and benefits from this rule to affected 

regulated entities, EPA completed an 

economic analysis for this rule. Copies 

of these analyses (entitled ‘‘Economic 

Assessment of the Burden Reduction—

Phase II—Proposed Rule’’) have been 

placed in the TRI docket for public 

review. The Agency solicits comment 

on the methodology and results from the 

economic analysis as well as any data 

that the public feels would be useful in 

a revised analysis. 

V. What Are the Statutory and 

Executive Order Reviews Associated 

With This Action? 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735), the Agency must determine 

whether this regulatory action is 

‘‘significant’’ and therefore subject to 

formal review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and to 

the requirements of the Executive Order, 

which include assessing the costs and 

benefits anticipated as a result of the 

proposed regulatory action. The Order 

defines ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

as one that is likely to result in a rule 

that may: (1) Have an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more or 

adversely affect in a material way the 

economy, a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities; (2) create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere 

with an action taken or planned by 

another agency; (3) materially alter the 

budgetary impact of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 

rights and obligations of recipients 

thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy 

issues arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the Executive Order. 

Pursuant to the terms of Executive 

Order 12866, it has been determined 

that today’s proposed rule is a 

significant regulatory action. As such, 

this action was submitted to OMB for 

review. Changes made in response to 

OMB suggestions or recommendations 

are documented in the docket to today’s 

proposal. 

To estimate the cost savings, 

incremental costs, economic impacts 

and benefits from this rule to affected 

regulated entities, EPA completed an 

economic analysis for this rule. Copies 

of these analyses (entitled ‘‘Economic 

Analysis of the Proposed Toxics Release 

Inventory Phase II Burden Reduction 

Rule’’) have been placed in the TRI 

docket for public review. The Agency 

solicits comment on the methodology 

and results from the analysis as well as 

any data that the public feels would be 

useful in a revised analysis. 

1. Methodology 

To estimate the cost savings, 

incremental costs, economic impacts, 

and benefits of this rule, the Agency 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57845 

estimated both the cost and burden of 

completing Form R and Form A as well 

as the number of affected entities. The 

Agency has used 2002 reporting year for 

TRI data. For all options under 

consideration, the Agency identified the 

number of potentially affected 

respondents currently completing Form 

Rs that may be eligible for burden 

savings under the new Form A 

eligibility for PBT Chemicals and the 

expanded Form A eligibility for nonPBT chemicals. For each option, the 

Agency compared the baseline burden 

for completing Form R and compared it 

with the post-regulatory option under 

consideration. The total burden and cost 

savings associated with each proposed 

options are the product of the unit 

burden and cost savings per form times 

the number of forms eligible for each 

option. 

2. Cost and Burden Savings Results 

Table 4 summarizes the potential 

annual cost and burden savings of the 

Phase II TRI Burden Reduction 

proposal, if all newly eligible reports 

were filed using Form A. 

TABLE 4.—POTENTIAL ANNUAL COST AND BURDEN SAVINGS OF THE PHASE II TRI BURDEN REDUCTION PROPOSAL

Option Number of eligible Form R’s 

Number of potentially eligible facilities 

Burden 

savings per 

Form R 

(hours) 

Total annual 

burden savings 

(hours) 

Cost savings 

per Form R 

Total annual 

cost savings 

Percent 

of total 

cost/burden 

New Form A Eligibilty 

for PBT chemicals .... 2,703 2,064 17.5 47,303 $790 $2,136,392 1.2 

Increase ARA for NonPBT chemicals to 

1000 pounds ............. 3,184 2,396 9.6 30,566 430 1,368,650 0.8 

Increase ARA for NonPBT chemicals to 

2000 pounds ............. 6,838 4,220 9.6 65,645 430 2,939,331 1.7 

Increase ARA for NonPBT chemicals to 

5000 pounds ............. 12,201 6,461 9.6 117,130 430 5,244,630 3.1 

Total of Proposed 

Options .............. ........................ ........................ ........................ 164,432 ........................ 7,381,022 4.3 

EPA estimates that the total annual 

burden savings for this proposal is 

164,432 hours. EPA estimates the total 

annual cost savings for this proposal is 

$7.4 million. Average annual cost 

savings for facilities submitting Form As 

in lieu of Form Rs is $430 per form for 

non-PBT reports and $790 per form for 

PBT reports. 

3. Impacts to Data 

EPA has evaluated the potential 

impacts to data reported to the public 

for the proposed options and 

determined that the risk of significant 

impacts is minimal. For New Form A 

Eligibility for PBT chemicals, the TRI 

chemical submitted must not have 

either production-related or nonproduction related releases to the 

environment. The balance of 

management of these TRI chemicals is 

most likely either recycling or nondissipative management through energy 

recovery or treatment for destruction at 

quantities totaling 500 pounds or less. 

For Expanded Form A Eligibility for 

non-PBT chemicals, the Agency has 

evaluated both total release pounds and 

total production related waste pounds 

that would not be reported using Form 

R if this option is finalized. Relative to 

the current ARA of 500 pounds, 

approximately fifteen million additional 

release pounds (0.34 percent of all TRI 

release lbs) and 27 million additional 

total production related waste pounds 

(0.11 percent of all TRI total production 

related waste pounds) would be eligible 

for Form A reporting if this option were 

finalized. As noted above, based on 

historical experience, EPA projects that 

not all eligible reporters will use Form 

A. For those that do, the Form A 

provides a range report of zero to 5,000 

pounds for both releases and total 

production related waste. Further 

information on how specific chemicals 

are affected can be found in the 

economic analysis of this rulemaking. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

EPA calculated the potential reporting 

and recordkeeping burden reduction for 

this rule to be 202,000 hours and the 

potential cost savings to be $9.2 million 

per year. As noted above, actual burden 

reduction and cost savings will likely be 

somewhat less. Burden means total 

time, effort, or financial resources 

expended by persons to generate, 

maintain, retain, disclose, or provide 

information to or for a Federal agency. 

That includes the time needed to review 

instructions; develop, acquire, install, 

and utilize technology and systems for 

the purposes of collecting, validating, 

and verifying information, processing 

and maintaining information, and 

disclosing and providing information; 

adjust the existing ways to comply with 

any previously applicable instructions 

and requirements; train personnel to be 

able to respond to a collection of 

information; search data sources; 

complete and review the collection of 

information; and transmit or otherwise 

disclose the information. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as 

Amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as 

amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq. 

The RFA generally requires an agency to 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

of any rule subject to notice and 

comment rulemaking requirements 

under the Administrative Procedure Act 

or any other statute unless the agency 

certifies that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations, and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

that has fewer than 1000 or 100 

employees per firm depending upon the 

SIC code the firm primarily is classified; 

(2) a small governmental jurisdiction 

that is a government of a city, county, 

town, school district or special district 

with a population of less than 50,000; 

57846 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

and (3) a small organization that is any 

not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field. 

The economic impact analysis 

conducted for today’s proposal indicates 

that these revisions to Form R and Form 

A would generally result in savings to 

affected entities compared to baseline 

requirements. The rule is not expected 

to result in a net cost to any affected 

entity. Thus, adverse impacts are not 

anticipated. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

EPA has determined that this rule 

does not contain a Federal mandate that 

may result in expenditures of $100 

million or more for State, local, and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

the private sector in any one year. This 

rule is estimated to save compliance 

costs of $9.2 million annually to the 

private sector. In addition, this rule does 

not create any additional federally 

enforceable duty for State, local and 

tribal governments. Thus, today’s rule is 

not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ This 

proposed rule does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes’’. This 

proposed rule does not have tribal 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

G. Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not a ‘‘significant energy 

action’’ as defined in Executive Order 

13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations 

That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001) because it is not likely to have 

a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy. 

Today’s proposed rule reduces 

recordkeeping and reporting burden for 

TRI reporters. It will not cause 

reductions in supply or production of 

oil, fuel, coal, or electricity. Nor will it 

result in increased energy prices, 

increased cost of energy distribution, or 

an increased dependence on foreign 

supplies of energy. 

H. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

‘‘Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

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

applies to any rule that EPA determines 

(1) ‘‘economically significant’’ as 

defined under Executive Order 12866, 

and (2) concerns an environmental 

health or safety risk that EPA has reason 

to believe may have a disproportionate 

effect on children. If the regulatory 

action meets both criteria, the Agency 

must evaluate the environmental health 

or safety effects of the planned rule on 

children and explain why the planned 

regulation is preferable to other 

potential effective and reasonably 

feasible alternatives considered by the 

Agency. This proposed rule is not 

subject to E.O. 13045 because it is not 

an economically significant rule as 

defined by E.O. 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs 

EPA to provide Congress, though OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. This 

rule does not establish technical 

standards. Therefore, EPA did not 

consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Environmental Justice 

Under Executive Order 12898, 

‘‘Federal Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income 

Populations,’’ EPA has undertaken to 

incorporate environmental justice into 

its policies and programs. EPA is 

committed to addressing environmental 

justice concerns, and is assuming a 

leadership role in environmental justice 

initiatives to enhance environmental 

quality for all residents of the United 

States. The Agency’s goals are to ensure 

that no segment of the population, 

regardless of race, color, national origin, 

or income, bears disproportionately 

high and adverse human health and 

environmental effects as a result of 

EPA’s policies, programs, and activities. 

The TRI is an environmental 

information program. While it provides 

important information that may 

indirectly lead to improved health and 

environmental conditions on the 

community level, it is not an emission 

control regulation that could directly 

impact health and environmental 

outcomes in a community. The 

principal consequence of finalizing 

today’s action would be to reduce the 

level of detail available on some toxic 

chemical releases or management. 

However, as pointed out in the previous 

discussions, the impacts will be very 

small in terms of total national figures. 

EPA believes that the data provided 

under this proposed rule will continue 

to provide valuable information that 

fulfills the purposes of the TRI program. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 191 / Tuesday, October 4, 2005 / Proposed Rules 57847 

Further, only the second of today’s 

approaches would have any effect on 

reporting of chemicals released to the 

environment. The first approach 

requires that facilities reporting PBTs 

have no releases in order to be eligible 

for Form A. EPA has no indication that 

either option will disproportionately 

impact minority or low-income 

communities. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372 

Environmental protection, 

Community right-to-know, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Toxic 

chemicals. 

Dated: September 21, 2005. 

Stephen L. Johnson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency proposes to amend 40 CFR part 

372 as follows: 

PART 372—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for part 372 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart A—[Amended] 

2. Revise § 372.10(d) introductory text 

to read as follows: 

§ 372.10 Recordkeeping. 

* * * * * 

(d) Each owner or operator who 

determines that the owner operator may 

apply one of the alternate thresholds as 

specified under § 372.27(a) must retain 

the following records for a period of 3 

years from the date of the submission of 

the certification statement as required 

under § 372.27(b): 

* * * * * 

Subpart B—[Amended] 

3. Section 372.27 is amended as 

follows: 

i. Revise section heading. 

ii. Revise paragraph (a). 

iii. Revise paragraph (b). 

iv. Revise paragraph (e). 

§ 372.27 Alternate thresholds and 

certifications. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(e) of this section: 

(1) With respect to the manufacture, 

process, or otherwise use of a toxic 

chemical, the owner or operator of a 

facility may apply an alternate threshold 

of 1 million pounds per year to that 

chemical if the owner or operator 

calculates that the facility would have 

an annual reportable amount of that 

toxic chemical not exceeding 5000 

pounds for the combined total 

quantities released at the facility, 

disposed within the facility, treated at 

the facility (as represented by amounts 

destroyed or converted by treatment 

processes), recovered at the facility as a 

result of recycle operations, combusted 

for the purpose of energy recovery at the 

facility, and amounts transferred from 

the facility to off-site locations for the 

purpose of recycle, energy recovery, 

treatment, and/or disposal. These 

volumes correspond to the sum of 

amounts reportable for data elements on 

EPA Form R (EPA Form 9350–1; Rev. 

12/4/93) as Part II column B or sections 

8.1 (quantity released), 8.2 (quantity 

used for energy recovery on-site), 8.3 

(quantity used for energy recovery offsite), 8.4 (quantity recycled on-site), 8.5 

(quantity recycled off-site), 8.6 (quantity 

treated on-site), and 8.7 (quantity 

treated off-site). 

(2) With respect to the manufacture, 

process, or otherwise use of a toxic 

chemical, the owner or operator of a 

facility may apply an alternate threshold 

of 1 million pounds per year to that 

chemical if the owner or operator 

calculates that the facility would have: 

(i) Zero disposal or other releases 

(including disposal or other releases 

that resulted from catastrophic events); 

and 

(ii) A PBT annual reportable amount 

of that toxic chemical not exceeding 500 

pounds. The PBT annual reportable 

amount is the combined total of: 

(A) Quantities treated for destruction 

at the facility; 

(B) Quantities recovered at the facility 

as a result of recycle operations; 

(C) Quantities combusted for the 

purpose of energy recovery at the 

facility; 

(D) Quantities transferred from the 

facility to off-site locations for the 

purpose of recycle, energy recovery, 

treatment, and/or disposal; and 

(E) Quantities managed through 

recycle, energy recovery, or treatment 

for destruction that were the result of 

remedial actions, catastrophic events, or 

one-time events not associated with 

production processes during the 

reporting year. 

(b) If an owner or operator of a facility 

determines that the owner or operator 

may apply one of the alternate reporting 

thresholds specified in paragraph (a) of 

this section for a specific toxic 

chemical, the owner or operator is not 

required to submit a report for that 

chemical under § 372.30, but must 

submit a certification statement that 

contains the information required in 

§ 372.95. The owner or operator of the 

facility must also keep records as 

specified in § 372.10(d). 

* * * * * 

(e) The alternative thresholds 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section are limited by the following: 

(1) The provisions of paragraph (a)(1) 

of this section do not apply to any 

chemicals listed in § 372.28. 

(2) Dioxins and dioxin-like 

compounds are not eligible for the 

alternate thresholds described in 

paragraph (a) of this section. 

Subpart E—[Amended] 

4. Section 372.95 is amended as 

follows: 

i. Revise section heading. 

ii. Revise paragraph (b) introductory 

text. 

iii. Revise paragraph (b)(4). 

§ 372.95 Alternate threshold certifications 

and instructions. 

* * * * * 

(b) Alternate threshold certification 

statement elements. The following 

information must be reported on an 

alternate threshold certification 

statement pursuant to § 372.27(b): 

* * * * * 

(4) Signature of a senior management 

official certifying one of the following: 

(i) Pursuant to 40 CFR 372.27(a)(1), ‘‘I 

hereby certify that to the best of my 

knowledge and belief for the toxic 

chemical listed in this statement, the 

annual reportable amount, as defined in 

40 CFR 372.27(a)(1), did not exceed 

5000 pounds for this reporting year and 

that the chemical was manufactured, or 

processed, or otherwise used in an 

amount not exceeding 1 million pounds 

during this reporting year;’’ and/or 

(ii) Pursuant to 40 CFR 372.27(a)(3), ‘‘I 

hereby certify that to the best of my 

knowledge and belief for the toxic 

chemical listed in this statement, there 

were zero disposals or other releases to 

the environment (including disposals or 

other releases that resulted from 

catastrophic events), the ‘‘PBT Annual 

Reportable Amount,’’ as defined in 40 

CFR 372.27(a)(3) did not exceed 500 

pounds for this reporting year, and that 

the chemical was manufactured, or 

processed, or otherwise used in an 

amount not exceeding 1 million pounds 

during this reporting year.’’

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–19710 Filed 10–3–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P