Facility Identification Initiative

SUMMARY: As part of EPA's effort to reinvent environmental regulations

the Agency is seeking comment on a number of options to standardize

facility data reporting. This initiative represents the first step of a

larger Agency effort to streamline and consolidate EPA's collection and

maintenance of environmental data. Specifically, in this Notice EPA is

considering options for establishing a national standard for the

reporting and maintenance of information regarding the identification

of facilities that are subject to federal environmental reporting and

permitting requirements. EPA believes that a successful standardized

facility identification scheme would reduce reporting burden on the

regulated community while improving public access to the Agency's

environmental data. Since States are partners with EPA in receiving and

managing environmental data, EPA has actively sought the participation

of State representatives during the development of this Initiative.

This Notice is intended to provide all stakeholders with an opportunity

to comment on the goals and benefits of the Facility Identification

Initiative, as well as on the potential approaches for implementation.

DATES: Written comments on this Notice must be received by EPA on or

before December 23, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be submitted in triplicate to: TSCA

Document Receipt Office, (7407), Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, 401 M St., SW., Washington,

DC 20460. Comments should include the document control number for this

Notice, OPPTS-00186.

Comments and data may also be submitted electronically by sending

electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file format.

All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the

docket number OPPTS-00186. Comments containing Confidential Business

Information (CBI) should be submitted to the same address, with all CBI

clearly identified, and must include a sanitized copy for the public

record. No CBI should be submitted through e-mail. Electronic comments

on this Notice may be filed online at many Federal Depository

Libraries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sam K. Sasnett or Mary C. Hanley,

Project Managers, 202-260-8020 or 202-260-1624, Office of Pollution

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. E-108, Mail

Code 7407, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460; e-mail:

[email protected], or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

A. Background

The EPA and its governmental regulatory partners are authorized to

collect a wide range of data from a variety of sources. For example,

the data may be related to the management of wastes, to the maintenance

of operations at a particular location in accordance with a permit, or

to the locations at which pesticides are formulated. For the most part,

the Federal laws authorizing environmental data collections were

developed under different statutory authorities to address specific

environmental media concerns such as hazardous and toxic chemical

emissions and spills, control of pesticide use, air pollution, surface

and subsurface water contamination, the management of solid and

hazardous waste, the delivery of safe drinking water, and the cleanup

of existing waste deposits. EPA, State, and local governments developed

organizational structures and programs tailored to address these

specific, single-media concerns. Consequently, the collection,

maintenance, and use of environmental data by EPA and the States follow

this media-by-media approach to addressing environmental concerns.

In more recent years, concepts of environmental protection have

evolved toward cross-media environmental impacts, the need to prevent

pollution at the source, and the importance of a well-informed public

participating in the decision making process. In most cases, however,

environmental data collection and management has not adjusted to this

evolution and is still collected and maintained in a media-specific

way.

Compounding this situation is the growing need for both government

and the private sector to cut costs and increase the efficiency of

operations. Currently, industries must report environmental information

to many different offices, at different times, and in different

formats. At the same time, the public expects to have access to

accurate, comprehensive environmental data. Together, these forces are

stimulating a fundamental and inevitable change in the collection and

management of environmental data.

Therefore, the Facility Identification Initiative represents a

significant Agency reinvention commitment. The Initiative is a first

step toward establishing a new one-stop reporting approach for

environmental data. By having facilities identified the same way for

all reporting requirements under environmental laws, a new approach can

be established which will simplify reporting for affected parties and

simplify public access to information currently residing in many

different places. The President announced this initiative in the March

1995 report, Reinventing Environmental Regulation. EPA will work

closely with states to design this new approach. Facility

identification is an important building block in this critical

reinvention initiative.

EPA believes that there is already a broad base of support for this

initiative. For example, in August 1994, the National Advisory Council

for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) published a report

entitled ``Using Information Strategically to Protect Human Health and

the Environment: Recommendations for Comprehensive Information

Resources Management'' (Ref. 1). This report was developed by NACEPT's

Information Resources Management Strategic Planning Task Force, which

involved representatives of all the major groups concerned with EPA

policy, including industry, states and local governments, the

environmental community, and other government agencies. The NACEPT

Committee made four major recommendations:

(1) EPA must use information strategically to achieve the Agency's

mission.

(2) EPA must actively use information to empower its partners.

(3) EPA must establish an integrated information infrastructure to

support a comprehensive approach to environmental protection.

(4) EPA must establish a more effective organization for

information resources management.

Under the third recommendation, the Committee went on to state

that:

[[Page 52589]]

Data standardization is a fundamental part of EPA's integrated

information infrastructure. The first step towards standardizing

data is to identify those common data elements widely used

throughout the Agency and by State Co-Implementors, which provide

the framework to link and combine information.

Without standardized facility data across environmental data

collections, two major problems persist. First, lack of standardized

facility identification data makes it difficult to establish a linkage

between all environmental data relating to the same facility. Second,

multiple reporting of facility-specific data results in inefficiencies

and additional burden for both the regulated community and regulators,

and impedes public right-to-know.

A primary problem that users of EPA and State environmental data

experience is the difficulty (and in some cases the inability) to

establish reliable links between data relating to the same facility.

There are several underlying factors. There are inconsistencies in the

facility identification data. A slightly different spelling of a

facility name or address reduces the accuracy and effectiveness of

comparing the data about a facility. Also, different reporting

requirements may have different statutory or regulatory definitions for

the reporting facility. This can result in reports that may represent

the same facility but that appear to be different.

There are numerous, separate environmental data collections that

include the reporting of different facility identification data. The

submitter must repeatedly report such data to multiple EPA and State

data systems and the Agencies must also separately input and maintain

such identification data. Developing some means to consolidate such

reporting could lead to greater efficiencies for both the regulated

community and government agencies that receive and maintain such data.

Finally, it could improve the accuracy of the data and provide the

public with easier access to the data.

The Agency believes that these data linkage problems and reporting

inefficiencies could be alleviated by developing a universal set of

facility identification data which is shared by EPA and the States.

Standardizing facility identification data could also pave the way for

any further consolidation of Federal environmental data. Therefore,

this Notice represents a detailed outline of the Agency's concepts on

facility data standardization and consolidation.

B. Goals of the Facility Identification Initiative

The overarching goal of the Facility Identification Initiative is:

To streamline access to and reporting of environmental data by

establishing a uniform set of facility identification data and the

infrastructure needed to make it operational.

The specific objectives of the initiative are:

(1) To obtain and maintain an accurate set of uniform, facility-

specific information and keep it current.

(2) To build an infrastructure based upon as many existing

approaches as possible that efficiently support data linkage

capabilities.

(3) To improve public access to Agency data, to empower communities

and to support multi-media analysis of environmental issues.

(4) To minimize the burden on the regulated community and States as

part of the process of obtaining and maintaining such information, and

eliminate, where possible, duplication.

(5) To serve as a first practical step toward the broader goal of

consolidating environmental data collection.

C. Benefits of the Facility Identification Initiative

The Facility Identification Initiative is seeking to create two

features that will work together to create an electronic pointer system

to Agency data. The first feature is a single record of consistent

facility identification data (e.g. facility name, street address,

corporate affiliation, etc.) established and updated for each reporting

facility. The second feature is a unique facility identification number

which is assigned to each facility. The facility identification number

would then serve as the primary link or electronic pointer to all of

the Agency's data about that facility.

EPA believes that there are numerous benefits of establishing a

universal set of facility identification data to be shared between EPA,

States and the public.

1. Better access to data by facility. For the first time, reliable

links will be established between data relating to the same facility

held in separate EPA and State data systems. Standardization of

facility identification data will eliminate inconsistencies in facility

identification data that currently exist. Environmental data about a

facility can be found and used more effectively.

2. Improved access by the public. The public would be provided with

improved access to the Agency's environmental data. The facility

identification data will provide new and greater capabilities for the

public to access Federal environmental data, and allow for links to

other data sources.

Providers of information can also use the facility identification

data as a tool to locate and check the accuracy of their data as

represented in EPA and/or other systems. Standard facility

identification data could increase opportunities for the owners or

operators of facilities to tell their own story about site-specific or

corporate pollution prevention and environmental progress. For example,

the data could be designed to allow a facility to provide an Internet

address as well as an E-mail address. This could serve as a link to

further information, analyses, reports, or interpretations that the

data provider believes would enable the public to better understand its

submissions.

3. Improve multi-media perspectives. The facility identification

data would better support the efforts of data users who want to compile

or analyze environmental data across media data collections. In

particular, it would support those doing geographic or community-based

analyses. Having an up-to-date linkage capability could significantly

increase the reliability of multi-media analyses by providing a

standard framework for organizing and storing facility information.

4. Empowering communities. Facility identification data can serve

as a tool to empower communities by aiding them in identifying the

presence of detailed environmental data related to a specific facility

within their localities.

5. Reducing burden. Consolidating facility identification data

could lead the way, over time, to reduce the reporting burden for those

required to submit data under a number of existing Federal

environmental regulations. The facility identification data of the

individual reporting forms could be abbreviated. EPA is mindful of the

need to implement the facility identification initiative creatively and

in a fashion that minimizes burden on the regulated community. Thus, no

additional burden will be placed on the regulated communities to

reconcile facility data that EPA has already collected. The Agency will

do an initial reconciliation of facility data using existing records,

without asking facilities to submit additional information. Facilities

would be provided an opportunity to voluntarily review and verify

(electronically) their reconciled facility record if they choose to do

so. Care also needs to be taken to minimize burden on the regulated

community when deciding which data elements to consolidate into a

single facility record. For example, EPA is considering innovative ways

to include latitude-

[[Page 52590]]

longitude coordinates in the consolidated facility record without

requiring facilities to incur any new reporting burden. Rather than

requiring that facilities report longitude and latitude data, EPA

intends to use secondary sources to populate these data fields. EPA

will expend its own resources to conduct address matching and will use

existing sources such as State data, to ascertain longitude and

latitude for each facility. EPA is also considering providing Federal

and State inspectors with the means to ascertain longitude and latitude

easily and uniformly, or perhaps empowering facilities themselves with

the means to do so voluntarily. One of EPA's primary objectives is not

only to avoid imposing any new burden, but to also reduce existing

burden wherever possible. As such, EPA is very interested in receiving

comments or suggestions on ways that EPA can implement a consolidation

program and still achieve either a zero impact on burden or a net

reduction.

II. Approaches to Achieving Facility Identification

This unit explores a number of alternatives for implementing the

Facility Identification Initiative. Each alternative addresses who

(e.g. EPA, the State, the facility) takes responsibility for data

reconciliation, keeping the facility data record current, and providing

public access. In reviewing these discussions, EPA requests that the

reader consider how any individual alternative supports or does not

support one or more of the goals as outlined in Unit I.B. of this

document. Also, EPA requests reviewers to comment on the practical

feasibility and relative probability of success of a given approach.

The approaches are not mutually exclusive of each other, so the reader

might comment that one or more approaches should be combined.

Additionally, EPA also encourages commenters to suggest other

approaches that could be implemented.

In brief, the five approaches presented here include: (1) An

administrative approach that would upgrade an existing Agency-

maintained facility identification data base, (2) establishment of an

EPA-State non-regulatory data management partnership to develop and

maintain facility identification data and the necessary linkages

between information systems, (3) a distributed information system in

which EPA would not establish a central facility identification data

base but would rely on building connections to State systems, (4) a

regulatory approach that would require consolidated reporting of

facility data to EPA or the States while eliminating duplicative

reporting, and (5) an approach that would use existing regulatory

authority and establish facility identification reporting requirements

by developing new OMB Information Collection Requests (ICR).

A. Approach 1: Upgrade FINDS

EPA's Facility Index System (FINDS) is a data base of facility

identification data maintained by the Agency. Facility identification

data maintained by each program office data base are consolidated in

FINDS and an attempt is made to reconcile discrepancies. The major

deficiencies with the current FINDS approach are that the

reconciliation occurs after data is entered into programmatic data

bases; there is no formal mechanism for correcting the programmatic

data bases, and the ``data of record'' continues to be the data

contained in the program offices' data base which may be inconsistent

across the data bases.

Under the ``Upgrade FINDS'' approach, EPA would conduct a

comprehensive clean-up, data reconciliation and restructuring of FINDS.

The Agency would need to invest significant additional resources into

upgrading the quality of the current FINDS data base by eliminating

incorrect records and resolving certain existing discrepancies. The

current FINDS data base would then be expanded and new methods would be

adopted to share this data with the States, program systems, and the

public.

Under this approach, it is envisioned that EPA would assign a

single identification number to each facility and use that number in

all its data bases, thus supporting the goal of data integration and

improving public access. This alternative would put no new obligation

on the State or the industry to use the new identification number.

Therefore, this approach does not affect the burden on industry and it

also does not consolidate reporting data. It does maintain or even

increase the burden on EPA to continue to reconcile differences in

reported facility data and develop and maintain a consistent facility

record.

EPA would have the primary responsibility for data reconciliation

under this approach. This reconciliation would continue to occur after

data are entered into individual program data bases. There would be a

continuing need for staff to use their best judgment to resolve

discrepancies and populate certain new data fields. However, the Agency

could provide facilities with a voluntary opportunity to review and

comment on their facility identification record as is currently done

for Federal facilities. (For example, EPA's Federal Facilities

Enforcement Office uses the Federal Facilities Tracking System (FFTS)

to provide a mechanism for facility records review, modification, and

correction by a designated Federal agency representative.) Such a

voluntary, interactive review process could be accomplished through

EPA's Internet Home Page. EPA would like to receive comments and ideas

on these and other mechanisms the Agency could use to provide a

facility with an opportunity to review and comment on their facility

identification data, regardless of the approach adopted to implement

the facility identification initiative.

For those who are interested, EPA's current Home Page address is:

http://www.epa.gov. This will provide access to the EPA Server. The

ENVIROFACTS system contains a listing for current FINDS records. It can

be found under the listing for EPA Data Systems and Software.

B. Approach 2: State/Federal Data Management Model

This approach recognizes that both EPA and the States are

recipients of environmental reports from facilities. EPA is the initial

recipient of some reports such as the Toxics Release Inventory, and

pesticide data under FIFRA. However, most facility-based reports

generated as a result of Federal environmental laws and regulations

initially are received by States who have been delegated the authority

by EPA.

Under this approach, EPA and the States would agree to

administrative data management procedures for accomplishing the basic

goals of the Facility Identification Initiative. These agreements

could, for example, be established through a new performance

partnership agreement process or in connection with existing

programmatic grants.

The focus of this activity would be a State accepting the primary

responsibility for reconciling differences in facility records for

reports it collects. The State would maintain a consistent ``master

record'' for that facility. EPA and the State would agree upon a

standard set of data elements for such records, along with such other

tools as a standard data dictionary and standards for timing of

facility data records transfer and the acceptable level of data

quality.

Under this alternative, EPA would establish a national Facility

Identification data base. The State and EPA would agree to apply a

unique identifier number to each unique

[[Page 52591]]

facility. EPA would then obtain the full facility record from the

State. Furthermore, States and EPA would agree that any relevant data

transmitted to an EPA program data base about such facilities would

have to contain the facility identifier number. Otherwise, that data

would not be accepted. In this way, both the State and EPA program data

bases could contain the necessary linkage capability to make the

Facility Identification Initiative function as envisioned.

There may be cases where EPA receives reports directly from a

facility and the State does not maintain the same record for that

facility. In those cases, EPA would take direct responsibility for

reconciling such facility records, establishing the master record, and

assigning a facility identifier number. The State would, thereafter,

have full access to such records.

It is also possible that a State may want EPA to include records

for ``State-only'' facilities and other geographic entities in its

Facility Identification data base. For example, this could include

records associated with facilities that report environmental data to

the State under the authority of State law. For example, a number of

States currently use EPA's Aerometric Information Retrieval System

(AIRS) data system as their means of maintaining certain air quality

data. These States include both Federally covered as well as any

additional facility reports in their data uploads to AIRS.

This non-regulatory approach would be transparent to the reporting

facility and would result in no new reporting burden being placed on a

facility. It would, however, not result in any direct consolidation of

facility data reporting elements and the consequent burden reduction

across several collections administered by the State. Voluntary

mechanisms could be established for a facility to review and comment on

their facility record. This would be left up to the State to

administer.

This would be a non-mandatory approach and not all States would

want or be able to participate. EPA could establish a process to

develop a model agreement and test the concept with as many States as

may wish to participate. Thereafter, EPA and the States would need to

be willing to fund their respective parts of such an initiative

separately.

EPA requests comment on the overall feasibility of such an

approach. What specific provisions would be a necessary part of such

State/EPA agreements? Ultimately, what level of State participation

would be required in such a program (other than 100%) in order for EPA

to be able to represent this option as a nationally viable facility

identification data set? What should EPA do in situations where the

State has accepted only partial delegation (e.g., for all programs

except water, etc.)?

C. Approach 3: Distributed System Access

The Agency and its State partners are reexamining their respective

roles as co-implementers of environmental regulations. Many EPA

programs currently delegate to the States much of the implementation of

the national programs. Does this lessen the need for EPA to maintain a

national facility-specific data set?

Under this approach, States would pursue facility data integration

in a manner that best meets their individual needs. This would

represent decentralization of the concept of data integration and would

support the concept of States developing their own approaches. A

significant question needs to be addressed concerning such an approach.

How will EPA obtain the data it needs for determining national and

cross-boundary trends, and ensuring a national level playing field?

This alternative could hamper the Agency's ability to use or provide

integrated data on a national basis. EPA would be dependent upon the

State systems for what questions could be answered. This approach

would, however, provide the States with maximum flexibility to

determine how they would manage their data and provide access to it.

EPA could maintain a requirement that it and the public have access to

these data systems. EPA could then use the data in these distributed

systems to do analysis and special projects and reports. However, in

this circumstance EPA would not try to maintain a ``master file'' of

facilities that would try to track each facility and any changes

thereto. Whether the States should be required to do this needs to be

considered. Are there alternative ways of achieving the same goal? Is

there a need for consistency across States? Should EPA be responsible

for providing the public with a national pointer system to any

individual facility and its related data points? Or can the public's

need for this information be met through distributed State systems,

each of which provides the public access to its data or subsets of its

data? Should this decision be a national one, across all States and

agencies implementing specific environmental reporting requirements, or

should the decision on public access be left to each State?

Another alternative to consider might be a requirement that States

provide integrated facility data, but not specify how to do it. EPA

could set certain minimum levels of service and a standard set of

facility data that would tie together program information in various

systems. The States would then implement the approach that makes the

most sense to them, given other data projects they may already be

involved in. No matter how individual States accomplished data

integration, each State would have to develop a system of facility

identification which would be applicable across program lines. This

might result in a master file or lead program system which would assign

identifiers which other State offices would pick up. This could be very

similar to Approach 1: Upgrade FINDS, except that the State would not

be required to establish a master file similar to FINDS and EPA would

not establish and maintain a national data base of all the facilities

or even all the Federally regulated facilities maintained at the State

level. EPA could then use the data in these distributed systems to do

analysis and special projects and reports. Access would be provided

from the State and perhaps made available to the public and EPA through

the Internet or other electronic medium. EPA could rely on the current

movement of States to the Internet and World Wide Web where more and

more State data are being made accessible electronically. This could

obviate the need for a single EPA-managed system to integrate data.

Mechanisms for integrating the more important facility elements at a

local or regional basis could then be developed. This would allow

systems to remain distributed, but would allow EPA or the public to

obtain answers to their questions about a regulated entity.

D. Approach 4: Collecting Data by Rule

This approach involves EPA promulgation of a rule that would

require certain Federally regulated data submitters to report (or

verify) a standard set of facility data. The responsibility for

reconciliation of differences in facility data submissions and updating

of the facility record would rest with the facility. EPA believes that

it could reasonably cite multiple existing statutory authorities as the

basis for promulgating a rule to establish and maintain a separate,

consistent, facility data record and appropriately streamline the

reporting of facility data elements under existing rules to reduce

duplication of reporting.

Definitions of what is to be reported in this rule (i.e., the term

``facility''), would be cross-cutting and not

[[Page 52592]]

dependent upon the differing regulatory and statutory definitions that

apply in any individual rule. The rule would also establish a time

frame for the initial report and set forth any requirements for ongoing

review and correction of the data record.

A rule process would involve three basic changes:

(1) EPA would place cross references into existing rules advising

the regulated ``person'' that they are subject to the new consolidated

facility data reporting requirements.

(2) A Facility Identification number would then be added as a

required data element in those existing rules allowing the form(s)

authorized by those existing rules to include the new, consistent

identifier number for that facility.

(3) Existing rules and reporting forms would also be amended to

eliminate certain data elements that would also be present in a

Facility Identification rule. However, basic name and location address

necessary for data validation purposes on any current form would not be

eliminated.

It is envisioned that facilities that are subject to one or more

Federal environmental reporting requirements that are identified in the

rule would be subject to the facility data reporting requirements of a

potential rule. The reporting requirements identified in the rule would

be site-specific, of a fixed location (e.g., mobile source regulation

would be outside the scope); and would have to require periodic

reporting, or could be a one-time application and/or registration with

periodic follow-up. One-time notifications, surveys, and incident

reports would not be considered within the scope of a new rule. Based

upon this draft criteria, EPA has identified numerous data collections

that it considers to be potentially within the scope of such a facility

data reporting rule. These data collections are listed in Table 1 in

Unit III.B. of this Notice.

The Facility Identification data reported would be included in a

central data base. This data base would be accessible to EPA, States,

and the public. This approach could support most of the goals of a

Facility Identification Initiative. By establishing a uniform set of

place-based data, overlapping data elements could be reduced.

Additionally, this reduction could be representative of the first step

toward reporting data consolidation. Initially the burden reduction

aspect of this approach may not be realized because a new reporting

requirement would be established. However, over time the elimination of

overlapping data elements from multiple rules could provide a net

burden decrease.

The workgroup discussed a number of other issues and options

associated with development of a rule. The rule-related issues and

options are presented in detail in a document titled ``Support Document

for Facility Identification Initiative: Notice and Request for

Comment'' which is available as part of the Public Record for this

Notice. This document may also be found on the Key Identifiers Project

Page of EPA's World Wide Web Home Page. The address is http: //

www.epa.gov/Internet/OPPTS or http: //www.epa.gov/EPAHome/

Initiatives.html. Included in the Support Document, for comment, are

the following:

1. State and Federal models for flow of data. A critical

determination in implementing a rule will be how the data is collected.

The Agency has looked at five rule-based models for collecting the data

and entering it into a Facility Identification data base. These include

a Federal collection, a State-only collection and, three variations of

a State and Federal hybrid collection. EPA is interested in receiving

comments on each of these models.

2. Frequency and timing of facility identification reports. Related

issues discussed in the Support Document include: (a) Setting an

initial reporting time-frame; (b) submitter verification of existing

Agency facility record to potentially minimize burden on data

submitters; (c) options for phasing in the requirement for submitting

the initial report; (d) addressing initial submissions by new

facilities reporting after promulgation of the rule.

3. Reviewing and updating the facility identification record.

Keeping a Facility Identification data base current would be a long-

term challenge. It is essential that the Facility Identification record

reflect the most current information about a facility because it would

be the overall reference used by multiple Agency data systems and data

users. Therefore, if a new reporting requirement is adopted, the Agency

must consider how frequently the Facility Identification data should be

reviewed and updated once the facility's record is established through

initial reporting. The Agency must balance the need for keeping the

data accurate with the burden association with the ongoing nature of

such submissions. The following options for ongoing review and updating

of the Facility Identification data base are presented for comment in

the Support Document: (a) Mandated periodic review and update; (b)

updating only when changes occur; (c) report changes as they occur, and

verify periodically, and; (d) incorporate in the current submission.

E. ICR-Only Approach

This approach is also a data reporting requirement and would

involve many of the same issues as outlined in D. of this Unit. Under

this approach, however, EPA would not revise regulations but would

prepare a new Information Collection Request (ICR). An ICR outlines

burdens and costs associated with information collections, and is

required to be prepared by the Agency and approved by the Office of

Management and Budget under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

The new ICR prepared under this approach would seek approval under

the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act to centrally collect

facility identification information that is currently collected under

many separate rules. Those rules are currently supported by separate

ICRs. In effect, EPA would consolidate facility data reporting into one

new form and set of instructions approved by a new ICR. At the same

time, all relevant existing forms approved by current ICRs would be

modified to eliminate, where possible, existing duplicative facility

data elements. The burden calculations of the existing ICRs would also

be modified as appropriate to reflect the removal of reporting

elements. The existing regulations would not be modified. Instead, the

facility identification data requirements in each set of regulations

would be fulfilled by submission of the consolidated facility

information under the new ICR.

There could be certain advantages to this approach. First, this

approach could provide an expedited means of achieving the practical

changes necessary to consolidate facility data reporting and streamline

the facility data sections of many existing reporting forms. Also,

under revised provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the ICR

development mechanism provides expanded opportunity for public review

and comment. This is not the equivalent of notice and comment

rulemaking, but it does offer the public an opportunity to affect the

substance of the data collection requirement prior to the Agency's

submission of the ICR to OMB.

A potential disadvantage is that the ICR-only approach may not

provide the long-term stability necessary for such a comprehensive data

management program. Without the backing of a codified requirement, it

could be more vulnerable to discontinuation. Such a lack of long-term

commitment could be very disruptive and wasteful of the

[[Page 52593]]

investments made by all parties involved in both supplying and managing

the data.

III. Cross Cutting Issues

EPA believes that there are a number of common questions that must

be addressed regardless of the approach chosen to implement the

Facility Identification Initiative. In order to create a comprehensive

facility record, the question arises of whether we need to develop a

comprehensive definition of ``facility''? What environmental data

collections (i.e., which facilities) should be included in the

Initiative? What should the comprehensive facility record contain? Are

there any confidentiality concerns with the development and access to

such a comprehensive facility data record? How can we take advantage of

evolving technology to meet the information management challenges of

the Facility Identification Initiative?

A. Facility Definition

1. Rationale for a facility definition. As stated previously, one

of the goals of the Facility Identification Initiative would be to

establish a streamlined method for identifying a facility across

various, separate environmental data collections. No matter how the

Facility Identification Initiative is implemented, EPA believes that a

standard concept of facility is central to the development of a

successful program. For purposes of developing a consolidated

``facility-specific'' record, it is essential that all parties involved

have an opportunity to review and comment on the need for, and

potential elements of, a ``facility'' term or definition. For purposes

of further discussion in this Notice, EPA will use the term

``facility.''

The EPA workgroup considered the issue of how to define the term

``facility'' for purposes of the Facility Identification Initiative. It

identified three basic attributes which it believed needed to be

considered in constructing a definition.

(1) First is the fixed, spacial or geographic attribute of a

facility. Generally speaking, regulated activities occur within a

physical boundary, usually a real estate property boundary. In many

cases (but not always), there is a ``street address'' that corresponds

with this physical location, and other spacial coordinates can be used

to identify or define the location.

(2) Next, there is the attribute of ownership or control. Generally

speaking a facility is owned or operated by a legal person (i.e. an

individual, corporation, or government). Therefore, another parameter

for a discrete ``facility'' is that the activities/property/physical

boundary is owned or operated by the same person. Take, for example,

the situation in which an operation owned by one person is physically

surrounded by another persons operation. That separate ownership would

be the critical factor in distinguishing one facility from the other.

(3) Finally, there is the attribute of time. That is, the

attributes of both physical composition and ownership/control can

change with time. Obviously, facility ownership can change and so can

the physical boundaries/components. Additions of operations on

adjoining properties as well as sale of parts of a location can result

in physical changes to a facility and, subsequently, changes to what

that facility may have to report under environmental laws and

regulations.

2. Draft facility definition. EPA believes that developing a

facility concept acceptable to all parties involved could ensure both

the success and the longevity of the Facility Identification Initiative

and data consolidation in general. However, EPA would not intend for a

definition of ``facility'' developed under this initiative to alter or

affect existing statutory and regulatory definitions of ``facility''

that guide reporting of substantive data within those collections. The

point of reference (e.g., facility, site) for reporting substantive

data and the substantive reporting requirements of separate collections

would not change with a rule or other action defining ``facility'' for

purposes of a Facility Identification Initiative.

EPA believes that it would be appropriate to develop a definition

of ``facility'' that could apply across a broad array of current

environmental data collections and permit requirements. Therefore the

definition would have to be broad enough to encompass the whole of the

facility's operations but remain within the physical and ownership

attributes as discussed above. The workgroup developed the following

draft facility definition for comment:

``All buildings, equipment, structures, and other items located on

a single site or contiguous or adjacent sites owned or operated by the

same person or persons.''

Under this approach, the outermost perimeter of the single

geographic area occupied by the entire entity, including all of its

parts or divisions, would constitute the ``facility.''

Incorporated into the draft facility definition are elements that

EPA considered to be necessary to achieve the goals of the initiative.

First, the definition is holistic, or all encompassing. That is, the

definition is comprehensive enough to encompass all activities at a

particular facility, including all its parts or divisions. Also, the

definition relates to a single piece of geography that can encompass

contiguous or adjacent sites. This is an important element in achieving

consolidated, facility-specific identification data. Finally, the

definition specifies that the property must be under a common ownership

or control. This element, in combination with the concept of single

geographic area, would ensure that all related parts of a facility are

captured in an entity's Facility Identification record.

EPA would like to receive comment on whether a term other than

``facility'' should be used to denote the reference point for

consolidated facility identification data. If so, what term should be

used instead. EPA realizes that other terms may be used such as

``site,'' ``regulated entity,'' ``establishment,'' or ``reporting

unit,'' to name a few. EPA requests comment, particularly from States,

on their experience with developing and using such terms, along with

the problems and successes they have experienced.

3. Application of the proposed facility definition. Use of the

facility definition proposed here may result in no change in the way

that single establishment facilities represent themselves. Likewise,

certain complex installations may currently represent themselves in a

holistic manner, using a consistent, single name and address for

reporting purposes.

However, EPA recognizes that there may be instances where

application of a holistic definition of facility could be problematic

or confusing. EPA anticipates that such difficulty might arise for at

least four specific types of reporting facilities.

(1) Current rules may require reports from ``sub-entities'' of a

facility (e.g. two different Divisions within the same larger facility

report different names and addresses as separate hazardous waste

disposal units).

(2) Facilities reporting as systems or parts of systems (e.g.

railroads, pipelines and other systems in which discrete operating

units are ``contiguous'' by virtue of a transportation, property or

other system connection).

(3) Disjointed operations carried out by the same person within a

larger real estate perimeter (e.g., non-contiguous production and

warehouse units of the same company within an industrial park could

under the draft definition be considered separate facilities).

[[Page 52594]]

(4) Adjacent subsidiaries of the same corporation that are separate

business entities could be required to all have a common address as one

``facility.'' EPA is providing a detailed discussion of these scenarios

in the Support Document for this Notice (See Unit II.D. of this

document).

EPA requests comment on these and any other problematic situations

associated with implementing and interpreting the draft definition of

facility proposed herein.

4. Accommodating facility changes over time. Under the Facility

Identification Initiative, EPA will want to obtain reliable

identification information for a particular facility. Therefore, the

Facility Identification system will need to accommodate business

transactions that alter facility identification information over time

(e.g., changes in property boundaries or facility ownership). The types

of accommodations that EPA is considering are discussed in the Support

Document, and the Agency requests comment on these situations and any

other related issues.

B. Data Collections Included.

1. Data collections included in facility identification initiative.

In EPA's efforts to identify the most appropriate data collections

(i.e., reporting requirements) to be included for coverage under a

Facility Identification Initiative, EPA developed and used the

following draft criteria:

(i) The reporting requirement and reports submitted should be site-

specific. In other words, the ``who'' information in a submission

should relate to the physical location of the permitted or regulated

activity.

(ii) The facility covered by the data collection would have to be

fixed (e.g., mobile source regulations under the CAA would be outside

the scope); and

(iii) The data collection would have to require periodic reporting

or could be a one-time application and/or registration with periodic

follow-up. One-time notifications, surveys, and incident reports would

not be considered within the scope of the Initiative.

Based upon this draft criteria, EPA has identified numerous data

collections that it considers to be potentially within the scope of the

Facility Identification Initiative. EPA began the identification

process by reviewing all of EPA's current Information Collection

Requests (ICRs). Detailed matrices were developed showing the specific

ICRs considered ``within scope.'' The specific elements included: the

responsible EPA program office; the statutory authority; the title of

the regulation; the ICR and OMB numbers; the CFR citation; the

frequency of reporting; whether or not the ICR was considered to be

within the scope of the draft criteria; and, the specific facility data

elements required to be reported. The completed matrices for these

``within-scope'' ICRs are available for review in the public record for

this Notice.

Appropriate offices within the Agency then reviewed the ICRs for

which they have responsibility and compared them to the criteria. The

results of this review are presented as Table 1 below. Each listed ICR

has its basis in a regulatory and/or statutory provision. Therefore,

Table 1, represents a list of Federal actions that could be included

under a Facility Identification Initiative. The facility identification

data submitted pursuant to the list reporting requirements would be

subject to consolidation into one facility record under the Initiative.

As an aid to the reader, Table 1 is organized by environmental statute

and includes the name of the regulation, the regulatory citation, and

the EPA ICR number.

Table 1.--Actions That Could Potentially Be Included Under a Facility

Identification Initiative

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulatory Title 40 CFR Citation ICR Number

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clean Air Act

Source Compliance and State 51.100 107

Action Reporting

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Annual, Updates of Emission Data 51.321-51.323 916

to Aerometric Information

Retrieval System (AIRS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Source Performance Standards Generally, part 60

(NSPS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Emissions Standards for Generally, parts

Hazardous Air Pollutants 61 & 63

(NESHAPS)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

CAA Title V - Operating Permits 70, 502, 503 1587

Regulations - Information

Requirements

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Operating Permits Part 71 1713

Program of the Clean Air Act

(part 71)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consolidated ICR for the Acid Part 72 1633

Rain Core Rules - Permits

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consolidated ICR for the Acid Part 72 1633

Rain Core Rules - Nitrogen

Oxides Emission Reduction

Program

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consolidated ICR for the Acid Part 74 1633

Rain Core Rules - Opt-In-

Program

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consolidated ICR for the Acid Part 75 1633

Rain Core Rules - Continuous

Emission Monitoring

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accidental Release Prevention Part 68 1656

Requirements: Risk Management

Programs Under the Clean Air

Act

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recordkeeping and Periodic Part 82, Subparts 1432

Reporting of the Production and A & E

Consumption of Newly Controlled

Ozone Depleting Substances

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act

Continuous Release Reporting 302.8 1445

Regulation Under CERCLA

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clean Water Act

[[Page 52595]]

NPDES Permit Application 122.21, 122.26, 226

122.44, 122.501

------------------------------------------------------------------------

National Pollutant Discharge 122.41, 122.47 1427

Elimination System (NPDES)/

Compliance Assessment

Information

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Combined Sewer Overflow Policy 1680.01

(CSO), 59 FR 18688 (April 19,

1994)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Discharge Monitoring Report 122.21, 122.41 229

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretreatment Program Information 403 2

Requirements

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emergency Planning and Community

Right-to-Know Act

Toxic Release Inventory 313 372.25, 372.85 1363

Reporting

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alternate Threshold for Low 372.85 1704

Annual Reportable Amounts

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal Fungicide, Insecticide,

and Rodenticide Act

Application for Registration of 167.20, 167.85 160

Pesticide-Producing

Establishments (EPA Form 3540-

8); Notification of

Registration of Pesticide-

Producing Establishments (EPA

Form 3540-8A); Pesticide Report

for Pesticide-Producing

Establishments (EPA Form 3540-

16)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act

Identification, Listing, and 260.20(b), 260.22, 1189

Rulemaking Petitions 261.4(d),

261.4(f)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notification of Regulated Waste 262, 263, 264, 261

Activity 265, 266, 279

------------------------------------------------------------------------

1993 Hazardous Waste Report 262.41, 264.75, 976

265.75

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hazardous Waste Generator 262.56(a), 820

Standards 265.56(d), (i),

(j)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

General Hazardous Waste Facility 264.56(d)(2), 1571

Standards 264.56(i), (j)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit 270.1, 270.13, 262

Application and Modifications, 270.72

Part A

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part B Permit Application, 270.1, 270.14(b) 1573

Permit Modifications and

Special Permits

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Used Oil Management Standards 279.57 1286

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Safe Drinking Water Act

Public Water Supply Program 142 270

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Underground Injection Control 144 370

Program Facility and Well

Inventory Information

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Toxic Substances Control Act

Partial Updating of TSCA 710.32 1011

Inventory Data Base; Production

and Site Reports

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Toxic Substances Control Act 712 586

(TSCA) Section 8(a) Preliminary

Assessment Information Rule

(PAIR)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Polychlorinated Biphenyls 750.11, 750.31 857

(PCBs): Manufacturing,

Processing and Distribution in

Commerce Exemptions

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PCB Disposal Permitting 761.60 1012

Regulation

------------------------------------------------------------------------

PCB Notification and Manifesting 761.180, 761.205, 1446

of PCB Waste Activities, and 761.211, 761.218

Records of PCB Storage and

Disposal

------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Elements of a Consolidated Facility Record

Another cross-cutting issue is the content of the facility

identification data record. Assuming that the Facility Identification

Initiative is implemented using a central facility data registry

approach, the Agency and the States will need to consider what facility

data elements are necessary to maintain. The content of this record is

particularly important to the discussion of collection of this data by

rule. A rule would need to specify what information elements must be

reported and updated over time. This has a direct bearing on the burden

issue, both from the standpoint of what elements would constitute a new

collection and what elements would be removed from the facility section

of existing rules and reporting forms. There is, however, an important

difference between what may be part of

[[Page 52596]]

a reporting requirement and what EPA and States would decide to include

as elements in a facility identification data record. For example,

under a reporting rule approach, EPA could decide that it is not

necessary to collect a certain data element from facilities. It may,

however, be a useful and appropriate data element that can be populated

from other existing sources. In short, the ultimate data base structure

could be more detailed than the elements of a reporting requirement.

Using a non-reporting/ non-regulatory approach would still call for

articulation of a facility identification data structure. One

distinction, however, is that the data records would all be populated

from existing sources. Therefore, the completeness of any given

facility identification data record would be a function of the detail

of existing facility data used to develop that consolidated facility

data record. This could lead to different decisions about total data

structure.

Following is a discussion of data elements that the Agency

identified and determined were appropriate for eliciting comment.

1. Facility Identification number. This is the unique identifier

that would be assigned to a facility, after an initial report or as a

result of EPA/State data reconciliation efforts. EPA envisions this to

be an ``unintelligent'' number. That is, all or most of the components

of the number would be randomly assigned and not relate to any

particular attribute of the facility. EPA realizes that some States may

have already developed such a unique identifier. In such cases, the

Agency would not necessarily need to utilize an additional identifier

if a means could be developed to incorporate the States number into the

structure of the Facility Identification data base. In addition the

Agency's current Facility Index System (FINDS) and some States use the

``EPA ID Number'' or ``RCRA ID Number.'' This is a number beginning

with a two letter state prefix followed by 9 digits, plus a check

digit. This is an identifier that many but not all facilities carry.

Also, it may currently apply to individual sub-entity hazardous waste

sites that are part of a larger facility. Thus this number may not be

appropriate to apply to a facility at large, particularly if there is

more than one such sub-entity within the facility. EPA requests

comments on how best to consider structuring a unique Facility

Identification number and whether the existing EPA Identification

Number (RCRA ID Number) could be utilized.

2. Facility name. In most cases, this is likely to be a name that

already exists in one or more EPA and/or State records. However, even

minor variations in a name (e.g., DeBernardo, de Bernardo, D. Bernardo)

can raise questions about the true identity of any given facility,

especially in situations where records are stored and reported

electronically. Other differences may exist as a result of the

variation in the current reporting requirements themselves. Such

variations also may exist because different individuals at the facility

may have completed different reports in slightly different ways (e.g.,

Conoco is owned by du Pont, but could be reported as Conoco, duPont -

Conoco Div., E. I. du Pont de Nemours, etc.)

EPA wishes to receive comment on what type of guidance, if any, to

provide regarding the name to be reported. For example, should the

facility record contain a commonly used, ``doing-business-as'' name, or

should it represent the legal incorporation name? A ``doing-business-

as'' name (i.e, duPont - Conoco Div., rather than E. I. du Pont de

Nemours) could provide a unique name that most closely represents the

current status of facility records. For large corporations, this would

not offer a relatively common appellation shared by many other

facilities in many different places. As such, it may provide a facility

name more understandable to the public. However, the legal

incorporation name does appear in existing business and tax records for

the facility and may be a more appropriate standard to cite.

The Agency has also considered the inclusion of space for two

facility name elements in a data element dictionary so that both a

common and a legal incorporation name could be provided. At this point,

however, EPA believes that one name representation would be sufficient

and that maintaining more than one name record could be counter to the

consistency and consolidation goals of this Initiative as well as

potentially unnecessarily increasing the reporting burden.

3. Facility street (physical) address. This would usually be the

postal address corresponding to the physical location of the facility.

In some instances, however, it could be a physical description of

location if the facility's mailing address does not correspond to its

physical location. An example of the latter case would be an entry such

as the following, ``2 miles south of the intersections of State Route 2

and Route 5,'' or a conventional street address, ``123 XYZ Blvd.,''

where mail is not accepted at that address. Such an alternate, physical

descriptor is required in several current reporting requirements, such

as the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory. EPA believes it is reasonable

to include such information, particularly in those cases where the

facility mailing address is actually a Post Office box number, or is at

an entirely different site, such as a corporate office building away

from the site. Such information can aid the data user in understanding

the general physical location of the facility and is often critical for

spatial data analysis.

4. Facility mailing address. This element would be supplied in

those cases where the mailing address does not correspond with the

actual physical location address of the facility. Examples would be

Post Office box numbers or a corporate administrative building not

located within the facility itself. This element is necessary for basic

purposes of communicating with persons responsible for the operations

of the facility.

5. County, parish, or other jurisdictional indicator. This data

element would indicate jurisdictional location as a part of the

standard physical address data. EPA's own experience indicates that

this basic data element is very valuable in conducting a wide variety

of geographic analyses. Consequently, EPA favors including this data

element in the Facility Identification data structure. Furthermore,

EPA's experience points to a significant desire on the part of the

general public to be able to locate environmental data associated with

their county. It can also be an important data quality control check

for verifying the address information.

6. Facility contact. EPA favors including fields for the name of a

person to contact (including telephone number, FAX number, and E-mail

address if available) for questions that may arise about the content of

the Facility Identification record. EPA would not intend for this data

element to represent a contact that applies to all other reporting

requirements. Each individual data reporting requirement and system

(e.g., the RCRA Biennial Reporting System, BRS, or the Permits

Compliance System, PCS) could continue to require the name of a contact

person for questions concerning the substantive data submitted to such

other systems. It may be more problematic to consider including such a

data element if a non-reporting option were implemented. It may be

difficult for EPA and the State to make a judgment on filling this

element from contact person data available in specific media reports.

7. Facility SIC code. The Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)

code system is a statistical classification system maintained by the

Office of

[[Page 52597]]

Management and Budget and used throughout government and industry to

describe the economic activities undertaken by business entities. It

classifies the activities of business and other ``establishments''

using divisional groupings and a specified numbering system. While not

a regulatory system itself, the SIC code system has become the

predominant means by which many data users obtain a functional

classification of the activities of regulated facilities, and is an

essential analysis tool in the area of economics. Among other uses, an

accurate and current SIC code is critical to successful industry sector

analyses. Such analyses are carried out with increasing frequency for

purposes of identifying pollution prevention and compliance assistance

opportunities.

Most current data collections obtain one or more SIC codes, usually

at the 4-digit level. EPA believes that the facility identification

data structure should provide for multiple entries to accommodate

situations in which a facility engages in different activities or may

have more than one establishment engaged in different primary

activities. If EPA were to implement a reporting rule, the Agency would

like comment on the appropriateness of requiring such codes to be

supplied at an 8-digit level in order to support more refined analyses.

8. Facility Dun and Bradstreet number. Dun and Bradstreet is a

private, business information service that provides to its customers

data on companies that have applied for commercial credit. This type of

data can be facility-specific. The D&B Number, as it is commonly

called, is a valuable piece of information, allowing data users to

correlate current business data, such as sales and numbers of

employees, to the environmental data being reported by the facility. In

particular, EPA and other government agencies use such correlations to

develop estimates of the impact of current and future regulatory

requirements. The facility-specific D&B number can also be used to

obtain information on corporate ownership and subsidiaries through

access to the D&B Information System. For Federal facilities which do

not have D&B numbers, it has been suggested that GSA Real Property ID

number be substituted.

9. Parent company name and Dun and Bradstreet number. Parent

company data is also important to a wide variety of data users because

this information helps them to understand the relationship between the

activity taking place at a specific location and the higher level

corporate responsibility for that facility. Several current data

collections include reporting of parent company information, including

the D&B number. This reporting usually refers to the ultimate U.S.

parent company. This will provide information concerning the highest

level of corporate control within United States jurisdiction. Should

this emphasis on ultimate parent be retained or should the data element

apply to the facility's most immediate corporate parent? This

information could be particularly useful to individual citizens wanting

to determine who is immediately responsible for the actions of a

particular facility in their community. EPA requests comment on this

issue of the most appropriate identification of the facility's parent

company.

10. Permit numbers/system identifiers. As new EPA programs/data

collections were started, there was a need for each to utilize a

tracking number to identify the entity that was reporting. However, all

of these activities were mandated by Congress independently of each

other at different times and seldom utilized the same number. One

primary goal of the Facility Identification Initiative is to develop a

facility-based data system that acts as a pointer system to more

specific environmental data relating to that facility. This data will

include, for example, permit data and emissions data reported by the

facility to existing EPA or State data systems. It would, therefore, be

very important to establish viable links between the Facility

Identification data record and facility-based records in relevant

Federal and State systems.

Following is an exemplary list of identifier numbers currently used

by various EPA and State programs:

(1) TRIFID -- The Toxics Release Inventory Facility Identification

Number.

(2) NPDES Permit Number -- The National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System Permit Number.

(3) RCRA Identification Number -- The Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act Identification Number. It is also known as the EPA ID

Number.

(4) Various air quality permit numbers and facility identifiers --

under authority of the Clean Air Act and administered primarily by the

States.

(5) ORIS PL Number -- The Office of Regulatory Information Systems

Plant Number. This is a facility identification number maintained by

the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration and

applies to electric power generation utility facilities. It is used as

a facility identifier in EPA's National Allowance data base.

(6) UIC Permit Number -- The Underground Injection Well Code Permit

Number.

(7) FIFRA Establishment Identification Number -- The Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Identification Number.

(8) PWS Identification Number -- The Public Water System

Identification Number.

(9) The Federal Facility Identification Number -- A number assigned

by EPA only to Federal facilities.

(10) State Facility Identification Number -- A unique

identification number that may have been assigned to the facility by

the State (or local) delegated agency.

There are two basic sets of issues associated with permit numbers/

system identifiers and the facility identification data structure.

First, is it necessary for purposes of supporting linkage to include

such identifiers in the Facility Identification data set itself? If,

for example, a non-reporting alternative is selected, would the State

or EPA have to populate each Facility Identification record with other

current permit numbers and relevant system identifiers? As an

alternative, would it be sufficient for linkage purposes to add a

Facility Identification number field to each existing data base record

that relates to that same facility?

The second set of issues relates to a reporting requirement

approach. In brief, should a Facility Identification reporting rule

include a requirement for the facility to report certain permit

numbers/system identifiers in order to support the goal of data

linkage?

The workgroup considered several alternatives for collecting such

data in connection with the Facility Identification record. First, is

the option of ongoing reporting/verification of these identifiers. The

advantage to this approach is that it provides a consistent mechanism

to update changes in the individual identifiers over time. The

disadvantage is that it represents a somewhat heavier long-term

reporting burden.

The workgroup also considered an option that would require the

reporting of such linking elements but ``sunsetting'' the reporting

after a period of time sufficient to establish the linkage. This

``sunset'' provision would mean that these reporting elements would

automatically disappear from a rule and EPA would eliminate them, where

possible, from a form and reporting instructions after the specified

period of time. During preliminary discussions with stakeholders,

concern was expressed about how the term sunset may be interpreted. It

was

[[Page 52598]]

therefore recommended that if sunsetting were included that EPA be

specific about the length of time to provide for the transition to the

Facility Identification system. If a sunset approach is adopted, how

long should EPA provide for the transition?

Finally, the workgroup considered a check-box approach in which it

would require that the facility indicate that, for example, it has a

NPDES permit or a RCRA identification number. This would provide at

least a basic pointer to a system in which records relating to the same

facility may be located. This approach would be slightly less

burdensome than having to fill in the specific identification number.

It would, however, provide an imprecise means of establishing or

confirming the necessary linkages, and require a substantial

expenditure of Federal and State resources.

EPA requests comment on the issue of maintaining current permit

numbers and system identifiers as a means of promoting linkage in

connection with a Facility Identification record.

11. Latitude and longitude coordinates. EPA and the States

currently collect latitude/longitude coordinates under several rules

and in connection with facility inspections and other activities.

Therefore, another issue to consider is whether latitude and longitude

coordinates should be made part of the facility identification data

record. If so, should these coordinates be drawn from existing data

sources or should, for example, a reporting rule mandate facilities to

develop and report these coordinates as part of the exercise of

building the Facility Identification record? An important aspect of

establishing reliable facility identification involves selecting the

elements necessary to describe the facility's location. EPA believes

that latitude and longitude coordinates are important for two reasons:

(1) They support EPA's goal of place-based or community-based

environmental management, and (2) they may provide a universal way to

link data.

This data element discussion also has a connection with the

holistic facility concept. If data is drawn from several existing

sources, which set of coordinates should EPA or the State choose to

represent the ``facility''? There may be several to choose from that

are both general (e.g the TRI submission) and specific, including those

that equate to a wastewater discharge pipe or an air emissions stack.

Should the coordinates represent a central point of the facility, the

front gate, or does it matter as long as the coordinate is located in

the facility? A related factor to consider is the variable degree of

accuracy of currently available/reported latitude and longitude data.

That is why EPA has developed a Locational Data Policy (Ref. 3) that

will require EPA programs to include method, accuracy, and description

information in association with any latitude and longitude coordinates

they develop. Such a policy would improve the value of these data

elements, but requires a higher level of effort on the part of the

Agency, the State or the facility to develop and maintain.

If EPA and/or the States pursue a non-reporting approach, what

standards and agreements related to latitude and longitude data would

have to be developed in order to supply viable data for the Facility

Identification record?

If a reporting rule approach is taken, should the facility be

required to develop and submit these coordinates or should the States

or EPA supply the data for these fields? A decision to require such

reporting may not support the goals of burden reduction or reporting

element consolidation. Reporting of general latitude and longitude data

for the holistic facility would not substitute for reporting more

specific latitude and longitude data in the underlying collection.

Also, the burden associated with developing and submitting this type of

information, along with a necessary indication of the method used to

collect it and the accuracy of the data, could be significant in

relation to all the other data that may be required by a Facility

Identification rule. EPA's preliminary estimates indicate that cost of

having industry report latitude/longitude data could approximately

equal the cost of developing all the other reporting elements currently

under consideration.

Therefore, regardless of the means used to implement the Facility

Identification Initiative, EPA believes at this point that it may be

sufficient to draw on existing sources and use other methodologies to

obtain latitude/longitude data for any given facility. From both new

and existing sources, EPA believes that it can improve the quality of

this geographic data over time by updating that data with latitude/

longitude measurements conducted directly by the Agency, the State, or

other authoritative sources.

EPA requests comment on the issue of including latitude and

longitude coordinates in the Facility Identification data structure and

how best to accomplish it.

D. Supporting Electronic Data Transfer Methods

EPA believes that it will be very important to promote the concepts

of electronic data transfer methods in connection with implementing the

Facility Identification Initiative. The Agency believes that moving

aggressively into these data sharing and transfer methods will increase

the efficiency and accuracy of Federal and State data management

operations. Furthermore, if a reporting rule approach is adopted,

several alternatives are available that can support the goal of

minimizing burden on both the regulated community and the government.

There are a number of emerging technologies that will be easy to use

and will be widely available. Examples of the methods currently being

investigated are:

1. Transmission via fax. FAX systems are almost universally

available in industry and government and allow word copy transmissions

that can be received and processed in a machine readable format. This

can save resources for both the developer as well as the recipient of

the data and can improve data accuracy. This method can be used to send

the facility's current record for verification or generally provide

compliance materials. The facility would call an 800 telephone number

to request such materials. The benefit of a FAX system is that it can

accommodate material produced by the facility either manually or

electronically.

2. Transmission via Internet/World Wide Web (WWW). EPA currently

makes the existing Facility Index System (FINDS) data base available on

the WWW. In addition, it is investigating the capability of providing

updates to the existing information by posting a request for addition/

changes/deletion (archiving) of facility records to the regulated

community. Security issues are being analyzed with the goal of finding

effective ways to ensure the integrity of the information provided via

the World Wide Web.

3. Electronic submission. For several years, EPA has used and made

available to data submitters specific electronic data transmission

formats that EPA would intend to make available for use as part of this

initiative. Providers of Facility Identification data would be able to

use the electronic data transmission format currently used for other

data collections.

4. Other methods. In addition to the above data submission/

transmission methods, EPA would accept paper submissions, but would

prefer to receive paper forms by fax, as described in item

[[Page 52599]]

1. above. Other magnetic media submission methods used traditionally,

such as floppy disk, are being considered. However, floppy disks may

not be efficient for the submission of a small set of facility

information in the case of a reporting rule (i.e. a large number of

facilities reporting a small amount of data to EPA or the State).

Also, under consideration is submission via commercial online

services and electronic mail.

EPA would be interested in receiving comments from States and

potential data submitters regarding the most technically feasible and

cost effective methods of electronic data transmission for them.

E. Confidential Business Information and Trade Secrets

The type of information under consideration in the Facility

Identification Initiative is very general in nature. As currently

envisioned, this information would be maintained and/or submitted

separately from the substantive data reported under existing rules.

Only publicly-accessible data would be included. Given the general

nature of the facility identification information and its submission

independent of other substantive data, the Agency believes that it is

unlikely that facility identification information would qualify for

protection as either confidential business information (CBI) or a trade

secret.

Although the information being contemplated would not give rise to

a CBI claim, and the rule would preclude claims for facility identifier

information standing alone, all existing statutory and regulatory

protection for CBI and trade secrets would remain intact, should there

be a Facility Identification rule. Claims applicable to the link

between facility identifier information and other reported information

would continue to be asserted and maintained in accordance with the

statutory and regulatory provisions applicable to the underlying data

collections. Information would continue to be protected in the

underlying collections, as appropriate.

EPA takes seriously the obligation to protect CBI and will ensure

the continued protection of CBI regardless of the method of developing

Facility Identification records. EPA is mindful that safeguards are

necessary to ensure that CBI submitted under current rules is not

inadvertently made available through a facility identification data

profile.

EPA is interested in receiving comments on any CBI-related issues

that should be considered under the Facility Identification Initiative.

IV. Questions To Consider

This Unit summarizes a number of questions that the reader should

consider when developing comments on this Notice.

(1) Is integrated facility data useful and necessary? Should EPA

maintain a national data base of all (or some segment of) regulated

facilities in order to fulfill its mission and to allow the public and

others access to this information?

(2) What are the specific uses of integrated facility

identification data?

(3) Who are the customers for such data and how can they use this

data to improve environmental protection?

(4) Is there a benefit to having a national set of data or would

access to state collections suffice?

(5) Would a national standard for facility identification,

including a commonly applied definition of ``facility'', be a useful

first step to integrating facility data across media programs?

(6) How should ``facility'' be defined for purposes of such data

consolidation?

(7) Is there a better or more comprehensive term to use for the

purposes of facility-specific data collection than ``facility.''

(8) From which existing Federal environmental reporting

requirements should facility data be consolidated? Should priorities be

set regarding which Federally regulated facilities to cover?

(9) Should the Initiative be limited to facilities reporting under

Federal authority only or should a Facility Identification data base

include other facilities (e.g. those that only report to a State)?

(10) What data elements would form the optimum consolidated

facility identification record?

(11) What methods of electronic data transmission/submission should

EPA develop and support?

(12) Are there any CBI issues associated with developing and

maintaining a Facility Identification data base?

(13) This Notice outlines a number of possible alternatives for

implementing the Facility Identification Initiative. What other

approaches should be considered? How would such approaches support the

goals of a Facility Identification Initiative?

(14) If a reporting requirement were developed, who should collect

the data and who should maintain it -- EPA, the States, both?

(15) What reporting provisions or techniques of reporting would

minimize the costs of reporting and maintain current data?

(16) Are there non-national alternatives to providing integrated

data to the public? In other words, does facility-specific

environmental protection require the collection and maintenance of a

national data base? Are there needs for national data analyses (in

addition to facility-specific analyses) that would warrant such a

national data base?

(17) Presuming a system of national data integration is advisable,

how best can EPA work with the States to develop such a system?

(18) EPA realizes that there will be impacts to States because of

the Facility Identification Initiative. What are potential problems and

burdens that States may face under each of the various alternatives to

implementing the Facility Identification Initiative?

(19) EPA is aware that a number of States are in the process of

implementing programs much like the Facility Identification Initiative.

What specific programs have States implemented and what progress has

been achieved?

V. Request for Public Comment

EPA requests public comment on all the issues outlined in this

Notice regarding the consolidated reporting of facility identification

information. Comments should be submitted to the address listed under

the ADDRESSES unit. All comments must be received by EPA on or before

December 23, 1996.

VI. Public Participation

This Notice reflects input received early in the process from

various environmental and industrial interest groups, and States. For

example, EPA held ``stakeholders'' meetings on the project on June 23,

1995, in which the project's concepts to date were outlined and oral

comments were received. Copies of materials made available at that

meeting and a summary of comments is available in the public record for

this Notice.

In addition, the Agency entered into a cooperative agreement with

the National Governors' Association (NGA). The purpose of the

cooperative agreement was to provide a forum for States to exchange

information about their respective uniform reporting efforts, to learn

about the Agency's Facility Identification Initiative, and to share

their experiences with EPA. The forum, consisting of 12 State

representatives selected by NGA officials, has held a number of

meetings to discuss the Facility Identification Initiative concepts.

The individual meeting summaries will also be made part of the public

record for this Notice.

[[Page 52600]]

EPA intends to hold one or more public meetings in connection with

this Notice. Separate notice of such meeting or meetings will be

published in the Federal Register.

VII. Public Record

A record has been established for this Notice under docket number

OPPTS-00186 (including comments and data submitted electronically as

described below). A public version of this record, including printed,

paper versions of electronic comments, which does not include any

information claimed as CBI or trade secret, is available for inspection

from noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

The public record is located in the TSCA Nonconfidential Information

Center, Rm. NE-B607, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:

[email protected].

Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of any special characters and any form of encryption. The official

record for this Notice, as described above will be kept in paper form.

Accordingly, EPA will transfer all comments received electronically

into printed, paper form as they are received and will place the paper

copies in the official record for this Notice which will also include

all comments submitted directly in writing. The official public record

is the paper record maintained at the address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the

beginning of this document.

VIII. References

(1) ``Using Information Strategically to Protect Human Health and

the Environment: Recommendations for Comprehensive Information

Resources Management'' issued by the Information Resources Management

Strategic Planning Task Force, a subcommittee of the National Advisory

Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), August 1994,

EPA 270-K-94-002.

(2) EPA 2100 Information Resources Management Policy Manual,

Chapter 13 - Locational Data, April 8, 1991.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection.

Dated: September 26, 1996.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96-25378 Filed 10-4-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-F