Federal Register /Vol. 64, No. 117/Friday, June 18. 1999/Notices
32859
EPA Contacts
Mindy Lemoine, Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, US EPA Region III,
1650 Arc Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103-2029, 215-814-2736—
Lemoine.Mindy@epa.gov
Amanda Bassow, Chesapeake Bay
Program Office, US EPA Region III,
410 Severn Ave., Suite 109, Annaplis,
MD 21403, 410-267-5723—
Bassow.Amanda@epa.gov
William Matuszeski,
Director, Chesapeake Bay Program Office.
[FR Doc. 99-15541 Filed 6-17-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-SO-M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL-6363-8]
RIN 2050-AE50
Office of Solid Waste Burden
Reduction Project
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency
ACTION: Notice of data availability and
request for comment
SUMMARY: To meet the goals of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Office of Solid Waste (OSW) plans to
reduce the recordkeeping and reporting
burden on states, the public and
regulated community associated with
the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). The Paperwork
Reduction Act establishes a federal
government-wide goal to reduce the
recordkeeping and reporting burden on
the states, the public and regulated
community by 40% from a starting date
of 1995 to September 2001. We are
working to reduce burden while
protecting human health and the
environment.
For this Notice of Data Availability
(NODA), we reviewed our
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements and their burden on the
states, public, and regulated
community; reviewed burden reduction
ideas developed by other EPA offices
and the regulated community;
developed additional burden reduction
ideas; and sought input from EPA
offices and states. In today's NODA, we
are soliciting comment on our ideas and
our background documents. These
background documents are available on
the Internet and in the RCRA
Information Center. We plan to issue a
proposed rulemaking to implement
many of these ideas.
DATES: Written comments must be
received by September 20, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Commenters must send an
original and two copies of their
comments referencing docket number
F-1999-IBRA-FFFFF to: RCRA Docket
Information Center, Office of Solid
Waste (5305G), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460. Hand deliveries
should be made to the RCRA
Information Center at the Arlington, VA
address below. Comments also may be
submitted electronically via the Internet
to: rcra-docket@epamail.epa.gov.
Comments in an electronic format
also should reference docket number F-
1999-IBRA-FFFFF. All electronic
comments must be submitted as an
ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption.
Commenters should not submit any
confidential business information (CBI)
electronically. Commenters must submit
an original and two copies of CBI under
separate cover to: RCRA CBI Document
Control Officer, Office of Solid Waste
(5305W), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,
D.C. 20460.
Public comments and technical
background information are available
for viewing in the RCRA Information
Center (RIC), located on the first floor of
Crystal Gateway I, 1235 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA. The RIC is
open from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. To review docket materials, it
is recommended that an appointment be
made by calling (703) 603-9230. The
public may copy a maximum of 100
pages from the docket at no charge.
Additional copies are $0.15 per page.
The docket index and some technical
background information materials are
also available electronically.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ON THIS NOTICE
CALL: The RCRA Hotline. Callers within
the Washington Metropolitan Area must
dial 703-412-9810 or TDD 703-412-
3323 (hearing impaired). Long-distance
callers may call 1-800-424-9346 or
TDD 1-800-553-7672. The RCRA
Hotline operates weekdays, 9:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. eastern time. Send written
requests to: RCRA Information Center
(5305W), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC 20460.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Electronic Access
Background information materials for
this Notice are available on the Internet.
Follow the instructions below to access
these materials electronically:
WWW: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/
hazwaste/data/burdenreduction
FTP: ftp.epa.gov
Login: anonymous
Password: your Internet address
Files are located in /pub/epaoswer
The official record for this action will
be kept in paper form. Accordingly, we
will transfer all comments received
electronically to paper form and place
them in the official record. The official
record also will include all comments
submitted in writing.
Acronyms
ICR: Information Collection Request
LDR: Land Disposal Restrictions
LQG: Large Quantity Generator
NODA: Notice of Data Availability
OSHA: Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
OSW: Office of Solid Waste
PRA: Paperwork Reduction Act
RCRA: Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
TRI: Toxics Release Inventory
TSDF: Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Facility
Index of Notice
Glossary of Terms
I. Background and Purpose of NODA
A. What is RCRA?
B. What is recordkeeping and reporting
burden?
C. Why do we ask you to recordkeep and
report?
D: What are our goals for reducing
recordkeeping and reporting burden?
E. How is burden estimated?
F. What is an ICR?
G. What is the baseline for OSW paperwork
requirements?
H. What is the OSW Burden Reduction
Initiative?
I. What is in today's NODA?
J. What we would like you to do.
K. Information on burden reduction ideas
not in the NODA.
L. What happens after we receive
comments?
II. Major Burden Reduction Ideas
A. Should we allow facilities to submit all
information and keep records of all
information electronically?
B. Should we reduce reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for
generators and TSDFs?
C. Should we lengthen the periods between
facility self-inspections?
D. Should we change RCRA personnel
training requirements?
E. Should we streamline the LDR
paperwork requirements?
F. Should we reduce the amount of data
collected by the Biennial Report?
III. Other Burden Reduction Efforts Taking
Place in RCRA
A. Changes to the hazardous waste .
manifest.
B. Integrating the Biennial Report with the
Toxics Release Inventory
C. Other RCRA Initiatives
IV. Other Agency Burden Reduction
Initiatives
V. Technical Background Information
A. Is there a description of other burden
reduction ideas not in today's NODA?
-------
32860
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 117/Friday, June 18, 1999/Notices
B, What are the RCRA hazardous waste
reporting requirements?
C. What are the accounting changes for
EPA Information Collection Requests?
D, What are EPA burden hours?
Glossary of Terms:
Boilers/Industrial furnaces: An
enclosed device using controlled flame
combustion to accomplish recovery of
materials or energy.
Characteristic waste: A solid waste
that Is a hazardous waste because it
exhibits one or more of the following
hazardous characteristics: ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity.
EPA identification number: A number
assigned by EPA to each generator;
transporter; and treatment, storage, or
disposal facility, identification numbers
are facility-specific, except for the
transporter who has one for all his/her
operations.
Facility: All land and structures used
for treating, storing, or disposing of
hazardous waste. A facility may consist
of several treatment, storage, or disposal
units.
Generator: Any person whose process
produces a hazardous waste in excess of
100 kg/month or acutely hazardous
waste in excess of 1 kg/month, or whose
actions cause a hazardous waste to
become subject to regulation.
Groundwater: Water below the land
surface,
Hazardous waste: Includes solid
wastes that have not been excluded
from the definition of hazardous waste;
have been listed as hazardous wastes by
EPA; exhibit one or more characteristics
of hazardous waste; or have been mixed
with a hazardous waste.
Inspections: Owner/operators of
facilities must inspect their facilities for
malfunctions and deterioration, operator
errors, and discharges which may cause
of lead to releases of hazardous
constituents to the environment or a
threat to human health.
Land disposal: Includes placement in
a landfill, surface impoundment, waste
pile, injection well, land treatment
facility, salt dome formation, salt bed
formation, underground mine or cave,
or concrete vault or bunker intended for
disposal purposed.
Land Disposal Restrictions: Also
known as the land ban, these
restrictions prohibit any land disposal
of untreated hazardous wastes. Land
Disposal Restrictions establish treatment
standards that must be met prior to any
land application of hazardous wastes.
Listed waste: A waste is a listed as
hazardous based on the process from
which the waste was generated and/or
the constituents found in the waste.
Manifest: The paperwork that must
accompany a shipment of hazardous
waste as it moves from the generator to
the transporter and eventually to the
treatment, storage, or disposal facility.
Notification form: A form that notifies
regulators of hazardous waste
management activities at a facility.
Operator: The person responsible for
the overall operation of a facility.
Owner: The person who owns a
facility.
RCRA: The Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) was enacted
to protect human health and the
environment, and to conserve valuable
material and energy resources. The most
important aspect of RCRA is the
establishment of standards for the
management and tracking of waste from
generator to transporter to treatment,
storage, and disposal.
Permit: Lays out the legally
enforceable requirements that owners
and operators of hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities must comply with.
Recordkeeping and reporting
requirements: A generator, transporter,
or treatment, storage and disposal
facility must keep all data relating to
hazardous waste management units.
They must also file reports to EPA,
which become part of their operating
record.
Solid waste: Any garbage, refuse,
sludge, or other waste materials not
excluded by definition. Hazardous
waste is a subset of solid waste.
Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Facility: A facility that treats, stores,
and/or disposes of hazardous waste. »
Treatment: Any method, technique, or
process designed to change the physical,
chemical, or biological character or
composition of a hazardous waste to
neutralize it or recover energy or
material resources from the waste, or to
render the waste nonhazardous or less
hazardous.
Treatment standards: Standards that
hazardous wastes must meet prior to
land disposal.
I. Background and Purpose of Today's
NODA
A. What Is RCRA?
The Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) establishes a
program for controlling hazardous waste
from the time it is generated, through its
treatment and storage, until its ultimate
disposal. RCRA also establishes a
program for controlling nonhazardous
industrial solid waste and municipal
solid waste by encouraging states to
develop comprehensive plans to manage
these wastes, setting criteria for
municipal solid waste landfills and
other solid waste disposal facilities, and
prohibiting the open dumping of solid
waste. RCRA is implemented by EPA
and the states.
EPA's regulations implementing
RCRA are listed in Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (CFR). Within
Title 40, the hazardous waste
regulations are listed in Parts 260
through 279. The solid waste
regulations are listed in Title 40, Parts
240 through 258. In this NODA, we
often give the location of where you can
find specific regulations as 40 CFR, with
the specific part or parts listed afterward
(e.g., 40 CFR Part 264).
B. What Is Recordkeeping and Reporting
Burden?
Recordkeeping and reporting burden
includes information that EPA requires
or requests of you (the public, states,
and regulated community), and then is
reported to us and/or kept as records by
you.
C. Why Do We Ask You To Recordkeep
and Report?
We need information to ensure that
human health and the environment are
protected as required by RCRA. We can
require that you provide us with
information and/or that you keep
records of information under the
authority of RCRA. In addition, we
sometimes ask you to submit
information through voluntary surveys,
focus groups, and studies.
D. What Are Our Goals for Reducing
Recordkeeping and Reporting Burden?
To meet the federal government-wide
goal established by the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA), we are taking
steps to reduce recordkeeping and
reporting burden by 40 percent.
Recordkeeping and reporting burden
includes not only the time spent
submitting information to us (writing a
letter and putting it in the mail) or
keeping records (creating and
maintaining a filing system), but also
the time it takes to develop the
information (collecting data; organizing,
analyzing, and summarizing data;
writing reports; or filling out forms).
Burden covers information that we
require by regulation and the
information that we request you give us
voluntarily.
The PRA establishes a government-
wide goal of reducing the paperwork
burden to the .public by 40 percent from
the total amount of paperwork required
or requested from the public annually as
of September 30, 1995. The PRA allows
us to reduce paperwork burden in
stages: 25 percent by September 30,
1998, an additional 5 percent by
September 30, 1999, another 5 percent
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 117/Friday, June 18, 1999/Notices
32861
by September 30, 2000, and a final 5
percent by September 30, 2001.
E. How Is Burden Estimated?
We estimate the amount of time it
takes you to respond to our information
requests as follows: First, we list all of
the activities you as state employees,
members of the regulated community, or
private citizens undertake to collect,
organize, or otherwise develop the
information; report the information; or
keep it in your records. For each
activity, we then estimate the time it
takes an average respondent to complete
the information request, taking into
account differences such as facility size
or level of data complexity. Next, we
verify these estimates through
consultations with a small number of
respondents. Finally, these hour
estimates are multiplied by the number
of people or entities expected to
complete the information collection.
The results of these analyses are
published in Information Collection
Requests (ICRs).
F. What Is an ICR?
An Information Collection Request
(ICR) is a document summarizing our
estimates of paperwork burden for an
information collection. We have to
obtain approval from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) of the
ICR before we can collect any
information. Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, you (state employees,
members of the regulated community, or
private citizens) have an opportunity to
comment on the estimates in our ICRs
prior to our submitting them to OMB for
approval. After a 60-day public
comment period, we review and
incorporate, where appropriate, your
comments into our estimates.
OMB generally approves ICRs for a
three-year period. In order to continue
an information collection after this
period, we must renew the ICR with
OMB. ICR renewals follow the
procedures outlined above, including
consultations and public comment.
G. What Is the Baseline for OSW
Paperwork Requirements and What
Progress Has Been Made to Date in
Reducing It ?
On September 30, 1995, the
paperwork burden baseline for the
regulations OSW implements was
12,600,000 hours. To meet the
government-wide goal, we would have
to reduce this burden baseline by
5,040,000 hours to an annual total of
7,560,000 hours by September 30, 2001.
As of October 1, 1998, we achieved
burden reductions totaling nearly
2,000,000 hours or 16 percent. A chart
of all OSW burden hours is available in
the RCRA docket or on the Internet.
H. What Is the OSW Burden^Reduction
Initiative and^What Have We Done to
Date? ':' ^ "
The OSW Burden Reduction Initiative
grew out of workshops and round tables
for reinventing the RCRA regulations,
such as the Land Disposal Roundtable
we sponsored in July 1998. Over the last
two years, we reviewed all of the OSW
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements and developed ideas for
eliminating or streamlining them. After
obtaining input from within EPA and a.
limited number of state experts, we
developed today's NODA to seek
broader input on the ideas. The goal of
the Burden Reduction Initiative is to
reduce paperwork while maintaining a
protective OSW program.
I. What Is in Today's NODA? .
In today's NODA, we present our
major burden reduction ideas. We also
reference other smaller ideas, which are
available in the RCRA Docket and on
the Internet. And, we mention other
ongoing burden reduction efforts so you
can gain an understanding of our overall
burden reduction strategy.
If all of the burden reductions ideas
presented in today's NODA and the
background documents were
implemented, we would achieve burden
reductions that would allow us to meet
our 40 percent goal. We estimate these
ideas add up to 3.3 million hours,
which is about a 40% overall reduction
in burden. Note that this figure does not
include savings from accounting
changes, which are discussed at the end
of the NODA. Also, in calculating this
figure, we made sure that we were not
double-counting any burden reduction
savings from the multiple ideas.
Some of the ideas presented-today are
controversial, and we may not
necessarily go forward with each idea in
a rulemaking. However, we do expect to
go forward with many of them. As
discussed throughout today's NODA,
your input will help us decide which
areas are the best candidates to pursue
in a later rulemaking. Please note that
today's Notice does not change any
existing recordkeeping and reporting
requirements—they remain effective
and are enforceable.
/. What We Would Like You To Do
After reviewing today's NODA and
the background information, we would
like you to comment on: the positive
and negative impacts of the burden
reduction ideas; whether they would
reduce burden as we have estimated;
and other ideas for reducing RCRA
burden, both in areas covered by this
NODA and any others.
K. Information on Burden Reduction
Ideas Not in the NODA
You can find on the Internet at:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/
hazwaste/data/burdenreduction a
document entitled "Burden Reduction
Ideas" which lists some additional
burden reduction ideas not in the
NODA. This document is a chart that
lists each idea, its ICR number(s) and
regulatory citation(s), its baseline
burden hour estimate, and an estimate
of the burden savings that might be
achieved if it were implemented.
L. What Happens After We Receive Your
Comments?
After reviewing comments received,
we will issue a proposed rulemaking to
implement a number of these burden
reduction ideas. We will consider your
comments and suggestions, and will
probably do supplemental analyses on
some of the ideas. The proposed
rulemaking that follows this NODA will
present more complete rationales for
changes we are considering to existing
requirements.
H. Our Major Burden Reduction Ideas
For the ideas presented below, we
summarize our existing policies on the
issue, discuss possible changes, and
highlight areas you might want to
comment on. Comments are of course
welcome on any and all aspects of the
discussion below.
A. Should We Allow Facilities To
Submit All Information and Keep All
Records of In formation Electronically?
Existing Policies for Electronic
Reporting and Recordkeeping
EPA has been working to introduce
electronic reporting and recordkeeping
into our programs. In the short term, our
goal is to eliminate the cost to industry
and government of using paper to
transfer data and eliminate the errors
and delays involved in keystroking
reports into databases. Our longer term
goal is to use electronic reporting as a
tool for streamlining and automating the
exchanges of data among industry,
environmental agencies, and the public.
To accomplish these goals, we are
developing guidelines and have
convened workgroups to ensure that we
develop consistent and effective
electronic reporting and recordkeeping
programs across all program offices.
In the RCRA program, we are
exploring ways to increase electronic
reporting and recordkeeping. While we
have no RCRA-wide policy on this
subject, we have made strides in some
-------
32862
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 117/Friday, June 18, 1999/Notices
areas. For example, on November 2,
1996, we wrote an interpretive letter to
the company Safety-Kleen saying that
they can store electronic image files of
manifests instead of keeping paper
copies. We also recently initiated a pilot
project to test the feasibility of using
Electronic Data Interchange and the
Internet to automate manifesting
activities. In this pilot, users will
prepare, transmit and keep copies of a
digitally signed electronic manifest. The
pilot is scheduled to be completed by
September 1999 and will be evaluated
by EPA as part of a manifest revisions
proposed rule. We are also heavily
promoting electronic reporting for the
Biennial Report.
Possible Changes to Our Policies for
Electronic Reporting and Recordkeeping
We are evaluating whether to develop
an across-the-board policy whereby you
could electronically report and keep
records of RCRA-required documents so
long as you meet some conditions, such
as ensuring data integrity in storage and
that the documents are readily available
during inspections. This would mean
that you would not have to keep paper
copies of any RCRA records, unless you
prefer to do so. In some cases, this
policy would mean that we would have
to upgrade our data management
systems. We will not be able to do this
Immediately, but over time we could
move to a primarily electronic system
for RCRA, while maintaining paper
capability for those parties who cannot
or will not go to electronic reporting.
Questions/Comments
We want comment on whether
electronic reporting and recordkeeping
should be allowed across-the-board, or
whether it should be limited to specific
areas. In addition, please comment on
the enforceability of electronic
signatures (we especially want comment
from state agencies who would be
implementing the requirements), the
accessibility of electronic records during
inspections, and how easy it would be
for companies to submit electronically.
Also comment on whetiier you would
see any burden or cost savings from
electronic reporting and recordkeeping.
In addition, please comment on
whether the costs of automation such as
obtaining a computer, software, and on-
line provider outweigh these cost
savings. Even though the electronic
submissions would be voluntary, we
need to understand how many parties
are likely to pursue electronic
submissions to help us decide what
resources we should be committing to
this area.
B. Should EPA Reduce Reporting
Requirements for Generators and
Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Facilities (TSDFs)?
Existing Reporting Requirements
We receive more than 300
notifications, reports, certifications,
demonstrations, and plans from
generators and TSDFs in order to show
compliance with the RCRA regulations,
as well as applications for extensions,
permits, variances, and exemptions.
Generators and TSDFs must notify us of
their regulated waste activities and
TSDFs must submit information such as
ground-water quality reports, closure
and post-closure certifications, and Part
A permit applications. These reporting
requirements are in 40 CFR Parts 262,
264, 265, 266, 268, 270.
Possible Changes to Reporting
Requirements/Agency Analyses and
Data
We are evaluating whether we should
continue to require facilities to submit
all this information. We would still
require facilities to develop and
maintain the required information.
Rather than submitting the required
information to EPA, however, it would
be kept on-site.
We believe that not requiring facilities
to submit this information will save
them time and money. Receiving less
information would also reduce our data
management and administrative burden.
We have developed a list of all of the
reporting requirements that apply to
generators and TSDFs, and the burden
for each of these activities. This list is
available in the RCRA Information
Center and on the Internet at: http://
www. epa. go v/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/
burdenreduction.
Please be aware that we believe some
notices to be high priority (to ensure
compliance with regulations), and do
not plan on eliminating the requirement
that they be sent to EPA. Below are
some of the notices we will keep:
• 40 CFR Parts 264.143, 145 and
265.143, 145 requirements that facilities
submit financial assurance information
or updates of financial assurance
information. Allowing facilities to
maintain this information on site only
rather than sending it to EPA will
increase the likelihood that facilities
will not obtain adequate financial
assurance for closure or corrective
action.
• 40 CFRParts 262.12; 263.11;
264.11; 265.11; and 266.70 requirements
that facilities notify us of their legal
owner. This information is needed to
identify responsible parties in
enforcement cases.
• 40 CFR Part 264.12 requirement
that TSDFs notify generators that they
1 have appropriate permits. Eliminating
this requirement would shift the burden
of proof to the Agency .when we attempt
to bring an action against a generator
that ships waste to an unpermitted
TSDF.
• 40 CFRParts 264.12; 265.12 transfer
of ownership requirements. These
requirements help ensure that the buyer
is fully aware of its RCRA obligations
and increases the likelihood that the
new owner will be in compliance with
RCRA.
• 40 CFR Part 268.7(a) generator
notification requirements. This tracking
requirement is essential for federal
regulators to ensure that the correct
information is placed on file at the
waste generating facility and is provided
to the receiving facility, and allows us
to monitor what happens to hazardous
waste from generation to treatment.
• 40 CFR Part 268.7(b)(3)-(b)(4)
treatment facility notifications. This
tracking requirement is essential for
federal regulators to ensure that the
correct information is placed on file at
the facility and is provided to the waste
disposal facility, and to allow us to
monitor what happens to hazardous
waste.
• 40 CFR Part 268.9 characteristic
waste notifications. Maintaining this
notice and supporting information is
important because once the waste has
been decharacterized it can be land
disposed in a nonhazardous landfill. An
inspector will not know where this
waste was sent for treatment or disposal
without this notice because the
receiving facility is out of RCRA
jurisdiction. Therefore, this information
is critical to maintain the RCRA cradle-
to-grave tracking process.
• 40 CFR part 264.1036—RCRA air
regulations subpart AA reporting
requirements are used to determine
compliance.
• 40 CFR part 264.1065—RCRA air
regulations subpart BB reporting
requirements are used to determine
compliance.
• 40 CFR part 264.1090—RCRA air
regulations subpart CC reporting
requirements are used to determine
compliance.
• 40 CFR Parts 262.12, 263.11,264.11
notification of regulated waste activity.
This is a basic requirement to inform us
of who is generating and managing
hazardous waste.
Questions/Comments
By identifying these high priority
notices, we are asking whether the
remaining paperwork imposed by
existing regulations has to be sent to us.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 117/Friday, June 18, 1999/Notices
32863
The notices highlighted above are, in
our opinion, necessary to properly
ensure compliance. The other nearly
300 notices, however, may not be
absolutely necessary, and simple
recordkeeping onsite may suffice. We
recognize that opinions will vary on
how we should decide which notices to
keep and thus welcome comments on a
methodology for deciding what to drop
and what to keep.
We are also interested in learning
what impact there may be on the
environment, human health, and worker
health and safety if this information
were not required to be submitted to
EPA. In addition, we would like to
know if this proposal would relieve the
public and regulated community of
significant burden.
To help you evaluate which of these
notices and other documents are
necessary to be submitted to us, we have
developed some criteria, such as notices
necessary for:
• Hazardous Waste Program
Evaluation: These are items collected to
measure the success of programs in
protecting human health and the
environment. They could include
corrective action reports.
• Hazardous Waste Program
Implementation: This is information
collected to help us develop regulations
and policies. This could include the
biennial report and assurances of
financial responsibility for corrective
action.
• Enforcement: These items are
necessary for the enforcement of
environmental regulations. For example,
the requirement that hazardous waste
generators and transporters notify us of
their legal owner provides us with
information needed to identify
responsible parties in enforcement
cases.
• Required by statute: These are
information items we must collect
according to the RCRA statute, such as
the hazardous waste reports under
RCRA Section 3002.
C. Should We Lengthen the Periods
Between Facility Self-Inspections?
Existing Self-Inspection Requirements
RCRA regulations require large
quantity generators and treatment,
storage and disposal facilities to inspect
their facilities to ensure that they are
operating in compliance with RCRA
requirements. The regulations include
both facility-wide and specific types of
unit and equipment inspection
standards. Some of RCRA's inspection
requirements specify a frequency with
which inspections must be conducted.
For example, an owner of a container
storage area must inspect it at least
weekly, while an owner of a tank must
inspect it daily. You can(find RCRA's
inspection requirements throughout the
regulations, but mostly in 40 CFR Parts
264 and 265. :;
Inspections are a vital component of
an effective regulatory system. We also
recognize that some facilities may have
very good facility management practices
and might be able to inspect less
frequently without sacrificing human
health and environmental protection.
Possible Changes to. the Inspection
Requirements ,
We are evaluating whether to revise
RCRA's inspection requirements by
lengthening the time between
inspections. We believe that some
facilities might have controls in place
that could let us reduce the frequency
of inspections; this could possibly be
established on a case-by-case basis.
These special inspection schedules
might be worked out during facility
permitting, and/or we might put a
special variance in the regulations
under which we could allow less
frequent inspections. We are also
considering a variable implementation
schedule, where for example, larger tank
inspection frequency would remain the
same, while smaller tanks would be
inspected less frequently. And, we are
considering a phased schedule where
facility inspection might go from daily
to weekly to biweekly, if no problems
arise.
Questions/Comments
We would like comment on whether
we should lengthen any of RCRA's
inspection frequencies, on the extent to
which such an action would reduce
burden, and whether this would impact
human health and the environment.
Also, you might suggest mechanisms
such as variances and waivers that we
could use to allow a less frequent
schedule, and what should be involved
in such mechanisms, such as public
input. If you are opposed to the idea of
lengthening inspection frequencies,
please explain your concerns.
D. Should We Change RCRA Personnel
Training Requirements?
Existing RCRA Requirements for
Personnel Training
RCRA regulations require large
quantity generators (LQGs) and
treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities (TSDFs) to train their
employees on how to perform their jobs
in a way that ensures the facility's
compliance with RCRA requirements
(see 40 CFR 262.34(a)(4) for LQGs and
40 CFR 264.16 for TSDFs).
The training program must ensure
that employees are able to respond to
emergencies by familiarizing them with
emergency procedures, equipment, and
systems, and must include introductory
and refresher courses and be taught by
a qualified trainer. Employees must
complete the program within six
months after being hired or assigned to
a new position at the facility. LQGs and
TSDFs must keep updated information
on employees, job descriptions, and the
type of training that facility personnel
have received. Training records on
current personnel must be kept until
closure of the facility.
Possible Changes to RCRA Personnel
Training Requirements
We are evaluating two alternatives for
changing the RCRA personnel training
requirements. Alternative 1 would keep
the requirements for personnel training
under RCRA the same. However, we
would eliminate all associated
recordkeeping. Alternative 2 would
eliminate the RCRA personnel training
requirements that we believe overlap
with Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) training
requirements.
Alternative 1: Eliminate
Recordkeeping for RCRA Personnel
Training.
We are evaluating eliminating all
recordkeeping associated with RCRA
personnel training and replacing it with
a one-time certification that all
employees have been properly trained..
Under this'approach, we would
maintain the Section 264.16(a)-(c)
requirements and eliminate paragraph
(d), replacing it with the certification.
We would like comment on whether a
certification would be sufficient to
verify that employees have received
proper training.
Alternative 2: Replace RCRA
Personnel Training Requirements that
overlap OSHA Training Requirements.
We believe that some RCRA personnel
training requirements overlap with
OSHA's requirements for health and
safety training (see 29 CFR 1910.120 for
some of OSHA's training requirements).
For example, both regulatory programs
require that facility personnel be trained
in emergency response.
We are evaluating whether to
eliminate RCRA requirements that may
duplicate OSHA's. For requirements
that overlap, we could just reference the
OSHA requirements, or simply
eliminate the entire set of RCRA
requirements. We would work-closely
with OSHA if we did this. We have
prepared a document that is in the
-------
32864
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 117/Friday, June 18, 1999/Notices
RCRA Information Center and on the
Internet which provides information on
what we believe to be overlapping
requirements.
Questions/Comments
We would like comment on whether
we should eliminate all recordkeeping
for RCRA personnel training, or all
training and recordkeeping that
duplicates OSHA's. Please let us know
if and where you believe the RCRA and
OSHA training programs are duplicative
for LQGs and TSDFs. In addition, please
comment on whether the RCRA
regulations require training beyond the
scope of OSHA's training and whether
their elimination would impact human
health or the environment.
E. Should We Streamline the LDR
Paperwork Requirements?
Existing LDR Paperwork Requirements
The Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
are a major component of the RCRA
program. In addition to establishing
treatment standards for hazardous waste
prior to land disposal, Part 268 requires
generators and TSDFs to determine if
their waste needs to be treated before
land disposal, and requires-notices and/
or certifications to be sent with the
waste shipments to TSDFs. Generators
and TSDFs must keep records of their
waste determinations, notifications,
certifications, and other paperwork for
three years.
The LDR paperwork requirements
account for nearly one-third of all the
burden for the RCRA program. Since the
, passage of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, we have reduced LDR paperwork
substantially—particularly with the May
12, 1997 Land Disposal Restrictions ,
rule. Before this rule, generators and
treaters that sent their hazardous waste
offsite had to send a notification with
each shipment of waste. This rule
changed these requirements so that the
notification need only be sent with the
initial waste shipment, so long as the
waste and the receiving facility
remained unchanged. This paperwork
change resulted in a savings of
1,630,000 burden hours annually. We
are now evaluating the LDR paperwork
requirements for even more burden
reduction.
Based on our review of the LDR
paperwork requirements, as well as
conversations with the regulated
community, we believe that some of the
Part 268 requirements for waste
determinations, notifications, and
certifications could be reduced or
eliminated altogether. We have
summarized these requirements as they
currently exist in the following
paragraphs:
Section 268.7(a) Generator
Paperwork Requirements.
Hazardous waste generators must
determine if their waste meets the
applicable LDR treatment standards.
They may either test the waste or use
their knowledge of it to make the
determination (268.7(a)(l)). If the waste
does not meet the applicable standards,
the generator must send a one-time
notification to the treatment facility
indicating this. And, when the waste
does meets the treatment standards, the
generator must also send a one-time
certification with the initial shipment.
These one-time notifications and
certifications must be placed in the
generator's files. No further notification
is required, except if the waste or
receiving facility changes, in which case
a new notification must be sent and a
copy placed in the generator's files
(268.7(a)(2)-(3)). Generators must keep
copies of all waste determinations,
notifications and certifications for at
least three years (268.7(a)(8)).
Section 268.7(b) Treatment Facility
Paperwork Requirements.
Treatment facilities must test their
waste according to the frequencies
established in their waste analysis plans
to determine whether their waste
complies with applicable LDR treatment
standards (268.7(b)(l)-(2)). In addition,
treatment facilities must send a one-
time notice to the disposal facility that
provides specified information on the
waste. The treatment facility must also
send a one-time certification to the
disposal facility that the treatment
technology used was operated properly.
No further notification or certification is
required, except if the waste or
receiving facility changes, in which case
a new notification and certification
must be sent and a copy placed in the
treatment facility's files (268.7(b)(3)-
(4)). Where a waste is a recyclable
material used in a manner constituting
disposal (and meets other criteria), the
treatment facility/recycler need not
notify the receiving facility. It still must
send a notice and certification with each
shipment to EPA. It must also keep
records of who received the hazardous
waste-derived product (268.7(b)(6)).
Section 268.7'(d) Paperwork
Requirements for Hazardous Debris.
Generators or treatment facilities who
claim that their hazardous debris is
excluded from the definition of a
hazardous waste, such as debris treated
by a specified extraction or destruction
technology, must send a one-time
notification to EPA and keep a copy in
their files. The notification must be
updated under specified circumstances
such as if the waste is shipped to a
different facility. In addition, treatment
facilities must certify compliance with
the treatment standards by keeping
specified records such as inspections
and, for each shipment of treated debris,
place a signed certification of
compliance in their files.
Section 268.9 Paperwork
Requirements for Characteristic Waste.
Generators of characteristic hazardous
wastes must determine the underlying
hazardous constituents (268.2(i)) in
their characteristic waste. They may
either test the waste or use knowledge
of it to make the determination.
(268.7(a)(l)). Generators or treatment
facilities who treat their characteristic
hazardous wastes to meet the treatment
standards at 40 CFR Section 268.48 and
render the waste non-hazardous must
place a one-time notification and
certification in their files. They must
also send a copy to EPA. The generator
or treatment facility must update the
notification and certification in their
files if the operation generating the
waste changes and/or if the facility
receiving the waste changes. The
generator or treatment facility must
update EPA on an annual basis if such
changes occur.
Possible Changes to LDR Paperwork
Requirements
We are evaluating the following
changes to the LDR program:
Change 1: Eliminate 268.7(a)(l)
Generator Waste Determinations.
We are assessing whether a separate
waste determination under 268.7(a) is
needed. Currently, generators are
required to determine whether they
have a hazardous waste under section
262.11. And, treaters are required to
obtain a detailed chemical and physical
analysis under section 264.13, which
provides all the information required to
comply with Part 268. Under section
268.40, hazardous waste is prohibited
from land disposal unless it meets the
requirements in the Table of Treatment
Standards (which requires knowledge of
EPA hazardous waste code, waste
constituents, wastewater and
nonwastewater classification, and
treatability group).
We believe that the section 262.11
waste determination, along with the
determinations required under sections
264.13 and 268.40, would be-sufficient
to assure that a waste is properly
characterized for achieving compliance
with the LDRs. In addition, we believe
that a TSDF may continue to use
generator-supplied information, if
available, to meet 264.13 and 269.40
obligations, even if the waste
determination requirement under 268.7
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 117/Friday, June 18, 1999/Notices
32865
is removed. Therefore, we are
considering whether the 268.7 (a) waste
determination should be eliminated.
Change 2: Eliminate 268.7(b)(6)
Recycler Notifications and
Certifications.
We believe it may be unnecessary for
treatment facilities or recyclers to send
these notifications'and certifications to
EPA, as long as the information
contained in them is kept in facility
records. We note that this kind of
reporting relief is not new to the RCRA
program. RCRA regulations currently
allow waste handlers making a claim (or
taking other action) to keep records on
site and not submit them. For example,
under 261.2(f), a person can accumulate
materials before recycling without being
subject to RCRA if it can be proved that
the materials are potentially recyclable
and have a feasible means of being
recycled. Submittal of this proof is not
required.
Change 3: Eliminate 268.7(d)
Hazardous Debris Notifications.
We believe it may be unnecessary for
generators and treaters of excluded
debris to send these notifications to
EPA, as long as the information
contained in them is kept in facility
records. Our reasoning is set out in
Change 2 above.
Change 4: Eliminate 268.9(a)
Characteristic Waste Determinations
and Streamline 268.9(d) Notification
Procedures.
We are reconsidering whether a
separate waste determination under
268.9(a) is needed. Generators are
required to determine whether they
have a hazardous waste under section
262.11. Treaters are required to obtain a
detailed chemical and physical analysis
under section 264.13 which provides all
information required to comply with
Part 268 (among other requirements).
And under section 268.40, hazardous
waste is prohibited from land disposal
unless it meets the requirements in the
Table of Treatment Standards (which
requires knowledge of the EPA
hazardous characteristic waste code,
underlying hazardous constituents,
wastewater and nonwastewater
classification, and treatability group).
We believe that the section 262.11
waste determination, along with the
determinations required under sections
264.13 and 268.40, would be sufficient
to assure a waste is properly
characterized for achieving compliance
with the LDRs. Therefore, we are
considering whether the 268.9(a) waste
determination should be eliminated.
Under section 268.9(d), once a
characteristic waste is treated so it is no
longer characteristic, a one-time
notification and certification must be
placed in the generators' or treaters' files
and sent to EPA. We are,Devaluating
whether these records need to be sent to
EPA when they are required,to be kept
on site in the facility's files. Our
reasoning is set qut in Change 2 above.
Comments/Questions
We are soliciting comment on
whether we should modify any of these
LDR requirements for waste
determinations or notifications. Please
let us know if the contemplated
modifications would eliminate
information waste handlers need to
manage wastes properly. And, please let
us know if the reduced tracking
requirements would weaken waste
handlers' accountability.
F. Should We Reduce Amount of Data
Collected by the Biennial Report?
Existing Reporting Requirements for the
Biennial Report
RCRA requires hazardous waste
generators and TSDFs to submit a report
every other year on the quantity,
composition, and disposition of
hazardous wastes they generate or
receive for treatment, storage, or
disposal. Congress required that these
reports be submitted to EPA or an
authorized state.
To implement these provisions, we
issued the Biennial Report regulations
for large quantity generators and TSDFs,
which are found in 40 CFR 262.41,
264.75, and 265.75. Generators and
TSDFs must submit the Biennial Report
forms by March 1 of every even
numbered year for their hazardous
waste activities in the previous (odd
numbered) year. Through these forms
and their instructions, we tell generators
and TSDFs what information they
should provide.
Over the years, we have changed the
Biennial Report forms and instructions.
For example, in the 1997 Biennial
Report, we eliminated the entire Waste
Treatment, Disposal, or Recycling
Process System (PS) form and the waste
minimization questions. In doing so, we
decreased the amount of burden
associated with the Biennial Report.
Possible Changes to the Biennial Report
We are evaluating whether we should
revise the Biennial Report forms and
instructions to further reduce burden.
Potentially, these changes could be
implemented for the 2001 Biennial
Report cycle.
Change 1: Remove Optional Data
Elements from the Current BRS Forms.
The current Biennial Report forms
include data elements required by EPA
and those that are optionally reported
by respondents. These optional
elements include state hazardous waste
code, SIC code, origin code, source
code, point of measurement, and form
code. We are evaluating whether to
remove some or all of these optional
data elements from the Biennial Report
forms. Since not all respondents
complete the optional elements, we
have incomplete information in our
national database for these elements. We
have proposed eliminating these
elements before, and have received
mixed feedback from states and the
regulated community.
Change 2: Eliminate Reporting of
RCRA Hazardous Wastes That Are
Managed in Units Exempt From RCRA
Permitting.
Currently, the Biennial Report covers
all hazardous wastes that are generated
by LQGs and managed by TSDFs.
However, many RCRA hazardous
wastestreams are managed in units that
are subject to other environmental laws,
such as the Clean Water Act and the
Safe Drinking Water Act. These
particular waste streams are typically
high volume industrial wastewaters. We
are considering whether to continue
asking for the reporting of any
wastewater or nonwastewater
wastestream managed in exempt units
in future Biennial Reports. We have also
proposed this idea before, and received
mixed feedback.
Questions/Comments
We would like to know how you use
Biennial Report data. We would also
like comments on these and other
possible changes to the Biennial Report.
We want to know what impacts these
changes might have on how your facility
would be characterized, as well as the
characterization of your waste streams.
Would hazardous waste generation and
management data collected through a
data set that excluded hazardous wastes
managed in units exempt from RCRA
permitting meet the needs of Biennial
Report users? Would Biennial Report
data that does not have optional data
elements be useful? Conversely, if
optional data elements are retained,
how will that affect the usefulness and
quality of the data for analysis? As with
other sections in today's NODA, do you
have additional ideas for reducing
burden associated with the Biennial
Report?
HI. What Other Burden Reduction
Efforts Are Taking Place in RCRA
In addition to the proposals listed in
today's NODA, there are other efforts in
EPA to identify and streamline RCRA
paperwork requirements. Because these
projects are being conducted as separate
-------
32866
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 117/Friday, June 18, 1999/Notices
efforts from this particular burden
reduction project, we are not seeking
detailed comments on them in this
Notice, except for the BRS/TRI
integration idea.
A. Changes to the Hazardous Waste
Manifest
Existing Manifest Requirements
RCRA directs us to develop a manifest
system to ensure that offsite shipments
of hazardous waste arrive at a
designated treatment, storage, or
disposal facility. The manifest system
requirements are in 40 CFR Parts 262,
263, 264, and 265. Under Part 262,
hazardous waste generators generally
must complete a manifest for each
shipment of hazardous waste offsite.
The manifest consists of a minimum of
four copies to facilitate recordkeeping
by multiple parties. Generators must
keep a copy of the manifest signed by
the transporter and, subsequently, by
the designated TSDF who must return a
copy to the generator. Part 263 requires
hazardous waste transporters to sign
and date the manifest at pickup, carry
it to the designated TSDF, and keep a
copy. Parts 264 and 265 require
designated TSDFs to sign and date the
manifest, note any significant
discrepancies, return a copy to the
generator, and keep a copy.
Proposed Changes to Manifest System
Based on recent analyses, we estimate
that waste handlers take about 4.2
million hours each year to comply with
EPA and State manifesting
requirements. We are evaluating
modifications to the manifest system
which could substantially reduce this
burden, including:
Modifying the manifest form.
We are considering further
standardizing the manifest form and
allowing generators to obtain the form
from multiple sources. We are also
thinking about ways to reduce the
burden associated with a generator's
waste minimization certification
requirements.
Providing manifesting relief to
utilities.
Electric and gas utilities have told us
they have difficulty complying with
some of the manifest procedures at their
remote sites (such as substations and
manholes). We are evaluating whether
to streamline manifesting procedures for
these sites.
Allowing automation of manifesting
activities.
We are considering standards to
enable industry to automate their
manifesting. To study this, we
developed the Hazardous Waste
Manifest Automation Pilot Project,
which is looking at both Electronic Data
Interchange (EDI) and the Internet as
mechanisms for automation. We have
tested EDI with waste handlers and
hazardous waste agencies in three
states. Generators initiated the EDI
manifests from their personal computers
and transmitted them through a network
to transporters, waste management
facilities, and state agencies. Each
facility signed their manifests with a
unique identification number. Plans for
the rest of 1999 include testing a digital
signature in an EDI system and testing
use of the Internet to transmit manifests.
Addressing other technical concerns.
We are also evaluating improvements
to other areas of the manifest system.
These include reducing inconsistencies
between EPA and DOT shipping
requirements and improving the
tracking of problem shipments such as
rejected loads and container residues.
If adopted, these changes could result
in 600,000 hours of burden reduction.
These changes are scheduled to be
published in a proposed rule in June
2000.
B. Is There a Way To Decrease Burden
Reduction of Biennial Reporting System
(BRS) Through Integration With the
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)?
An area for potential burden
reduction that comes up frequently is
minimizing the overlap of reporting
requirements for facilities that file both
the Biennial Report and the Toxic
Release Inventory. EPA is aware of the
differences between these two
information systems, including the
universe covered, the frequency of
reporting, what is reported, and the
definition of facilities. However, a 1995
study of facilities showed that 43% of
facilities reporting under BRS also
reported to TRI and these facilities
produced over 90% of the hazardous
waste volumes reported to BRS. With
recent changes to TRI, the percentage of
BRS facilities that also report to TRI are
expected to be even higher. Given this
overlap, EPA believes it should assess
burden reduction opportunities in this
area. Comment is requested on the
following ideas:
Change 1: Pre-population of
electronic forms with redundant data
elements.
Some burden reduction may be
achieved by ensuring that similar data
elements are uniformly defined so that
an electronic reporting format for pre-
populating a facility's TRI report with
similar data elements from that facility's
BRS submission (or a BRS submission
with TRI data) could be implemented.
These include the name of the facility,
street and mailing addresses of the
facility, contact names and telephone
numbers, SIC Code, and EPA ID
Number.
Change 2: Eliminate Biennial
Reporting for wastes covered under TRI.
Studies have shown that facilities
which report under the Biennial Report
and also report to the Toxics Release
Inventory are likely generating 90% of
the wastes that are reported to BRS.
Although BRS collects data on
hazardous waste quantities and not the
toxic chemical quantities reported to
TRI, we are studying ways to match
hazardous waste streams with the
chemicals reporting in TRI. To the
extent these matches can be made
clearly and accurately, we could
potentially eliminate whole categories
of hazardous waste from being reported
in the Biennial Report.
Change 3: Limit the Biennial Report to
100 top generators; rely on TRI for other
RCRA facilities.
A small number of facilities are
responsible for the majority of the waste
reported in BRS. This option would
require the top 100 (or some other
number) facilities as measured by waste
volume reported to BRS to continue
reporting under BRS. No other facilities
would have to report to BRS. All of
these other facilities who reported to
TRI in the past would still report to TRI
in this option.
Note that only facilities in certain
North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS—the
replacement for SIC) codes are required
to report under TRI. Under this option,
many generators who now report under
BRS would not be required to report
under TRI. This would include business
services (NAICS 5414), automotive
repair and services (NAICS 8111),
health services (NAICS 621), national
security (NAICS 928), and wholesale/
retail trade sectors. Furthermore, under
this option, we would no longer obtain
information on off-site waste shipments,
since this is not covered in TRI.
Change 4: Collect all information
under TRI.
Under this option, the TRI form
would be modified to take data elements
currently only collected in BRS, such as
waste code description, waste code
number, RCRA permitting information
and put them on the TRI form. There
would be no more Biennial Report. The
TRI reporting universe would remain
the same under this option.
EPA is aware that these options could
pose concerns to both states and the
regulated community, especially given
the investments that have been made in
BRS. We welcome comment on impacts
should any of these options be
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 117/Friday, June 18, 1999/Notices
32867
implemented, and whether they would
reduce the paperwork burden on the
public and regulated community.
C. Other RCRA Initiatives
We are not taking comments on the
following initiatives. They are being
presented for informational purposes.
• EPA and the States have recognized
the need to reassess the information
collected and managed to implement
the RCRA hazardous waste program. To
meet this need, the Waste Information
Needs (WIN) Initiative was established
to plan for and implement necessary
information management changes. One
of the key principles of the WIN
Initiative is to identifying opportunities
for reducing' reporting burden.
The Initiative is evaluating what
information is needed to implement and
manage the hazardous waste program.
Once these needs have been identified,
the Initiative will determine what
information should be available in a
national database. The project has five
phases: Planning, analysis, design,
construction, and implementation.
Currently the project is in the analysis
and design phases.
For the analysis phase we divided the
hazardous waste program into five
areas, which are called Program Area
Analyses (PAA). Three PAAs are active:
—Program Evaluation: The information
needed to plan and evaluate the
hazardous waste program against its
goals and objectives.
—Universe Identification: Who is
regulated and what we need to know
to categorize and track them.
—Waste Activity Monitoring: The
information needed on
characterization, generation,
movement, and management of
hazardous wastes.
More information on the WIN/
INFORMED Initiative is available on the
Internet at: http://www.eps.gov/
epaoswer/hazwaste/data.
• EPA is drafting streamlined
permitting procedures for facilities that
generate hazardous waste and manage it
on-site in tanks, containers, or
containment buildings. We expect a
proposed rule on this subject to be
published this summer.
• EPA proposed in a rulemaking in
February of this year to allow generators
of the RCRA hazardous waste F006
(wastewater treatment sludges from
electroplating) up to 180 days (or 270
days, if applicable) accumulation time
without obtaining a hazardous waste
storage permit or interim status if
certain conditions are met. This is an
extension by 90 days of the time period
to store hazardous waste without a
permit.
• EPA is working to streamline RCRA
Appendix VIII of 40 CFRJ261. This is a
list of over 480 chemicals used to define
hazardous wasteas welLas^the
constituents which must'"be"monitored
during waste treatment. To reduce the
burden to Appendix VIII users, EPA is
reconfiguring and modifying Appendix
VIII entries based on the probability of
occurrence of certain constituents in
particular types of waste.
• A number of years ago, we
reexamined the regulatory standards for
used oil handlers. We decided to
remove used oil handlers entirely from
the hazardous waste regulatory realm. .
They are now covered under their own
regulatory authority, which provides
hazardous waste regulatory-level
environmental protection with a much
lower level of reporting and record
keeping. At the time these standards
were established, EPA learned that most
of the recordkeeping requirements
established in the new regulatory
scheme were already standard industry
practices. Because substantial changes
have already been implemented by this
program, we have not included any
used oil ideas in today's Notice. '
• Likewise, a number of years ago we
reexamined the regulations governing
the collection and management of
universal waste—batteries, thermostats,
and certain pesticides. We decided to
reduce the reporting requirements for
these wastes at that time. For example,
Biennial Report requirements do not
apply to large quantity and small
quantity handlers of universal waste,
and a manifest is not required to
accompany off-site shipments.
• The Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards has enacted burden
reduction for the RCRA air regulations
(40 CFR Parts 264 and 265 subparts AA:
Process vents, BB:Equipment leaks, and
CC: Tanks, surface impoundments,
containers, and miscellaneous units).
This eliminated much of the overlap
between the RCRA air regulations and
the Clean Air Act standards. Now
TSDFs and large quantity generators can
demonstrate compliance with the RCRA
air regulations by simply documenting
that affected units are operating with air
emission controls that are in accordance
with applicable Clean Air Act standards
under 40 CFR 60, 61, or 63.
For any RCRA unit in compliance
with such Clean Air Act regulations,
these provisions would reduce the
reporting and record keeping burden of
the RCRA air regulations by nearly
100%. EPA is currently in the process
of quantifying the burden reduction
savings of these provisions.1 We expect
that the majority of large-quantity
generators and TSDFs are subject to one
or more regulations under 40 CFR 60, 61
or 63. In addition to these compliance
exemptions, EPA has also published
other amendments to the Subparts AA,
BB and CC air regulations that
significantly reduce reporting and
record keeping.
IV. What Are Other Agency Burden
Reduction Initiatives?
We are not taking comments on the.
following initiatives. They are being
presented for informational purposes.
• The Agency's The Next Generation
in Permitting Plan, which was
announced in February of this year,
combines permitting system
improvements underway in the
individual program offices (such as
hazardous waste, air, and water) with
improvements developed by an Agency
workgroup. The goal is to increase
flexibility, encourage pollution
reduction, improve public participation
in permitting decisions, and reduce
paperwork burden.
• The different designs of Agency
information collection systems have
caused facilities to be identified
inconsistently across program offices.
This makes it difficult to link and
analyze all the information collected by
EPA. The Agency's Facility
Identification Initiative hopes to
standardize identification information
for all facilities subject to federal
environmental reporting requirements.
• The One Stop Reporting Program's
mission is to reinvent environmental
reporting to: reduce industry reporting
burden, foster multimedia and place-
based (a specific area of contamination,
an ecological area, or a political
jurisdiction) approaches to
environmental problem solving, and
provide the public with easy access to
environmental information. Recognizing
the importance of states as primary
collectors of environmental datar One-
Stop is working with them to implement
data reporting and management reforms.
To date, the One Stop Program has
awarded demonstration grants to 21
states to work towards achieving these
goals.
• The Common Sense Initiative (CSI),
which began in!994, has tested the
possibilities of replacing a single-media
approach to regulation and reporting
with a multimedia approach focusing on
industrial sectors. One of the industries
that has been looked at is the metal
finishing industry. From this
examination, several recommendations
were made: We should promote
electronic reporting (one of the
recommendations in today's NOD A),
replace RCRA IDs with a common
identification that could be used across
-------
32868
Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 117/Friday, June 18, 1999/Notices
multi-media programs, and eliminate
redundancy in the Toxics Release
Inventory, the Hazardous Waste
Manifest, and the Biennial Report.
The CSI CURE (Consolidated Uniform
Report for the Environment) project was
developed for the computer and
electronics industry sector between
1995-99 by the state of Texas. CSI CURE
examined consolidating environmental
reporting at the facility level and
eliminating redundancies.
• In February 1998. the EPA
Administrator issued the Reinventing
Environmental Information Action Plan.
The Plan commits EPA, in partnership
with the states, to implement core data
standards and make electronic reporting
available in the Agency's major national
systems within five years.
• Finally, in partnership with
industry associations, environmental
groups, universities, and other
government agencies, EPA has created
nine Compliance Assistance Centers.
The Centers help small and medium
sized businesses and local governments
better understand and comply with
federal environmental requirements.
Each center is targeted to a specific
industry sector and explains relevant
federal environmental regulations.
V. Technical Background Information
Containing Specific Burden Reduction
Ideas
A. Is There a Description of Burden
Reduction Ideas Not in Today's NODA?
We have put a document entitled
"Burden Reduction Ideas" in the RCRA
Information Center and on the Internet:
http://\vww.epa.oswer/hazwaste/data/
burdenreduction. In it, we describe
some sections of the RCRA regulations
that require paperwork and propose
ideas for reducing this burden.
We seek your comments on the merits
or disadvantages of any of these ideas
and our estimates of burden savings. As
with other sections of this NODA, if you
have additional ideas, we welcome
them.
B, What Are the RCRA Hazardous Waste
Reporting Requirements?
We have put a document entitled
"RCRA Hazardous Waste Reporting
Requirements" in the RCRA Docket and
on the Internet. In this document, we
list all the RCRA hazardous waste
reporting requirements. For each
reporting requirement, we provide
specific information on each
requirement, including a description of
the requirement, its regulatory
citation(s), the approved EPA ICR that
covers the reporting requirement, the
current baseline burden estimate,
frequency of its reporting, and whether
the requirement applies to generators,
TSDFs, or both. We organize and
display the reporting requirements in
six categories: Notifications; reports;
certifications; variances, exemptions,
demonstrations, and extensions;
permits; and plans. Within these
categories, we sorted the requirements
by regulatory citation.
As noted earlier in the NODA, we are
evaluating whether we should turn
some of the RCRA hazardous waste
reporting requirements into
recordkeeping requirements. We
recognize that some of this information,
will still need to be reported to EPA or
a state. We seek your comments on this
concept, what criteria should be used in
determining whether reporting
requirements can be turned into
recordkeeping requirements, any
potential impacts there would be if this
information is not submitted, and
whether this will result in burden
reduction.
C. What Are the Accounting Changes for
OSWICRs?
We have put a document entitled
"Accounting Changes" in the RCRA
Docket and on the Internet. In this
document, we list accounting changes
for some OSW ICRs that could be
implemented through ICR renewals.
Accounting changes are not changes to
paperwork requirements but rather
changes to the way we measure burden
in our ICRs: They are our efforts to
better estimate the actual burden to the
public and regulated community. For
example, we could make it a rule
throughout all ICRs that we only assign
burden for reading regulations to new
facilities. The presumption here is that
existing facilities know the regulations
and do not have to read them each time
they do an activity. While not regulatory
changes, these accounting changes
reduce the amount of paperwork burden
OSW has in its individual ICRs.
In this document, we list proposed
accounting changes for reducing burden
associated with specific paperwork
requirements and ICRs. Each idea
includes a brief summary, the affected
regulatory citations, comments on
implementing these ideas, the ICR in
which the paperwork requirement can
be found, an estimate of the burden
savings that might be achieved if it were
implemented, and a description of the
assumptions used in calculating the
potential burden hour savings. In most
cases, we used our best judgment to
estimate the savings, while in others, we
were able to make specific calculations.
In reviewing this document, we ask
you to comment on whether these are
realistic assumptions and the accuracy
of our estimates of burden savings.
D. What Are OSW's Burden Hours ?
We have put a document in the RCRA.
docket and on the Internet which lists
OSW's ICRs and their burden hours as
of 1995 and today.
Dated: June 8, 1999.
Elizabeth Cotsworth,
Acting Director, Office of Solid Waste.
[FR Doc. 99-15544 Filed 6-17-99; 8:45 ami
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[OPP-34188; FRL 6084-6]
Notice of Receipt of Requests for
Amendments to Delete Uses in Certain
Pesticide Registrations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: In accordance with section
6(f)(l) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
as amended, EPA is issuing a notice of
receipt of request for amendment by
registrants to delete uses in certain
pesticide registrations.
DATES: The Agency will approve these
use deletions and the deletions will
become effective on or soon after the
date of publication.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By
mail: Dennis McNeilly, Office of
Pesticide Programs (7505C),
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
Office location for commercial courier
delivery, telephone number and e-mail
address: Rm. 216, Crystal Mall No. 2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Arlington, VA, (703) 305-5404; e-mail:
mcneilly.dennis@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
Section 6(f) (1) of FIFRA provides that
a registrant of a pesticide product may
at any time request that any of its
pesticide registrations be amended to
delete one or more uses. The Act further
provides that, before acting on the
request, EPA must publish a notice of
receipt of any such request in the
Federal Register. Thereafter, the
Administrator may approve such a
request.
II. Intent to Delete Uses
This notice announces receipt by the
Agency of applications from registrants
to delete uses in three (3) chlorpyrifos
------- |