[Federal Register: December 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 242)]
[Notices]
[Page 75779]
[DOCID:fr18de06-63]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54920]

Extension of Order Regarding Broker-Dealer Financial Statement
Requirements Under Section 17 of the Exchange Act

December 12, 2006.
    The Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') is
extending its Order, originally issued on August 4, 2003,\1\ and
extended on July 14, 2004 \2\ and on December 7, 2005 (the ``2005
Order'') \3\ under Section 17(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Exchange Act''), regarding audits of financial statements of broker-
dealers that are not issuers (``non-public broker-dealers''). The 2005
Order provided that non-public broker-dealers may file with the
Commission and may send to their customers documents and information
required by Section 17(e) certified by an independent public
accountant, instead of by a registered public accounting firm, for
fiscal years ending before January 1, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Exchange Act Release No. 48281, 68 FR 47375 (August 8,
2003).
    \2\ Exchange Act Release No. 50020, 69 FR 43482 (July 20, 2004).
    \3\ Exchange Act Release No. 52909, 70 FR 73809 (December 13,
2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 17(e)(1)(A) of the Exchange Act requires that every
registered broker-dealer annually file with the Commission a certified
balance sheet and income statement, and Section 17(e)(1)(B) requires
that the broker-dealer annually send to its customers its ``certified
balance sheet.'' \4\ The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (``Act'') \5\
established the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (``Board'')
\6\ and amended Section 17(e) to replace the words ``an independent
public accountant'' with ``a registered public accounting firm.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Exchange Act Rule 17a-5 requires registered broker-dealers
to provide to the Commission and to customers of the broker-dealer
other specified financial information.
    \5\ Public Law 107-204.
    \6\ Section 101 of the Act.
    \7\ Section 205(c)(2) of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Act establishes a deadline for registration with the Board of
auditors of financial statements of ``issuers,'' as that term is
defined in the Act.\8\ The Act does not provide a deadline for
registration of auditors of non-public broker-dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Section 2 of the Act defines ``issuer.'' Section 102 of the
Act establishes a specific deadline by which auditors of issuers
must register with the Board. Based on the statutory deadline of 180
days after the Commission determined the Board was ready to carry
out the requirements of the Act, that date was October 22, 2003. See
Exchange Act Release No. 48180 (July 16, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2005 Order expires January 1, 2007. Application of registration
requirements and procedures to auditors of non-public broker-dealers is
still being considered. The Commission has therefore determined that
extending the Order for two years is consistent with the public
interest and the protection of investors.
    Accordingly,
    It is ordered, pursuant to Section 17(e) of the Exchange Act, that
non-public broker-dealers may file with the Commission a balance sheet
and income statement and may send to their customers a balance sheet
certified by an independent public accountant, instead of by a
registered public accounting firm, for fiscal years ending before
January 1, 2009.

    By the Commission.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-21475 Filed 12-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


STATEMENT SUPPORTING THE REVISION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS and PETITIONS TO MODIFY THE LIST OF REGULATED SUBSTANCES UNDER SECTION 112( r) OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT EPA # 1656.11 1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 1( a) Title of the Information Collection Request Risk Management Program Requirements and Petitions to Modify the List of Regulated Substances under section 112( r) of the Clean Air Act.

1( b) Short Characterization This information collection request ( ICR) amends a previously approved ICR ( 1656.09), OMB No. 2050 0144, expiring October 31, 2005, for 97,160 annual burden hours.

This information collection request ( ICR) is submitted for the revision of the Final Risk Management Programs Rule ( June 20, 1996), for registering sources, documenting risk management programs, and submitting a risk management plan ( RMP) under section 112( r)( 7)( B) of the Clean Air Act, as amended ( CAA) or the " the Act". CAA section 112( r)( 7) required EPA to promulgate reasonable regulations and appropriate guidance to provide for the prevention and detection of accidental releases and for responses to such releases. The regulations include requirements for submittal of an RMP, including source registration, to EPA. The RMP includes information on a source's hazard assessment, prevention program, and emergency response program. The RMP requirements have been amended few times since the 1996 final rule. The regulations are codified in 40 CFR part 68. The first submissions of RMP were received in June 1999.

EPA is revising 40 CFR part 68 ( Chemical Accident Prevention Provisions) to:

( 1) Add three new data elements to the risk management plan ( RMP) and allowing an optional data element in the risk management plan;

( 2) Remove the requirement to discuss the off site consequence analysis in the executive summary of the RMP; and ( 3) Modify the RMP re submission schedule for sources who have significant accidents and for those who change the information for the emergency contacts.

EPA is also making several revisions to the submission format for the RMP ( RMP* Submit), including expanding the list of options for possible accident causes to include uncontrolled chemical reactions. These amendments were proposed on July 31, 2003 ( 68 FR 45124).

EPA is adding the following three mandatory data elements to the risk management plan: ( 1) the email for the facility emergency contact; ( 2) the name, address and telephone number of any contractor who helped prepare the RMP; and ( 3) the reason for a facility RMP submission. Section 68.160( b)( 6) currently requires facilities to provide the name, title, telephone number, and a 24 hour telephone number of the emergency contact person, with no provision, optional or otherwise, for facilities to provide an e mail address for this emergency contact. Providing this email address in the RMP, serves a new avenue of communication between EPA and or implementing agencies with the facilities. In our new environment of heightened security, it may become necessary to communicate directly and on short notice with sources subject to the RMP program. In response to the comments received on the proposed rule, EPA is requiring only those facilities with existing e mails to submit this information. The Agency may share this information with other Agencies or Departments that are working in the area of emergency planning, response, or security. In the final rule, the Agency is requiring facilities to provide the e mail address for the facility emergency contact, and that this information is corrected within one month of a change.

The Agency agrees with commenters that a single emergency contact may not be appropriate for all e mail communications, therefore, the Agency is adding an optional data element for the e mail address for the person responsible for the facility RMP.

The second added data element is for sources to provide the reason for subsequent RMP submissions ( correction, update, de registration, or withdrawal). Sources are required to update their RMP by the schedule specified in section 68.190. Since the June 1999 reporting deadline, EPA has received several RMPs reflecting corrections, updates, de registrations or withdrawals from sources. This additional element is intended to assist the Agency and other implementing agencies understand the reason a source is submitting a new RMP, or asking to remove an existing one.

The third data element added to the RMP is for sources that use a contractor to fill out the RMP to provide the name of individual/ contractor, and a phone number to contact the contractor. Through RMP audits, implementing agencies have learned that many RMPs have been prepared in large part by contractors. Use of contractors for this purpose is allowed under the RMP rule. However, some implementing agencies have noted potential systemic errors in the way some contractors prepare RMPs. The Agency believes it is important to require this piece of information to facilitate the review of RMPs by the implementing agencies, as well as to provide another measure of accountability on the part of the facility.

As proposed, EPA is amending the rule to remove the requirement for sources to briefly describe the off site consequence analysis ( i. e., worst case accidental release scenario( s) and the alternative accidental release scenario( s) within the executive summary section of the RMP. Section 112( r)( 7) of the CAA requires sources subject to the risk management program requirements to conduct an off site consequence analysis ( OCA) for one or more hypothetical accidental worst case and alternative release scenarios and report the results of the analysis in the RMP. In 1999, Congress passed the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act ( CSISSFRRA), governing the distribution of " off site consequence [ OCA] information". This regulation ( 40 CFR 1400) was published in the Federal Register on August 4, 2000 ( 65 FR 48108). Promulgated prior to the passage for CSISSFRRA, section 68.155( c) of the RMP rule currently requires sources to briefly describe in their RMP executive summary " the worst case release scenario( s) and the alternative release scenario( s), including the administrative controls and mitigation measures to limit the distances for each reported scenario." EPA, along with federal law enforcement agencies, believes that due to its sensitive nature, this information should not be in the executive summaries, which are available to the public without restriction. For this reason, EPA is proposing to remove the requirement to summarize the OCA information and requests that sources not voluntarily provide this specific information, in the executive summary. Facilities must continue to provide details of the OCA in sections 2 through 5 of the RMP and the public would continue to have access to this information in the manner required by the regulation at 40 CFR 1400. EPA also proposed to require that sources update and re submit their RMP within six months of an accident release that meets the five year accident history reporting criteria. Currently, the rule requires sources to submit RMPs every five years from June 21, 1999, unless sources have other reasons to update RMPs as specified in section 68.190( b)( 2) to ( 7). Since these reasons for updates do not include a reason to update the RMP for sources that have accidents, until a regular update is required ( within five years of initial submission), EPA proposed that sources update their RMP within six months of the date of the accident. Some commenters supported the proposal, however, some argued that it will increase burden on the facility if the Agency requires facilities to submit a full RMP. The Agency recognizes the concern that a full update of the RMP may not be possible or appropriate within six months, as a thorough investigation of a major accident could take longer. So, the Agency is not taking final action as proposed, requiring a full update and re submission of the RMP, instead, the Agency is requiring facilities to correct all elements of their RMP accident history ( Section 68.168) and the date of investigation and expected date of completion of changes due to an accident investigation ( Sections 68.170( j) and 68.175( l) within six months of the date of the accident.

As proposed, EPA is also amending the RMP rule to require facilities to correct their emergency contact information within one month of a change in the information.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection Risk Management Plans The information collection for registration of RMPs with EPA is authorized under CAA section 112( r)( 7)( iii), which states in relevant part that " The owner or operator of each stationary source.... shall register a risk management plan.... with the Administrator before the effective of the regulations... in such form and manner as the Administrator shall, by rule, require." All sources potentially covered by this rule are, therefore, required to register a risk management plan with EPA. The list and thresholds promulgated under CAA section 112( r)( 3) determine which sources must comply with the accident prevention regulations; a source must comply with the CAA section 112( r)( 7) regulations if it holds more than a threshold quantity of a listed substance in a process. State and local authorities will use the information in RMPs to modify and enhance their community response plans. The agencies implementing RMP rule will use RMPs to evaluate compliance with part 68 and identify sources for inspection because they may pose significant risks to the community.

2( b) Use/ Users of the Data The information collected in the RMP is critical for assisting government agencies in assessing the quality and thoroughness of a source's hazard assessment, prevention program, and emergency response program. The information also would be used by state and local emergency planners to prepare or modify community response plans and to identify hazards to the community and provide a basis for sources to prevent accidents.

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 3( a) Nonduplication Risk Management Plans  New Data Elements. The Agency believes that this amendment is not a duplication of information requested by other EPA programs. For instance, one of the new data elements that EPA is adding, emergency contacts email address, is critical information for the federal government's efforts under homeland security. In our new environment of heightened security, it may also become necessary for an implementing agency to communicate directly and on short notice with sources subject to the RMP program.

Changes on the submission schedule of RMP that the Agency is requiring is unique to this program, which will provide important information on the changes occurring in industry and better understanding on the types of accidents occurring at sources.

3( b) Consultations Most of the elements in the amendment have been suggested by implementing agencies ( updates on facility emergency contact information, email address, contact information for contractor that filled out the RMP) or law enforcement agencies ( to remove off site consequence analysis information from executive summary).

3( c) Effects of Less Frequent Collection Sources are required to register and submit an RMP only once every five years, unless there are significant changes in the information provided. The next submission is due by June 21, 2004. From then on, if sources have significant accident that meets the five year accident history criteria, then EPA is requiring facilities to correct all elements of their RMP accident history ( Section 68.168) and the date of investigation and expected date of completion of changes due to an accident investigation in their Incident Investigation ( Sections 68.170( j) and 68.175( l) within six months of the date of the accident. If the source's emergency contact information changes, EPA is requiring that sources correct the information within one month of a change in the information.

3( d) General Guidelines CAA section 112( r)( 7)( B)( iii) requires that sources update their RMPs periodically. To maintain consistency with OSHA PSM requirements, EPA= s implementing rule requires sources to update PHAs and hazard assessments every five years. Thus, sources are required to maintain such documentation for five years, which is greater than the three years specified in OMB's general guidelines.

3( e) Confidentiality and Sensitive Questions ( i) Confidentiality Some of the elements mandated in the regulation for the risk management plan may require the submittal of data viewed as proprietary, trade secret, or confidential. EPA has adopted procedures for sources to claim certain information as confidential business information.

( ii) Sensitive Questions No questions of any sensitive nature are included in any of the information collection requirements. The information submitted in an RMP includes information on a source's hazard assessment, prevention program, and emergency response program, and the information submitted in support of a petition to modify the list of regulated substances includes toxicity data and accident history data. This information is not private. The information collection requested under the EPA rulemaking is in compliance with the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular A 108.

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 4( a) Respondents/ NAICS Codes Risk Management Programs and Plans The accidental release prevention program under the CAA was developed for sources that manufacture, react, mix, store, or use regulated substances in processes that require equipment designed, constructed, installed, operated, or maintained in specific ways to prevent accidental releases and ensure safe operations. The CAA requires sources to comply with the regulations if they have more than a threshold quantity of a listed regulated substance. Based on submissions of RMPs, the rule applies to manufacturers ( i. e., sources categorized in North American Industry Classification System ( NAICS) codes 31 33), as well as some non manufacturers, including federal facilities, utilities ( NAICS code 221: electric utilities, drinking water systems, wastewater treatment works), warehouses, large ammonia refrigeration systems ( e. g. food processors and distributors), wholesalers, ammonia retailers, and gas processors.

The most recent data shows that approximately 14,930 sources have submitted RMPs and are potentially subject to the amendments.

4( b) Information Requested Data requirements and respondent activities vary by program level. Program 1 requires the least amount of data and time from respondents, while Program 3 requires the most. All sources are required to update and submit every five years an RMP that includes basic facility data, an executive summary, fiveyear accident history, data on the worst case release scenarios ( at least one for toxics and one for flammables), and data on emergency response regardless of their program classification. In addition, Program 2 and 3 sources must also submit data on alternative release scenarios ( one for each toxic and one for flammables) and their prevention programs ( by process). If a change at the source ( e. g., a substantial change in the quantity held, a major modification of a source) leads to a change in certain data submitted in the previous RMP or requires an update to add a new process, the RMP must be revised and resubmitted. Depending on the event that triggers the need for an update, the source must resubmit the revised RMP either before the change is implemented ( e. g., the addition of a new regulated substance) or within six months of the change ( e. g., a major process modification).

The new data elements the Agency is requiring will most likely affect all 14,930 sources. The six month reporting requirement for the five year accident history may only affect those sources that may have two or more accidents in a year. The reporting schedule due to the change in emergency contact information may only affect few of the sources that have submitted RMP. The change in the Executive Summary section, that is, to remove the requirement for sources to discuss the off site consequence analysis, will affect all 14,930 sources, which is a burden reduction.

( i) Data Items Data Requirements for Risk Management Plans The Act requires that sources be registered with EPA. The first submission for RMP was June 21, 1999, and sources are required to resubmit RMP within five years ( by June 21, 2004). After the first submission, some sources have updated their RMP, in which case these sources obtained a new five year anniversary date. Updates or re submissions are revisions of all nine sections of the RMP, also requiring a new certification letter.

There are other reasons for a source to revise an RMP: corrections, de registrations or resubmissions and withdrawals. A correction is a change only to those data elements that need to be changed or corrected, and requires a new certification letter. Corrections may be required if the implementing agency or the EPA reporting center discovers the submission was incomplete based on a validation/ error report. The source may initiate a correction if it discovers an error, needs to make minor administrative changes ( e. g., correction of a phone number or contact name), or change owners but the covered processes operations do not change. Corrections do not affect the five year anniversary date for updating the RMP. As mentioned earlier, updates are required by law to occur no later than 5 years after the postmark date of the source's last submission, or sooner if any of the changes specified in section 68.190( b)( 2) occur.

( ii) Respondent Activities Rule Familiarization All sources currently subject to the risk management program requirements have to familiarize with this amendment.

New Data Elements ( 1) Emergency Contacts E mail address  All sources ( 14,930 sources) have to comply with this requirement.

( 2) Reason for Subsequent RMP Submissions  Since the June 1999 reporting deadline, EPA has received thousands of RMPs reflecting corrections, updates, de registrations or withdrawals from sources. However, at this time the RMP does not require an entry that provides the reason the source is sending the new version. To be conservative, EPA assumes that all sources ( 14,930) that have submitted RMP may have to comply with this requirement.

( 3) Contractor Information  Through the auditing program, the implementing agencies have learned that many RMPs have been prepared by contractors, and not by personnel at RMP sources. EPA is adding this data element ( contractor name, phone number) to the RMP, so that the implementing agency can contact the person on any questions regarding the RMP. EPA assumes that all sources ( 14,930) may have to comply with this requirement.

Submission Schedule EPA is requiring facilities to correct all elements of their RMP accident history ( Section 68.168) and the date of investigation and expected date of completion of changes due to an accident investigation in their Incident Investigation ( Sections 68.170( j) and 68.175( l) within six months of the date of the accident. EPA is also requiring that facilities correct their emergency contact information within one month of a change in the information. 5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED   AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 5( a) Federal, State and Local Agencies Activities Burden to State and Local Agencies This rule does not impose any burden on state and local agencies. The new data elements added to the risk management plan are useful to these entities, to carry out the responsibilities of implementing the program.

Burden to Federal Government In order to add the new data elements to the RMP, the Agency has to modify the software that facilities use for reporting. There will be some burden on the federal government to modify the software for the new data elements, for software maintenance, collecting and processing additional RMPs received due to the changes in the rule. The Agency will be able to study the new information received on accident data soon after an accident occurs rather than waiting for the information for five years. The Agency will make the RMP information available to the implementing agencies.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management Respondents complete an RMP electronically or on paper.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility The Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ( RFA) of 1980 requires federal agencies to determine whether a regulation will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and make their analyses available for public comment. The RFA applies to small businesses, not for profit organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. In addition, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires analysis of rules that impose significant burdens on state, local, and tribal governments.

The total estimated annual burden due incurred by all small entities is 15,859 hours; the total estimated annual cost incurred by all small entities is $ 485,380 due to this amendment. Average per facility costs to small entities for each new requirement are: $ 61.07 for rule familiarization; $ 190.29 for the six month reporting requirement; $ 2.89 for changes in emergency contact information; and, $ 7.63 for new data elements. As the result of these relatively low costs for this rule change, no detailed analysis of the impact on small entities was conducted. EPA certified that no significant impact to a substantial number of small entities will be incurred due to this amendment.

This rule imposes some new costs on large and small state and local governmental entities, primarily water, wastewater, and electric utility authorities or special districts. However, the analysis indicates that these costs are not significant. The annualized cost of this rule discounted at 7% over 30 years for all potentially affected government entities is estimated to be $ 605,527.

5( d) Collection Schedule Sources with more than a threshold quantity of a listed substance in a process were required to be in compliance with the risk management program and submit an RMP by June 21, 1999. After submitting an RMP, a source must update it by the time it adds a new ( to the source) listed substance in a process above threshold quantity. Also, if certain other information provided in the RMP becomes inaccurate at any time after submission, the source is required to submit an amended RMP within six months of the change. Otherwise, sources are required to resubmit their RMP within five years of their last submittal even if other RMP data change during the five year period ( e. g., RMPs need not be updated in cases such as change in number of employees, contact names etc.).

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 6( a) Respondent Burden Rule Familiarization All respondents, 14,930 sources, are estimated to spend 2.0 hours to familiarize themselves with this rule. The total annual burden for rule familiarization is 29,864 hours.

Respondent Burden for New Data Elements It is estimated that all respondents ( 14,930 sources) will take 0.25 hours ( technical staff) to report the new data elements that EPA is adding to the risk management plan. The total annual burden for new data elements is 3,733 hours.

Respondent Burden for Six Month Reporting Requirement ( Five Year Accident History)

Based on the data included in the 1999 RMP submissions from 14,930 facilities, only 55 facilities have reported multiple accidents in the five year accident history section of their RMPs. So, EPA assumed that only these facilities will be affected by the re submission schedule due to frequent accidents. Most of these 55 are facilities with Program 3 processes, which are already covered by OSHA Process Safety Management ( OSHA PSM) Program. OSHA already requires facilities under the PSM program to conduct accident investigation. So, there are no additional burden under the risk management program for conducting accident investigations for these facilities, except for reporting the accident history elements specified in the risk management plan. EPA estimates that the reporting burden for each facility to report accident history elements in section 68.168 and the information required in sections 68.170( j) and 68.175( l), ranges from 3.0 to 9.0 hours ( wholesale to large chemical manufacturers). The total annual burden for this requirement for the estimated 55 sources is 259 hours.

Respondent Burden for Change in Emergency Contact Information The Agency is requiring that any facility that will have a change in their emergency contact information to submit the correct information within one month of the change. It is estimated that out of 14,930 sources that have submitted RMP, only 872 may have a change in their emergency contact information. Total annual burden is 87.2 hours.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs ( i) Estimating Labor Costs Unit ( hourly) costs for private legal, managerial, and technical labor for each facility category were obtained from the U. S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The total cost of complying with the revised submission schedule and new data requirements was calculated ( based on the estimated burden for each new element and upon the potentially affected universe of facilities). This burden estimate was then multiplied by the current private wage rates ( for the appropriate facility type), resulting in an estimated annual cost.

( ii) Estimating Capital and Operations and Maintenance Costs Respondents are not expected to incur any capital costs to implement this rule. This is an amendment to the existing rule, adding few data elements to the existing reporting software. At present, RMPs are submitted on disk or paper. The recent renewal of this ICR ( 1656.09) already computed mailing costs for the June 2004 submissions of the RMP. Therefore, this ICR do not have any capital costs associated with this rule amendment.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost To modify the software to conform to the amendments, the estimated Agency cost ( onetime is $ 100,000. For the second and third year covered by this ICR, the cost to maintain the software $ 50,000 each year. To collect and process the additional RMPs ( since the proposed rule changes the submission schedule for some sources as described in previous sections in this ICR), the estimated cost is $ 150,000 per year.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Cost Universe. This amendment to part 68, addition of new data elements, submission schedule change due to accidents and emergency contact information is expected to affect 14,930 sources. This is a decrease in the universe from the previous ICR ( 1656.09) since few sources have de registered.

Total Burden and Cost. The total annual burden for rule familiarization, addition of new data elements, six month reporting requirement for accidents and one month reporting requirement for change in emergency contact information is 33,943 hours at a cost of $ 992,400.

6( e) Reasons for Change in Burden This rule imposes some burden to the respondents ( 14,930 sources), due to the addition of new data elements, rule familiarization, six month reporting requirement for those sources that have accidents frequently and one month reporting requirement for those sources that have changes in their emergency contact information. There is an increase in the annualized burden of 33,943 hours at a cost of $ 992,400 to the previous approved burden.

6( g) Burden Statement The public reporting burden for rule familiarization is 2.0 hours for each source. For the addition of new data elements, EPA estimates that it will take 0.25 hours for each source. For those sources that have accidents that meet the five year accident history criteria which are required to update their accident history data elements within six month of the date of the accident, the reporting burden is estimated to range from 3.0 hours for wholesale to 9.0 hours for large high chemical manufacturers. For those sources that may have changes in their emergency contact information, the reporting burden is estimated to be 0.10 hours for each source.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This 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.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0052, which is available for public viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center 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 Reading Room is ( 202) 566 1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566 1742). An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA Dockets ( EDOCKET) at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket. Use EDOCKET to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select " search," then key in the docket ID number identified above. Also, you can send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. OAR 2003 0052 and OMB control number 2050 0144 in any correspondence.


field for the withdrawal codes.  Using blue ink, please sign and date
the certification statement and enter the appropriate withdrawal code(s)
in the space provided on page 1 of the current year’s form.

See 3. above for mailing instructions for diskette and hard copy
withdrawal requests.

APPENDIX C

EXAMPLES OF HOW TRI DATA ARE USED

Appendix C

Examples of How TRI Data Are Used

Type of Use	User	Description

GOVERNMENT

Uses Within EPA	Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)	OPPT
uses TRI data to track environmental progress towards annual performance
goals as part of GPRA. Specifically, OPPT is using RSEI data to set
risk-based and pollution prevention performance goals. For example, for
FY05, OPPT set a goal of 12% reduction from 2001 in the
production-adjusted risk-based score of releases and transfers of toxic
chemicals. Pollution prevention goals were also determined based on TRI
releases; for example, one goal for FY04 was a 32% reduction in
TRI-reported releases at federal facilities.

	Office of Air and Radiation (OAR)

	OAR's National Emission Inventory (NEI) database contains information
about sources that emit criteria air pollutants (and their precursors)
and hazardous air pollutants. Several sources, including TRI, are used
to compile information on annual air pollutant emissions from point,
nonpoint, and mobile sources. Data from the NEI are used for air
dispersion modeling, regional strategy development, regulation setting,
air toxics risk assessment, and tracking of emissions trends over time.

	Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and the Office of
Research and Development (ORD)	OECA and ORD developed a "Multi-Media
Ranking System" to prioritize sites for enforcement actions and to
evaluate the effectiveness of environmental laws in reducing risks from
sites. The system ranks sites based on their multi-media releases of
pollutants, their potential risk to human health and the environment,
and the history of legal violations by the facility. The system combines
TRI data with data from EPA air and water databases.

	Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)	TRI data assist in
priority setting for waste minimization efforts by OSWER. Many of the 31
priority chemicals OSWER has identified as the focus for its waste
minimization efforts are reported to TRI. In combination with other
information OSWER collects on waste minimization, TRI data are useful in
analyzing long-term trends and identifying particular industry practices
that warrant attention by the program, serving OSWER pollution
prevention goals.

	Office of Water (OW)	OW is charged with reviewing and revising the
effluent limitations guidelines established under the Clean Water Act
(CWA). Guidelines have been established for 55 major industrial
categories. OW identifies changes to guidelines for existing industrial
categories, plus new industrial categories, if they pose a large risk
from toxic discharges. As part of the review process in 2003 and 2004,
OW looked at water releases reported in TRI to help the Office identify
industries with greater risk for potential revision or implementation of
effluent limitations. TRI data were then also used to determine which
industries could achieve effluent reductions through a voluntary program
rather than new regulation. Use of TRI data was helpful in identifying
which industrial sectors' releases were mostly attributed to a small
percentage of facilities, as the releases for the sector could
potentially be reduced if the largest releasers participated in
voluntary pollutant reduction programs.

	Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation (OPEI)	OPEI launched the
Sector Strategies Program in 2003 as an industry-EPA partnership to
promote improved environmental performance. TRI data were used to
measure environmental performance trends for participating industry
sectors, for the first annual report released in 2004. TRI data continue
to be used to measure environmental trends in subsequent annual reports.

OPEI's Performance Track Program used an analysis of TRI data conducted
by the Office of Water in developing water-related regulatory incentives
for its members. OW evaluated industrial sectors' TRI data to determine
sectors where a small percentage of facilities were responsible for the
majority of risk related to water discharges. If these facilities could
participate in a voluntary environmental program, the sector as a whole
may not require new effluent guidelines. For sectors identified by OW,
Performance Track determined the top releasers and evaluated if they
would be eligible for this voluntary program. If deemed eligible,
current Performance Track facilities in these sectors would also benefit
because they would not be subject to increased regulation. However, the
analysis indicated that many of the top releasers in those sectors would
probably not be eligible due to their level of compliance with
environmental requirements.

	National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE)	Economists at NCEE
have used TRI data in environmental justice analyses. In a study of
communities in Texas, TRI locational data were used to examine
relationships between various socioeconomic factors and siting of
facilities. A related study used TRI emissions information to determine
if there was a disproportionate burden of risk in different communities.
The project incorporated data on pounds released in addition to toxicity
weights for the chemicals released to look at the risk factor.

Environmental Solutions	Colorado Department of Public Health and the
Environment	The Pollution Prevention (P2) Program of the Colorado
Department of Public Health and the Environment used TRI data, in
combination with other data about hazardous waste and toxic chemical
releases to air and water, to identify the 10 industry organizations
responsible for the largest quantities of hazardous waste generation or
toxic chemical releases in the state. This research served as the basis
for establishing priorities for P2 activities and for distribution of
technical assistance grants. The report also aided in targeting large
companies for participation in the "Governor's P2 Challenge Program" to
reduce toxic chemical releases and hazardous waste generation.

Environmental Targeting	U.S. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA)	For the purpose of targeting exposure screening
for facility employees in certain geographic areas, OSHA and local
public health departments used TRI data to identify facilities that
release specific chemicals. EPA provided OSHA with all submitted TRI
data for the 28 facilities that are subject to the OSHA special
inspection program. These data provided OSHA inspection teams with
valuable information, such as a list of chemicals that are used in
significant quantities by each facility.

Risk Assessment	OPPT	OPPT's Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators
(RSEI) model provides year-to-year indicators of the potential impacts
of TRI chemical releases on human health and the environment. The
indicators consider TRI release and transfer volumes, chronic toxicity,
exposure potential, and the size of receptor populations. Both generic
and site-specific exposure characteristics can be incorporated into the
model. The model allows the targeting and prioritization of chemicals,
industries, and geographic areas. Facility scores can also be tracked
from year to year to analyze trends.

PUBLIC USE

Citizen Activists and Community Organizations	Silicon Valley Toxics
Coalition	California's Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition has used TRI data
for more than a decade. The Silicon Valley Environmental Index (
HYPERLINK http://www.svep.org  www.svep.org ) shows "sustainability
trends" in Santa Clara County, California. The Index includes
information about hazardous materials and air and water quality.

National Organizations	Environmental Defense (ED)	ED launched its
Scorecard Web site in 1998 (  HYPERLINK http://www.scorecard.org
http://www.scorecard.org ). The site's "polluter locator" allows users
to perform a search by ZIP code on a database containing information on
several thousand chemical-releasing facilities. The Scorecard also
provides data on the health effects and regulatory status of different
chemicals. The site correlates TRI chemical release data with U.S.
Census demographic data.

Direct Negotiation	Pennsylvania Public Interest Research Group
(PennPIRG)	In 1998, Butler County, PA, warned pregnant women and infants
against drinking water from Connoquenessing Creek due to high levels of
nitrates in the water. In its report, PennPIRG used TRI data to
highlight the significant quantities of nitrate compounds being released
into the creek. The report identified the major source of the nitrates
as the AK Steel Corporation. TRI data showed that the company had
discharged approximately 29 million pounds of nitrates into the creek in
1997 and 32 million pounds in 1998. This report and several newspaper
articles about these toxic chemical releases prompted the state to
commit to reduce the levels of nitrates that AK Steel is permitted to
release into the creek. Pennsylvania began developing a new water permit
to reduce allowable nitrate releases to a level 90 percent lower than
the previous level. In June 2000, EPA issued an emergency order
requiring AK Steel to significantly reduce the nitrate compounds it
discharges into Connoquenessing Creek. In addition, AK Steel was
required to provide and pay for an alternative water source for the
affected public on any day that the local water plant could not meet the
federal maximum nitrate contaminant standard.

Environmental Justice

	Local groups in Louisiana	Local groups in Louisiana have used TRI data
to illustrate the high toxic chemical release rates in the Mississippi
River corridor and the Lake Charles region compared to those in other
regions. Several small communities have confronted industrial facilities
about their toxic chemical releases and possibly related health effects.
One illustrative dispute arose in Mossville, Calcasieu Parish,
Louisiana, where some residents suspected that poor health in their
community was due to the activities of 17 industrial facilities located
within one half-mile of the community. Their concerns prompted numerous
public interest organizations to collaborate on the report, Breathing
Poison: The Toxic Costs of Industries in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana.
The 2000 report used TRI data and information from the Scorecard Web
site to convey the health risks to which the community might be exposed.
It stated the need for "pollution reduction, environmental health
services, and a fair and just relocation for consenting residents."

INDUSTRY USE

Cost Reduction	Berg Electronics	After reporting toxic chemical releases
to the TRI, Berg Electronics realized that it was releasing almost
300,000 pounds of toxic chemicals into the environment annually. By
installing a new cleaning system, the company reduced its toxic chemical
releases to less than 400 pounds per year. Although the initial costs
for the new system were relatively high ($500,000), the company was able
to save approximately $1.2MM a year by avoiding cleanup and hazardous
waste disposal costs.

INTERNATIONAL RIGHT-TO-KNOW

	Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC)	The CEC, which was
created by a side-agreement to the North American Free Trade Agreement,
began its Pollutant Release and Transfer (PRTR) work by preparing a
document that compares U.S. and Canadian PRTR systems. The CEC now
develops an annual report, titled Taking Stock that correlates data from
the TRI and the Canadian National Pollutant Release Inventory to give an
overall view of releases and transfers of toxic chemicals within and
between countries. The CEC has also created an Internet search engine
that allows the public to obtain continental PRTR data.

INVESTMENT

	Investor Responsibility Research Center (IRRC)	Using TRI data, the IRRC
developed an Emissions Efficiency Index® that indicates which companies
have a competitive edge in environmental performance. The Index is
predicated on the idea that greater toxic chemical releases are
associated with higher risks of negative publicity, more tort actions,
and higher costs for pollution control and waste management. IRRC's
constituency uses TRI-based information to identify companies with poor
environmental records. Using the index, investors can either screen such
companies out of their portfolios or purchase shares and use their
ownership as leverage to improve environmental performance.

ACADEMIC USE

Research	Linda Bui, Economics Researcher at Brandeis University	Linda
Bui of Brandeis University has used TRI data in her work on the effect
of public disclosure laws such as TRI. One such study, published in The
Review of Economics and Statistics in 2003, evaluated the relationship
between TRI releases and housing prices and other political economy
variables. In another study, Bui examined firm-level response of
petroleum refineries to public disclosure of their toxic chemicals
through TRI. TRI releases to air and water were evaluated in relation to
firm expenditure on abatement technology for other non-hazardous
chemicals discharged. In addition, Bui looked at whether state pollution
prevention policies and TRI-type programs helped to explain differences
in TRI releases at the refineries across states as a measure of
effectiveness of public disclosure policies.

Classroom Use	Delaware's Department of Natural Resources	Delaware's
Department of Natural Resources designed a set of lessons for a high
school and middle school air quality education program. This program,
which incorporates TRI data, includes a lesson on air quality impact
associated with industrial sources. Students use the data to locate
facilities in their area that have air emissions. They are also able to
identify the types and quantity of facility emissions. They can compare
businesses that report to TRI between counties and explore the health
hazards posed by the reported emissions.

Appendix C References:

Bureau of National Affairs, 1995. "State Pollution Prevention Laws &
Programs and Document Submissions Chart."

California Air Resources Board, Technical Support Division, 1993.
Emissions Inventory Criteria and Guidelines Regulation Pursuant to the
Air Toxics "Hot Spots" Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (as
amended June 1990, September 1990, June 1991, and June 1993).

Chines, Peter, 1994. Investor Responsibility Research Center, Inc.
Letter to Samuel Sasnett, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, April 21, 1994; and attachment, "How
to Read IRRC's Corporate Environmental Profiles," pp. 18-19.

Cummens, Pat, 1993. Untitled presentation, in Proceedings: Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) Data Use Conference (Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, July).

Greene, Terry, 1995. "JSI Community Outreach Project," in Proceedings:
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Data Use Conference: Building TRI and
Pollution Prevention Partnerships (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, March).

Hartmann, Carolyn, 1993. Troubled Waters: Major Sources of Toxic Water
Pollution (Washington, DC: U.S. Public Interest Research Group, June).

Hausman, Rick, 1993. "Environmental Investing: Dollars and Change,"
Online: The RTK NET Newsletter, Vol. 3, No. 2 (Fall).

Kolwey, Neil and Margery Lynch, 1994. Pollution Prevention Priorities: A
Study of Priorities for Pollution Prevention Activities in Colorado
(Colorado Pollution Prevention Advisory Board, May).

"Notes from the Field: Students Use SARA Title III Data to Conduct Local
Toxic Waste Audits," Hazardous Materials Dialogue, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1992.

Orum, Paul, and Beth Wohlberg, 1994. "Reports Using Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI) Data," Working Notes on Community Right to Know,
July-August.

Rice, Faye, 1993. "Who Scores Best on the Environment," Fortune, Vol.
128, No. 2 (July 26, 1993).

Smith, Ted, 1992. Untitled presentation, in Proceedings: Toxic Release
Inventory (TRI) Data Use and Pollution Prevention Conference
(Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, June).

U.S. EPA, 1993. "Proceedings: Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Data Use
Conference." July 1993.

U.S. EPA, 1993b. State Directory: 33/50 and Voluntary Pollution
Prevention Programs, 1993. (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, October).

U.S. EPA, 1999g. "1997 Toxics Release Inventory Public Data Release:
State Fact Sheets,” Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, EPA
745-F-99-001, March 1995.

U.S. EPA 1995h. "An Overview of the Toxics Release Inventory Data in the
U.S.," Environmental Assistance Division, Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics, June, 1995.APPENDIX D

INFORMATION SOURCES CONTAINING DATA SUBSETS, BUT NOT COMPREHENSIVELY
COMPARABLE ALTERNATIVES TO TRI DATA

Appendix D

Information Sources Containing Data Subsets, but not Comprehensively
Comparable Alternatives to TRI Data

(TRI Included for Comparison)

Description	Chemical Coverage	Industry/Facility Coverage	Reporting
Frequency	Public Access

TRI DATA

EPCRA  XE "EPCRA"   §313 requires facilities to submit reports on
disposal and releases of particular toxic chemicals exceeding a given
threshold. The reports provide information on the quantity of chemical
released into the environment, to which medium (air, land, water) the
chemical was disposed, as well as information about waste management and
the amount of chemicals stored on-site.	Approximately 600 toxic
chemicals, as defined by Congress in EPCRA.	NAICS codes corresponding to
SIC codes 20-39, as well as 10; 12; 4911, 4931, and 4939; 4953; 5169;
5171; and 7389.

A facility need only report if it has 10 more FTEs.	Annual	EPA compiles
the TRI data and makes them available through several data access tools,
including the TRI Explorer and Envirofacts. Other organizations also
make the data available to the public through their own data access
tools.

AIR EMISSIONS (SECTIONS 5.1 AND 5.2)

National Emissions Inventory (NEI)

NEI provides estimates of man-made pollutant emissions from stationary
sources, as well as area sources and mobile sources. These estimates,
submitted to EPA by delegated authorities (state or county), electric
utilities, and/or generated by EPA from various sources, differ in the
methodology used.	6 CAPs and 189 HAPs	No NAICS limitations	Triennial	MS
Access database files can be downloaded from EPA’s FTP site.

Air Facility System (AFS)

AFS contains compliance and permit data for stationary sources of air
pollution regulated by U.S. EPA, and state and local air pollution
agencies.	N/A 	No NAICS limitations	Annual	Can be accessed through EPA
data access tools, Envirofacts or the Enforcement and Compliance History
Online (ECHO) database, on a facility-by-facility basis.

State Air Emissions Inventories

Several states and regional agencies maintain their own air emissions
inventories. However, the amount of data as well as the types of data
elements collected vary widely from state to state.	Varies widely (e.g.,
the California Air Resources Board maintains its own list of approx. 400
toxic air pollutants)	Varies, but states often develop their own toxics
inventories due to perceived gaps in TRI's industry coverage	Varies	Most
of these data are submitted to NEI, and some are available on the Web on
a state-by-state basis.

Title V Part 70 Operating Permits

Under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, facilities designated as "major
sources" and facilities otherwise subject to §112 and Title W must
apply for a Title V Part 70 Operating Permit. As part of the application
for a Title V permit, some facilities may have to report emissions of
air toxics.	189 HAPs	No NAICS limitations	At the time of permit
application, renewal, and modification—permits are typically renewed
every 5 years	No central repository for the information.

DIRECT DISCHARGES TO WATER (SECTION 5.3)

Permit Compliance System (PCS)

PCS tracks permit compliance and enforcement status of facilities
regulated by NPDES under CWA and is managed by EPA's OECA. PCS tracks
all point source discharges to surface waters, but does not include
indirect releases.	Monitoring data for major dischargers includes only
chemicals for which a monitoring requirement has been set in the
permit—a facility's record may not include all pollutants actually
discharged	No NAICS limitations	Major permittees must submit DMRs
monthly or quarterly; nonmajor permittees must submit at least annually
Can be accessed through EPA data access tools, Envirofacts, ECHO, or the
Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS)/NDPES, on a
facility-by-facility basis.

UNDERGROUND INJECTION AND LAND DISPOSAL ON-SITE (SECTIONS 5.4 AND 5.5)

RCRA Biennial Reports

RCRA requires hazardous waste generators and treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities (TSDFs) to report to EPA or to a delegated authority
(i.e., the states or EPA Regional offices) at least every two years the
quantity and nature, pollution prevention efforts, and disposition of
generated hazardous waste. 	Biennial Reports contain data on hazardous
wastes as defined by RCRA and reported by waste codes—not all of which
map directly to a single, unique chemical	No NAICS limitations, however,
certain waste categories are excluded (e.g., mining, agriculture)
Biennial	Can be accessed through EPA data access tools, Envirofacts or
RCRAInfo, on a facility-by-facility basis.

DISCHARGES TO A POTW (SECTION 6.1)

RCRA Biennial Reports (BR)

Biennial Reports require some reporting of discharges to POTWs. (See
above for more details.)	(See above)	(See above)	(See above)	(See above)

Permit Compliance System (PCS)

PCS allows for reporting of indirect discharges to water. (See above for
more details.)	(See above)	(See above)	(See above)	(See above)

TRANSFERS TO OTHER OFF-SITE LOCATIONS (SECTION 6.2)

RCRA Biennial Reports (BR)

Biennial Reports contain hazardous waste data from large quantity
generators and TSDFs. Biennial Reports also require reporting of
off-site transfers on Form GM. Information includes the EPA ID of the
facility to which the waste was shipped, the processes used to treat,
recycle, or dispose of the waste at the off-site facility, the off-site
availability code, and the total quantity of waste shipped during the
report year. The reports also provide data on the volume of hazardous
waste shipped off-site for land disposal, a release end-point of
relevance to TRI. (See above for more details.)	(See above)	(See above)
(See above)	(See above)

CHEMICAL STORAGE AND INVENTORY DATA (SECTION 4.1)

EPCRA §312 Tier I and II Reports

EPCRA §312 requires that states establish plans for local chemical
emergency preparedness and that inventory information on hazardous
chemicals be reported by facilities to state and local authorities.
Hazardous or extremely hazardous substances (essentially any substance
that poses a health or physical hazard)	No NAICS exemptions for
facilities that are covered under the reporting threshold requirements,
but facilities not included under OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard
(e.g., mines) do not have to file 	Annual	On a facility-by-facility
basis, by forwarding a written request.

Risk Management Plan (RMP)

Under §112(r) of the Clean Air Act, facilities with processes that use
or store more than a specified amount of certain substances are required
to develop and implement a risk management program and submit to EPA a
summary of their program—called a Risk Management Plan (RMP). These
plans include information about chemical amounts stored or processed at
RMP facilities.	Certain flammable and toxic substances	No NAICS
limitations	At least every five years, or within six months of an
incident	Restricted access.

POLLUTION PREVENTION DATA (SECTIONS 8.1-8.7)

RCRA Biennial Reports (BR)

Biennial Reports contain pollution prevention information on hazardous
waste from large quantity generators and TSDFs. Data are collected
primarily by states, and are collated by EPA. (See above for more
details.)	(See above)	(See above)	(See above)	(See above)

State Environmental Agency Databases

Two states, New Jersey and Massachusetts, have passed laws to collect
pollution prevention data on materials accounting that exceed that found
in Section 8 of Form R.

Include more industries than TRI	Annual

	EMERGENCY RELEASE DATA (SECTION 8.8)

National Response Center (NRC)

NRC collects real-time information about virtually all oil and chemical
spills throughout the U.S. to identify spills for which to coordinate
emergency response.	Oils and chemicals	No source exemptions	Real-time
Historical information about spills can be retrieved through the NRC
online query system:   HYPERLINK "http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/foia.html"
http://www.nrc.uscg.mil/foia.html .

Integrated Management Information System (IMIS)

IMIS is an OSHA database that contains records of workplace health and
safety inspections conducted by OSHA industrial hygienists. Two general
types of inspections are conducted by OSHA: (1) scheduled or planned
inspections, and (2) unplanned inspections, which are investigations of
workplace incidents. Inspection data are entered and stored within IMIS,
providing a record of OSHA activities at each workplace that has been
inspected.	Hazardous substances (no quantity information)	No NAICS
limitations	Real-time	Most of the data are online at   HYPERLINK
"http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/industry.html"
http://www.osha.gov/pls/imis/industry.html . For any additional
information, the public must submit a written Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) request to OSHA.

STATE RIGHT-TO-KNOW PROGRAMS

Several states require expanded state TRI reporting to include
industries/facilities not covered by TRI or to report release
information beyond that required by the federal TRI Program. Overall,
however, the additional data collected by states are far less complete
and uniform than available under the TRI Program. States with additional
reporting include Arizona, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.
Varies by state, but often identical to TRI	Varies, but may include more
industries than TRI	Annual	No central repository for the information.
Accessibility varies by state.

Appendix D References:

Abt Associates, “Comparison of Toxics Release Inventory and the Permit
Compliance System,” (2005).

Abt Associates, “Comparison of Toxics Release Inventory and the
National Emissions Inventory,” (2005): 6.

Great Lakes Information Network, 1996. "Regional Air Pollutant Inventory
Development System," Information from Great Lakes Information Network
Web site:   HYPERLINK http://www.glc.org/projects/air/rapids/rapids.html
 http://www.glc.org/projects/air/rapids/rapids.html    HYPERLINK
http://www.glc.org  http://www.glc.org .

ICF Incorporated, 1993. Data Gaps and Redundancies in Pollution
Prevention Reporting; A Compendium of Memoranda. Prepared for U.S. EPA,
Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxics, Pollution Prevention
Division.

Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction Institute, 1994. Toxics Use
Reduction: Fact Sheet 1. Lowell, MA: University of Massachusetts Lowell.
February.

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 1993. An Overview
of the Toxics Use Reduction Act. Prepared by Manik Roy. February.

Seitz, John S., Director OAQPS, 1995. Memorandum: "Title V Permitting
for Non-major Sources in Recent §112 Maximum Achievable Control
Technology (MACT) Standards," May 16, 1995.

U.S. EPA, 1991. 1991 Hazardous Waste Report: Instructions and Forms. EPA
Form 8700-13A/B (5-80) revised 8-91.

U.S. EPA, 1994. "National Analysis: The Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste
Report (Based on 1991 Data)." September 1994.

U.S. EPA, 1995a. Information from the AIRS AFS Home Page: (  HYPERLINK
http://www.epa.gov/docs/airs/afs.html).
http://www.epa.gov/docs/airs/afs.html).

U.S. EPA, 1995e. "User's Guide to Federal Accidental Release Databases,"
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, September 1995.

U.S. EPA, 2002. RMP National Database overview, October 2002.
HYPERLINK
"http://yosemite.epa.gov/oswer/ceppoweb.nsf/content/RMPoverview.htm"
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oswer/ceppoweb.nsf/content/RMPoverview.htm .

U.S. EPA, 2003. “National Analysis: The National Biennial RCRA
Hazardous Waste Report (Based On 2003 Data)"   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br03/"
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/br03/ .

U.S. EPA, 2006. "Phase III: Data Proxies for the Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI)," January 2006.APPENDIX E

LISTS OF ORGANIZATIONS WITH WHICH EPA HAS CONSULTED

2004 TRI Burden Reduction Stakeholder Meeting

List of Participating Organizations

 ACCCI/NOPA

 AF&PA

 American Iron and Steel Institutes

 American Petroleum Institute

 Analytical Services Corporation

 Bureau of National Affairs

 CCC

 Copper and Brass Fabricators Council

 Giboon, National Association of Chemical Distributors

 House Government Reform – Sub Reg Affairs

 Hunter and Williams; Edison Electric Institutes

 MCF Consulting, Inc.

 National Association of Chemical Distributors

 National Federation of Independent Business

 National Petrochemicals and Refiners Association

 National Ready Mixed Concrete Association

 New Jersey DEP

 OMB Watch

 Resources Committee, House

 SBA Advocacy

 Senate EPW Maj. Office

 Society of Glass and Ceramic Decorators

 SOCMA

 Specialty Graphic Imaging Association

 U.S. Department of Energy

 U.S. Public Interest Research Group

 U.S. Small Business Administration

 Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

2006 Environmental & Community

Right-To-Know Meeting

List of Participating Organizations

U.S. PIRG

Unison Institute

OMB Watch

2006 Industry & Small Business Stakeholder Meeting

List of Participating Organizations

American Chemistry Council

American Forest & Paper Association

API

Bryan Cave

Consumer Specialty Products Association

EPA Office of Public Liaison

IPC - The Association Connecting Electronics Industries

National Mining Association

National Association of Chemical Distributors

National Federation of Independent Business

National Paint and Coatings Association, Inc.

National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association

Office of Management and Budget

SGIA

Small Business Administration

SOCMA

The Policy Group

Western Business Roundtable

TRI 2006 National Conference

List of Participating Organizations

AR Department of Emergency Management

CO Department of Public Health and Environment

DC Department of the Environment

DE Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control

Environmental Council of the States

FL Department of Environmental Protection

GA Department of Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division

IN Department of Environmental Management

KS Department of Health & Environment

KY Office of the Commissioner, Department for Environmental Protection

MA Department of Environmental Protection

MD Department of Environment

MI Department of Environmental Quality

MN EPCRA Program

MS Department of Environment Quality

NC Hazardous Waste Section, Division of Waste Management

NE Department of Environmental Quality

NJ Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Pollution
Prevention & Right to Know

OH Environmental Protection Agency Division of Air Pollution Control

OK Department of Environmental Quality

OR Office of Homeland Security

PA Department of Environmental Protection

PA Department of Labor & Industry, Bureau of PENNSAFE

SC Department of Health and Environmental Control, Bureau of Air Quality

TX Commission on Environmental Quality

U.S. EPA

U.S. EPA OAQPS

U.S. EPA OAR/OAQPS

U.S. EPA Region 1

U.S. EPA Region 10

U.S. EPA Region 2

U.S. EPA Region 3

U.S. EPA Region 4

U.S. EPA Region 5

U.S. EPA Region 6

U.S. EPA Region 7

U.S. EPA Region 8

U.S. EPA Region 9

U.S. EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Enforcement Division

U.S. EPA Toxics and Pesticides Enforcement Division

U.S. EPA/NEIC

U.S. EPA/OEI

UT Department of Environmental Quality

VA Department of Environmental Quality

WA Department of Ecology

WY Office Homeland Security

2007 TRI National Training Conference

List of Participating Organizations

AL Department of Environmental Management

Alaska Inter-Tribal Council (AITC)

American Petroleum Institute

Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc.

AR Department of Emergency Management

Belt Paving, Inc.

BNA

Bureau of PENNSAFE

Calvert

Chevron

CITGO Petroleum Corporation

CO Department of Public Health and Environment

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC)

ConocoPhillips

DE Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control

Department of the Army Ft. Meade

DuPont

ECOS

Environment Canada

Environmental Services Section

ExxonMobil

FL Department of Environmental Protection

Government Accountability Office

IA Department of Natural Resources

ID Bureau of Homeland Security

IN Department of Environmental Management

Inside EPA

IPC Association Connecting Electronics Industries

KS Department of Health & Environment

KY Department for Environmental Protection

MA Department of Environmental Protection

Maniilaq

Marathon Petroleum Company

MI Department of Environmental Quality

MO Department of Natural Resources

Monterey Institute of International Studies and United Nations Institute
for Training and Research

MS Department of Environment Quality

NC Emergency Management

ND Emergency Services

NE Department of Environmental Quality

NIH / National Library of Medicine

NJ Department of Environmental Protection

NJ Department of Health

Northrup Grumman Corporation

NY State Department of Environmental Conservation

OH Environmental Protection Agency

OK Department of Environmental Quality

OR State Fire Marshall

Rock-Tenn Company

SC Department of Health and Environmental Control

SD Department of Environment & Natural Resources

Shell Global Solutions

Society of Glass and Ceramic Decorators

SOCMA

Thompson Publishing

TX Commission on Environmental Quality

U. S. EPA Region 8

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Army Environmental Command

U.S. Army Reserve 94th Environmental

U.S. Department of Energy

U.S. EPA

U.S. EPA Region 1

U.S. EPA Region 10

U.S. EPA Region 10

U.S. EPA Region 2

U.S. EPA Region 3

U.S. EPA Region 4

U.S. EPA Region 5

U.S. EPA Region 6

U.S. EPA Region 7

U.S. EPA Region 8

U.S. EPA Region 9

U.S. EPA/NEIC

U.S. EPA/OAPQS

U.S. EPA/OEI

U.S. EPA/OPPT

U.S. EPA/OSWER

U.S. GAO

U.S. Public Health Service

U.S. Small Business Administration

University of Maryland Baltimore Campus

UT Department of Environmental Quality

VA Department of Environmental Quality

WA Department of Ecology

APPENDIX F

FACILITIES REQUIRED TO REPORT TO TRI (NAICS)

Table F-1

Facilities Required to Report to TRI (NAICS)

(Corresponding to SIC codes 20 through 39)

Subsector

or Industry

Code

 Industry

 Code

Exceptions and/or Limitations

311	Except 311119 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged
in Custom Grain Grinding for Animal Feed (previously classified under
SIC 0723, Crop Preparation Services for Market, Except Cotton Ginning);

Except 311330 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in
the retail sale of candy, nuts, popcorn and other confections not for
immediate consumption made on the premises (previously classified under
SIC 5441, Candy, Nut, and Confectionery Stores);

Except 311340 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in
the retail sale of candy, nuts, popcorn and other confections not for
immediate consumption made on the premises (previously classified under
SIC 5441, Candy, Nut, and Confectionery Stores);

Except 311811 - Retail Bakeries (previously classified under SIC 5461,
Retail Bakeries);

Except 311611 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in
Custom Slaughtering for individuals (previously classified under SIC
0751, Livestock Services, Except Veterinary, Slaughtering, custom: for
individuals);

Except 311612 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in
the cutting up and resale of purchased fresh carcasses for the trade
(including boxed beef) (previously classified under SIC 5147, Meats and
Meat Products);

312	Except 312229 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged
in providing Tobacco Sheeting Services (previously classified under SIC
7389, Business Services, NEC);

313	Except 313311 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged
in converting broadwoven piece goods and broadwoven textiles (previously
classified under SIC 5131, Piece Goods Notions, and Other Dry Goods,
broadwoven and non-broadwoven piece good converters), and facilities
primarily engaged in sponging fabric for tailors and dressmakers
(previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services, NEC (Sponging
fabric for tailors and dressmakers));

Except 313312 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in
converting narrow woven textiles, and narrow woven piece goods
(previously classified under SIC 5131, Piece Goods Notions, and Other
Dry Goods, converters, except broadwoven fabric);

314	Except 314121 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged
in making custom drapery for retail sale (previously classified under
SIC 5714, Drapery, Curtain, and Upholstery Stores);

Except 314129 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in
making custom slipcovers for retail sale (previously classified under
SIC 5714, Drapery, Curtain, and Upholstery Stores);

Except 314999 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in
binding carpets and rugs for the trade, carpet cutting and binding, and
embroidering on textile products (except apparel) for the trade
(previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services Not Elsewhere
Classified, Embroidering of advertising on shirts and Rug binding for
the trade);

315	Except 315222 - Exception is limited to custom tailors primarily
engaged in making and selling men's and boys' suits, cut and sewn from
purchased fabric (previously classified under SIC 5699, Miscellaneous
Apparel and Accessory Stores (custom tailors));

Except 315223 - Exception is limited to custom tailors primarily engaged
in making and selling men's and boys' dress shirts, cut and sewn from
purchased fabric (previously classified under SIC 5699, Miscellaneous
Apparel and Accessory Stores (custom tailors));

Except 315233 - Exception is limited to custom tailors primarily engaged
in making and selling bridal dresses or gowns, or women's, misses' and
girls' dresses cut and sewn from purchased fabric (except apparel
contractors) (custom dressmakers) (previously classified under SIC Code
5699, Miscellaneous Apparel and Accessory Stores);

316

	321

	322

	323	Except 323114 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily
engaged in reproducing text, drawings, plans, maps, or other copy, by
blueprinting, photocopying, mimeographing, or other methods of
duplication other than printing or microfilming (i.e., instant printing)
(previously classified under SIC 7334, Photocopying and Duplicating
Services (instant printing));

324

	325	Except 325998 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily
engaged in aerosol can filling on a job order or contract basis
(previously classified under SIC 7389, Business Services, NEC (aerosol
packaging));

326	Except 326212 - Tire Retreading (previously classified under SIC
7534, Tire Retreading and Repair Shops (rebuilding));

327

	331

	332

	333

	334

	335

	336

	337	Except 337110 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily
engaged in the retail sale of household furniture and facilities that
manufacture custom wood kitchen cabinets and counter tops (previously
classified under SIC 5712, Furniture Stores (custom wood cabinets));

Except 337121 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in
the retail sale of household furniture and facilities that manufacture
custom made upholstered household furniture (previously classified under
SIC 5712, Furniture Stores (upholstered, custom made furniture));

Except 337122 - Exception is limited to facilities primarily engaged in
the retail sale of household furniture and facilities that manufacture
nonupholstered, household type, custom wood furniture (previously
classified under SIC 5712, Furniture Stores (custom made wood
nonupholstered household furniture except cabinets));

339	Except 339115 - Exception is limited to lens grinding facilities
that are primarily engaged in the retail sale of eyeglasses and contact
lenses to prescription for individuals (previously classified under SIC
5995, Optical Goods Stores (optical laboratories grinding of lenses to
prescription));

Except 339116 - Dental Laboratories (previously classified under SIC
8072, Dental Laboratories);

111998	Limited to facilities primarily engaged in reducing maple sap to
maple syrup (previously classified under SIC 2099, Food Preparations,
NEC, Reducing Maple Sap to Maple Syrup);

211112	Limited to facilities that recover sulfur from natural gas
(previously classified under SIC 2819, Industrial Inorganic Chemicals,
NEC (recovering sulfur from natural gas));

212324

	Limited to facilities operating without a mine or quarry and that are
primarily engaged in beneficiating kaolin and clay (previously
classified under SIC 3295, Minerals and Earths, Ground or Otherwise
Treated (grinding, washing, separating, etc. of minerals in SIC 1455));

212325	Limited to facilities operating without a mine or quarry and that
are primarily engaged in beneficiating clay and ceramic and refractory
minerals (previously classified under SIC 3295, Minerals and Earths,
Ground or Otherwise Treated (grinding, washing, separating, etc. of
minerals in SIC 1459));

212393

	Limited to facilities operating without a mine or quarry and that are
primarily engaged in beneficiating chemical or fertilizer mineral raw
materials (previously classified under SIC 3295, Minerals and Earths,
Ground or Otherwise Treated (grinding, washing, separating, etc. of
minerals in SIC 1479));

212399	Limited to facilities operating without a mine or quarry and that
are primarily engaged in beneficiating nonmetallic minerals (previously
classified under SIC 3295, Minerals and Earths, Ground or Otherwise
Treated (grinding, washing, separating, etc. of minerals in SIC 1499));

488390	Limited to facilities that are primarily engaged in providing
routine repair and maintenance of ships and boats from floating drydocks
(previously classified under SIC 3731, Shipbuilding and Repairing
(floating drydocks not associated with a shipyard));

511110

	511120

	511130

	511140	Except facilities that are primarily engaged in furnishing
services for direct mail advertising including address list compilers,
address list publishers, address list publishers and printing combined,
address list publishing, business directory publishers, catalog of
collections publishers, catalog of collections publishers and printing
combined, mailing list compilers, directory compilers, and mailing list
compiling services (previously classified under SIC 7331, Direct Mail
Advertising Services (mailing list compilers));

511191

	511199

	512220

	512230 	Except facilities primarily engaged in music copyright
authorizing use, music copyright buying and licensing, and music
publishers working on their own account (previously classified under SIC
8999, Services, NEC (music publishing));

516110	Limited to facilities primarily engaged in Internet newspaper
publishing (previously classified under SIC 2711, Newspapers:
Publishing, or Publishing and Printing), Internet periodical publishing
(previously classified under SIC 2721, Periodicals: Publishing, or
Publishing and Printing), Internet book publishing (previously
classified under SIC 2731, Books: Publishing, or Publishing and
Printing), miscellaneous Internet publishing (previously classified
under SIC 2741, Miscellaneous Publishing), Internet greeting card
publishers (previously classified under SIC 2771, Greeting Cards);

541710	Limited to facilities that are primarily engaged in guided
missile and space vehicle engine research and development (previously
classified under SIC 3764, Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Propulsion
Units and Propulsion Unit Parts), and in guided missile and space
vehicle parts (except engines) research and development (previously
classified under SIC 3769, Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Parts and
Auxiliary Equipment, Not Elsewhere Classified);

811490	Limited to facilities that are primarily engaged in repairing and
servicing pleasure and sail boats without retailing new boats
(previously classified under SIC 3732, Boat Building and Repairing
(pleasure boat building));

Table F-2

Facilities Required to Report to TRI (NAICS)

(Corresponding to SIC codes other than SIC codes 20 through 39)

Subsector or Industry Code	Exceptions and/or Limitations

212111

	212112

	212113

	212221

	212222

	212231

	212234

	212299

	221111	Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the
purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce.

221112	Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the
purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce.

221113	Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the
purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce.

221119	Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the
purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce.

221121	Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the
purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce.

221122	Limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the
purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce.

424690

	424710

	425110	Limited to facilities previously classified in SIC 5169,
Chemicals and Allied Products, Not Elsewhere Classified.

425120	Limited to facilities previously classified in SIC 5169,
Chemicals and Allied Products, Not Elsewhere Classified.

562112	Limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery
services on a contract or fee basis (previously classified under SIC
7389, Business Services, NEC);

562211	Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.

562212	Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.

562213	Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.

562219	Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.

562920	Limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.

 Certain sectors are subject to TRI reporting. For a complete listing of
the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes subject
to TRI reporting see Appendix F of this ICR Supporting Statement. These
NAICS codes correspond to the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
codes included in the statutory requirement pursuant to EPCRA §313 (42
U.S.C. 11001 et seq.) and PPA §6607 (42 U.S.C. 11071 to 11079).

 Refer to Appendix A of this Supporting Statement for a blank Form;
refer to Appendix A of the Form A Supporting Statement for a blank Form
A. For the full set of instructions and Forms, refer to
http://www.epa.gov/tri/report/#forms.

 For additional details, refer to Appendix A: Blank Form R, and Appendix
B: Reporting Form Instructions Associated with Form Changes.

 The Office of Management and Budget publishes these guidelines in
accordance with the Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality,
Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by
Federal Agencies (Government-wide Guidelines) published in interim final
form by OMB in the Federal Register in Volume 66, No. 189 at 49718 on
September 28, 2001, and updated in final form in Volume 2, No. 67 at
8452 on February 22, 2002.

 For a complete chronology of TRI rulemaking and ICR Renewals along with
resultant impact on Form R reporting burden, see Figure 1 and Table 18.

 The previous ICR period was 2006-2007. By the end of 2006, the TRI
Burden Reduction Rule was promulgated, and the inventory was
recalculated at 3,344,292 hours (no cost reported) due to shifts from
Form R to Form A reporting (decrease of Form R burden of 402,298
hours—see the Economic Analysis of the TRI Burden Reduction Rule,
December 2006). Please note that the recalculation of burden was
estimated by subtracting projected changes from the previous ICR
inventory. This calculation differs from the approach taken in the
current ICR Renewal’s economic analyses. In the 2006 calculation, the
base number of the previous inventory was derived under different
conditions (RY 2002, 93,380 total forms) than the increments (RY 2005,
89,312 total forms). In this ICR Renewal (and Form R/A Supporting
Statements), RY 2005 data are used for baseline and increment estimates.

 “Ease of substitution” refers only to the potential of the
information in the database to substitute for TRI reporting. It does not
imply that the database is not adequate for the purposes for which it
was designed.

 For specific details, refer to Appendix A: Blank Form R, and Appendix
B: Reporting Form Instructions Associated with Form Changes.

 Reporting instructions associated with the new data elements are
presented in Appendix B.

 Prior to RY2007, electronic reporting was conducted primarily via TRI-
Made Easy (TRI-ME) desktop software. For the reporting cycle that begins
with this ICR, the TRI Program is launching TRI-MEweb, a Web-based
reporting software with all the capabilities of the previous system,
plus major enhancements.

 Historically, A CD-ROM containing an annually updated reporting package
was distributed directly to all TRI respondents who reported in the
prior year. The package contained an electronic copy of the reporting
forms and detailed instructions along with a reporting software
application that allows reporters to submit their data over the Internet
or on computer diskettes. Starting in  RY2007, the CD-ROMs will be
available upon request, but not mass-mailed.  As always, the reporting
forms and instructions and the application are available for download at
http://www.epa.gov/tri

 TRI-MEweb is slated to become the sole reporting software for TRI
electronic reporting in 2009 or 2010, when the desktop version of TRI-ME
will be discontinued.

 The methodology used in this ICR to estimate the number of forms and
facilities that would be affected by the TRI Burden Reduction Rule is
the same as the methodology used in the Economic Analysis (EA) of the
TRI Burden Reduction Rule. Due to the difference in reporting years used
in each analysis (RY 2004 in the EA and RY 2005 in the ICR), however,
the estimated number of forms and facilities affected by the TRI Burden
Reduction Rule differs slightly between analyses.

 For a complete chronology of Rule changes and ICR Renewals along with
resultant impact on Form R reporting burden, see Table 18.

 The previous ICR period was 2006-2007. By the end of 2006, the TRI
Burden Reduction Rule was promulgated, and the inventory was
recalculated at 3,344,292 hours (no cost reported) due to shifts from
Form R to Form A reporting (decrease of Form R burden of 402,298
hours—see the Economic Analysis of the TRI Burden Reduction Rule,
December 2006). Please note that the recalculation of burden was
estimated by subtracting projected changes from the previous ICR
inventory. This calculation differs from the approach taken in the
current ICR Renewal’s economic analyses. In the 2006 calculation, the
base number of the previous inventory was derived under different
conditions (RY 2002, 93,380 total forms) than the increments (RY2005,
89,312 total forms). In this ICR Renewal (and Form R/A Supporting
Statements), RY 2005 data are used for baseline and increment estimates.

 Approximately 71 percent of affected facilities filed three or fewer
Form Rs in RY 2005. The most common number of reports filed is one. The
average number of Form Rs filed by facility in RY2005 is 3.7. The
average number of number of Form Rs filed by facility in the ICR
Universe is 3.4.

 This estimate is based on the most recent inventory approved by OMB on
March 3, 2006, which includes a downward adjustment of approximately 2
percent to reflect burden savings associated with the TRI Reporting
Forms Modification Rule.

 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Private industry workers,
Goods-producing industries, white-collar occupations, as published by
the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Table 11 of
the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Summary, September 2006.

 Prior to the TRI Burden Reduction Rule, the Annual Reportable Amount
was defined as the sum of quantities reported in Form R Sections
8.1-8.7; with implementation of the TRI Burden Reduction Rule, the
Annual Reportable Amount was redefined to include the sum of quantities
in Sections 8.1-8.8. Based on RY 2005 TRI data, it is estimated that 35
facilities currently filing Form As on 47 chemicals would lose Form A
eligibility.

 The Bureau of Census's County Business Patterns - 1997 indicates that
there are 191,745 facilities with 10 or more employees in manufacturing
sectors. There are an additional 10,040 facilities in the seven
non-manufacturing industries that are estimated to perform compliance
determination, for a total of 201,785 facilities performing compliance
determination. The number of facilities and forms in the ICR Universe
has been rounded up to the nearest thousand for this ICR. For more
information on the derivation of the number of facilities and forms
newly eligible (and ineligible) for Form A, see the Economic Analysis of
the TRI Burden Reduction Rule, September 2006.

 Note, however, that some of these facilities may file a Form A.

 Based on first-time reporting in RY 2005, adjusted for first-time Form
R filers for which all of their Form Rs are newly eligible for Form A.

 Originally recalculated and reported on the OMB Action at 70,139
responses and 3,344,292 hours; estimates in text are corrected to
incorporate a baseline shift. The revised numbers for this last OMB
Action in text (and in Table 18) are based on a consistent base and
increment (RY2004), as are the final estimates for this ICR Universe in
Tables 17 and 18 (RY2005). By comparison, the previous recalculation was
estimated by subtracting projected changes (derived from RY2004 with
approximately 89,645 total forms A and R) from the previous ICR
inventory (based on RY2002 with 93,380 total forms A and R), without
accounting for baseline shifts related to decreases in Form R reporting
overall since RY2002.

 PAGE

 PAGE   47

		December 2007

December 2007

	       PAGE  3

							December 2007

 PAGE   50

December 2007

				  PAGE  49

December 2007

 PAGE   50

											Draft	6/27/07

December 2007

 PAGE   84

Figure 1

TRI Rulemaking and ICR Chronology

  PAGE  1

June 2007


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460

OFFICE OF

PREVENTION, PESTICIDES

AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES

February 7, 2007

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Maleic Hydrazide (Chemical No. 051501).  Addendum to RED
Residue Chemistry Chapter: Recommendation for Tolerances in Meat, Milk,
Poultry, and Eggs (GLN 860.1480).  DP Barcode D330764. Reregistration
Case No. 0381.  MRID No. None.

FROM:	Thurston G. Morton, Chemist

Reregistration Branch 4

Health Effects Division (7509P)

THROUGH:	Susan V. Hummel, Branch Senior Scientist

Reregistration Branch 4

Health Effects Division (7509P)

TO:		John Pates

Reregistration Review Branch 1

Special Review & Reregistration Division (7508P)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This memorandum is an addendum to the RED Residue Chemistry Chapter and
serves to recommend tolerances for residues of maleic hydrazide (free
and conjugated) and 3-pyridazinone in the following livestock
commodities :

Cattle, meat ……………….....0.30 ppm

Cattle, meat byproducts……….4.0 ppm

          	Cattle, fat……………..……...0.40 ppm

	Milk……………….………….0.30 ppm

	Goat, meat……………………0.30 ppm

	Goat, meat byproducts…..…….4.0 ppm

	Goat, fat………………………0.40 ppm

DISCUSSION:

It has been determined tolerances are needed for residues of  maleic
hydrazide (free and conjugated) and 3-pyridazinone in cattle (meat, meat
byproducts, fat, and milk) and goat (meat, meat byproducts, and fat).
These tolerances need to be inserted in 40 CFR §180.175(a)(1).  The
Agency is using the 28-day cattle nature of the residue study to
determine the appropriate tolerances.   The only feedstuffs are
processed potato waste and potato culls.  A reassessed tolerance of 50
ppm is recommended for processed potato waste.  No tolerances are being
recommended for poultry since processed potato waste is not fed to
poultry.  If in the future other uses on crops are requested with
livestock feedstuffs, then livestock feeding studies will be required.
Dietary burdens for dairy and beef cattle are calculated below.

Calculation of Dietary Burden for Cattle.

Feed Commodity	Reassessed Tolerance (ppm)	% Dry Matter 1	Beef Cattle
Dairy Cattle

	% of Diet2	Burden (ppm)3	% of Diet2	Burden (ppm)3

Processed potato waste4	50	15	30	100	10	33

Soybean meal	NA	92	15	0	10	0

Field corn grain	NA	88	35	0	35	0

Field corn forage	NA	40	20	0	45	0

TOTAL	100	100	100	33

1As per Table 1 (OPPTS Guideline 860.1000).

2All beef and dairy cattle in the U.S. should have in their diet about
15% cottonseed meal, peanut meal, soybean meal, canola meal, or flax
seed meal.

3Burden = [tolerance ÷ % DM] X  % diet.

4Processed potato waste is a carbohydrate concentrate.  Feedlot cattle
may receive up to 50% of their diet as processed potato waste, however,
this would be in localized areas such as Washington, Idaho, and Oregon.

Reference: Table 1 Feedstuffs (October 2006)

cc: Chem F, Chron F. Morton

RDI:Team: 2/7/07; SVH:2/7/07

TM, Thurston Morton, Cubicle s-10922, 305-6691, mail code 7509P

 PAGE  1