[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 224 (Wednesday, November 24, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66953-66964]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25646]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 372

[EPA-HQ-TRI-2016-0390; FRL-5879-02-OCSPP]
RIN 2070-AK16


Addition of Natural Gas Processing Facilities to the Toxics 
Release Inventory

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is adding natural 
gas processing (NGP) facilities (also known as natural gas liquid 
extraction facilities) to the scope of the industrial sectors covered 
by the reporting requirements of the Emergency Planning and Community 
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), commonly known as the Toxics Release 
Inventory (TRI), and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA). Adding these 
facilities will meaningfully increase the information available to the 
public on releases and other waste management of listed chemicals from 
the NGP sector and further the purposes of EPCRA.

DATES: This final rule is effective December 27, 2021 and shall apply 
for the reporting year beginning January 1, 2022 (reports due July 1, 
2023).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-TRI-2016-0390, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and 
Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket 
Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information 
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Due to the public health emergency, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) 
and Reading Room are by appointment only. For the latest status 
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact: 
Daniel R. Ruedy, Data Gathering and Analysis Division, Mail Code 7410M, 
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone 
number: (202) 564-7974; email address: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The Emergency Planning and 
Community Right-to-Know Act Hotline; telephone numbers: Toll free at 
(800) 424-9346 (select menu option 3) or (703) 348-5070 in the 
Washington, DC Area and International; or go to https://www.epa.gov/home/epa-hotlines.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially regulated by this action are those facilities 
that primarily engage in the recovery of liquid

[[Page 66954]]

hydrocarbons from oil and gas field gases and which manufacture, 
process, or otherwise use chemicals listed at 40 CFR 372.65 and meet 
the reporting requirements of EPCRA section 313, 42 U.S.C. 11023, and 
PPA section 6607, 42 U.S.C. 13106. These facilities are categorized 
under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 1321 and North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 211130. In 
response to OMB's revisions to the NAICS codes effective January 1, 
2017, EPA amended 40 CFR part 372 to include the relevant 2017 NAICS 
codes for TRI reporting. EPA also modified the list of exceptions and 
limitations previously included in the CFR for the applicable NAICS 
codes for TRI reporting purposes.
    If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to 
a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    This action is taken under EPCRA sections 313(b) and 328, 42 U.S.C. 
11023(b) and 11048. Specifically, EPCRA section 313(b)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 
11023(b)(1)(B), states that the Agency may ``add or delete Standard 
Industrial Codes for purposes of subparagraph (A), but only to the 
extent necessary to provide that each Standard Industrial Code is 
relevant to the purposes of this section.'' In addition, Congress 
granted EPA broad rulemaking authority under EPCRA section 328, 28 
U.S.C. 11048, which provides that the ``Administrator may prescribe 
such regulations as may be necessary to carry out this chapter.''

C. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is adding NGP facilities to the list of industry sectors 
subject to reporting under EPCRA section 313 and PPA section 6607. With 
this addition, NGP facilities will be subject to TRI reporting for the 
year beginning January 1, 2022, and required to file reports by July 1, 
2023.

D. Why is the Agency taking this action?

    EPA is adding this industry sector to the EPCRA section 313 list 
because doing so will meaningfully increase the information available 
to the public on releases and other waste management of listed 
chemicals from the NGP sector and further the purposes of EPCRA section 
313. In total, there are approximately 1.4 million people living within 
three miles of at least one of the NGP facilities EPA identified. As 
detailed in Unit IV.C. of this notice, some NGP facilities are located 
in communities where there are potential Environmental Justice 
considerations.
    This action also addresses a petition (Ref. 1) submitted to EPA via 
a letter dated October 24, 2012, from the Environmental Integrity 
Project (EIP), together with 16 other organizations, and later joined 
by two additional organizations (collectively, Petitioners) under 
section 553(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) that asked EPA 
to add the Oil and Gas Extraction industrial sector (SIC code 13) to 
the scope of industrial sectors covered by the reporting requirements 
of the TRI. On October 22, 2015, EPA granted, in part, the petition 
insofar as it requested that EPA commence the rulemaking process to 
propose adding NGP facilities to the scope of TRI. EPA denied the 
remainder of the petition. The petition and related documents, 
including EPA's response, can be found in Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-TRI-
2013-0281.

E. What are the incremental costs and benefits of this action?

    EPA considered the incremental costs and benefits associated with 
this rulemaking. EPA estimates the total incremental costs to be 
approximately $11,846,000 to $18,044,000 in the first year and 
approximately $5,641,000 to $8,593,000 in the steady state. In 
addition, EPA performed a screening analysis on small entities and 
determined this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. A more detailed discussion 
is included in Unit IV.C.

F. Are there potentially disproportionate impacts for children health?

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or 
safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately 
affect children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in 
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental 
health risk or safety risk.

G. What are the environmental justice impacts?

    This regulatory action changes reporting requirements for NGP 
facilities and does not have any direct impact on human health or the 
environment. However, for communities living near NGP facilities, there 
is the potential for new information about toxic chemical releases and 
waste management practices occurring in those communities to become 
available through the TRI reporting data. A more detailed discussion is 
included in Unit IV. C.

II. Background

    As discussed in the proposed rule of January 6, 2017 (82 FR 1651) 
(FRL-9953-68) (Ref. 2), EPA proposed to add NGP facilities to the scope 
of the industrial sectors covered by the reporting requirements of 
section 313 of EPCRA and section 6607 of the PPA. In the proposed rule, 
the Agency asserted that adding these facilities would meaningfully 
increase the information available to the public on releases and other 
waste management of listed chemicals from the NGP sector and further 
the purposes of EPCRA section 313. In the proposed rule, EPA estimated 
in 2017 that at least 282 NGP facilities in the U.S. would meet the TRI 
employee threshold (10 full-time employees or equivalent) and 
manufacture, process, or otherwise use (threshold activities) at least 
one TRI-listed chemical in excess of applicable threshold quantities. 
Collectively, NGP facilities in the U.S. manufacture, process, or 
otherwise use at least 21 different TRI-listed chemicals, including n-
hexane, hydrogen sulfide, toluene, benzene, xylene, and methanol.

III. Response to Comments

    Upon publication of the proposed rule, EPA initially provided a 60-
day comment period. EPA then granted an additional 60 days to allow 
interested parties further time to prepare their comments (82 FR 12924) 
(FRL-9959-41). The public comment period for the proposed rule closed 
on May 6, 2017. EPA received 5,933 comments on the proposed rule.
    The Agency received 5,470 duplicate or significantly similar 
comments, leaving 463 unique comments received, of which 25 comments 
received were substantive and related to the proposal. Eleven of those 
comments were submitted by private citizens, one of which was submitted 
anonymously (Docket ID EPA-HQ-TRI-2016-0127, 0202, 0218, 0251, 0268, 
0269, 0393, 0452, 0453, 0470, 0486). Three comments submitted by 
industry groups requested an extension to the original comment period 
(0023, 0024, 0025). Comments were submitted from the following public 
interest non-governmental organizations (NGOs): Environmental Action 
Center (EAC) (0343), Earthworks (0375), Environmental Integrity Project 
(EIP) (0334), Westmoreland Marcellus Citizens' Group (0435), and 
Western Governors' Association (0481).

[[Page 66955]]

Comments were also received from the following industry groups: 
American Petroleum Institute (API) (0483), GPA Midstream (0475), 
Marcellus Shale Coalition (0474), MarkWest (0484), and the Texas 
Pipeline Association (TPA) (0478). A comment received from Black 
Warrior Riverkeeper (0292) was not relevant to the proposed action.
    Comments received from the public interest mass mail campaigns were 
supportive of the proposed rule. With the exception of Western 
Governors' Association, all comments received from private citizens and 
public interest NGOs were supportive of the proposed rule, although 
some provided recommendations to include more information in the final 
rule. Comments received from industry groups were not supportive of the 
rule. EPA's responses to all substantive comments relevant to the 
proposed rule are detailed in the remainder of this Unit.

A. Petition Not Authorized by Law

1. Comment
    Several commenters argued that the Petition that EIP submitted to 
EPA was not authorized by law and therefore should neither have been 
considered nor granted in part. Commenters stated that the statutory 
provisions for TRI-related petitions are in EPCRA, are only intended 
for changes to the chemical list, and do not allow the public to 
petition for changes to the list of industry sectors that are subject 
to TRI reporting requirements. One commenter stated that the 
Congressional implication, therefore, is that other types of petitions 
involving TRI are not allowed. Other commenters stated that the Agency 
failed to address many considerations that are relevant to the decision 
to add NGP facilities to the industry sector list for EPCRA section 313 
TRI reporting.
2. EPA Response
    The Agency disagrees with the commenters' arguments that the 
Petition that EIP submitted to EPA was not authorized by law and should 
not have been granted in part. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 
governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue 
regulations. The APA includes requirements for publishing notices of 
proposed and final rulemaking in the Federal Register, and it provides 
opportunities for the public to comment on notices of proposed 
rulemaking. Under the APA, federal agencies must give interested 
persons the right to petition for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of 
a rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(e). Accordingly, EIP submitted the petition under 
the APA to request that EPA issue a rule to add oil and gas industry 
sectors to the scope of the TRI program. That EPCRA also provides 
citizens the opportunity to petition EPA for specific rulemaking 
actions, specifically to request that the Agency modify the list of 
chemicals applicable to TRI reporting requirements, does not supplant 
the general petition process that the APA provides. Rather, the 
specific EPCRA petition procedure provides a specific timeframe and 
requirements for petitions that request changes to the TRI list of 
covered chemicals.
    EPCRA section 313(b)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. 11023(b)(1)(B), states that 
EPA ``may add or delete [SIC] Codes . . . to the extent necessary to 
provide that each [SIC] code to which this section applies is relevant 
to the purposes of [the TRI].'' In addition, Congress granted EPA broad 
rulemaking authority under EPCRA section 328, 28 U.S.C. 11048, to 
``prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out this 
chapter.''
    The addition of NGP facilities to the scope of the industrial 
sectors covered by the reporting requirements of EPCRA section 313 will 
meaningfully increase the information available to the public on 
releases and other waste management of listed chemicals from the NGP 
sector. Thus, addition of this industrial sector is relevant and 
necessary to carry out the purposes of the TRI.

B. Inadequate Notice

1. Comment
    Some commenters believed that there was a lack of time, both to 
submit comments on the proposed rule and to comply with the rule if 
finalized. These commenters argued that there was not sufficient time 
for them to adequately analyze all the supporting documents related to 
the proposed rule and that historically the Agency held extensive 
outreach prior to releasing any proposal to add additional sectors 
required to report to TRI. One commenter requested the EPA ``allow 
sufficient lead time to comply with the rule'' if finalized, 
recommending reports not be due until at least 2019 (0475). One 
commenter stated that a consultation with states within which these 
facilities operate should have occurred to determine the necessity of 
adding NGP facilities to the TRI, considering the presence of state 
regulations.
2. EPA Response
    EPA provided adequate notice to all interested stakeholders, 
including the public, industry, and the States, regarding its proposal 
to add NGP facilities to the scope of TRI. On October 24, 2012, the EIP 
and sixteen other organizations submitted a Petition to EPA, requesting 
that the Agency add the Oil and Gas Extraction sector, SIC code 13, to 
the scope of sectors covered by TRI under section 313 of EPCRA. EPA 
published a Federal Register notice on January 3, 2014 (79 FR 393) 
(FRL-9904-82-OEI) acknowledging receipt of the petition from EIP and 
placing the Petition in the public docket. On February 25, 2014, API 
met with EPA to better understand EPA's intentions for the petition. 
The Agency also received comments submitted from industry trade groups 
in response to the EIP petition, which EPA made available in the public 
docket.
    On October 22, 2015, EPA granted, in part, the petition insofar as 
it requested that EPA commence the rulemaking process to propose adding 
NGP facilities to the scope of TRI Ref. 3) and published its response 
in the public docket. On January 6, 2017, the Agency proposed to add 
NGP facilities to the scope of the industrial sectors covered by the 
reporting requirements of EPCRA section 313. The initial 60-day comment 
period was January 6 to March 7, 2017. In response to requests from 
multiple stakeholders, the Agency extended the comment period for an 
additional 60 days from March 7, 2017 to May 6, 2017. Therefore, there 
was sufficient notice for the proposal of adding NGP facilities to TRI. 
States also had sufficient time to comment and request consultation 
with the Agency. Further, TRI is a federal program designed to provide 
information to the public and decisionmakers across all governmental 
levels. TRI reporting requirements do not conflict with state 
regulation of NGP facilities; rather, they help inform such regulation.
    EPA agrees that sufficient lead time should be provided to comply 
with the final rule, and has provided sufficient time in the rule 
finalized in this action. EPCRA 313(a) provides that reporting shall be 
submitted annually on or before July 1 and shall contain data 
reflecting waste management occurring during the preceding calendar 
year. Accordingly, this final rule is effective December 27, 2021 and 
shall apply for the reporting year beginning January 1, 2022, such that 
the first reports are due July 1, 2023. This timeframe provides ample 
time for facilities to make reasonable estimates of releases and waste 
management quantities for chemicals that they manufacture, process, or 
otherwise use.

[[Page 66956]]

C. Scope of Addition too Narrow

1. Comment
    One commenter suggested that EPA expand the description of the 
proposed rule from mostly focusing on why it is adding NGP facilities 
to the scope of industries required to report under TRI, to also 
encompassing reasons for not requiring the rest of the Oil and Gas 
Extraction Industry sector to report under TRI. Another commenter 
asserted that the proposed rule did not sufficiently explain why it 
limits the scope of the addition to NGP facilities alone, and that 
while EPA explains that it will add NGP facilities to the list of TRI 
reporting industries, the Agency insufficiently explains what this 
limited scope means for chemical release data reporting and why the 
Agency decided on such a limited scope.
2. EPA Response
    In its response to the EIP Petition, the Agency provided its 
rationale for proposing to add only NGP facilities from the Oil and Gas 
Extraction sector at that time. As detailed in EPA's rationale in the 
Petition Response (available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-TRI-2013-0281-0047 in regulations.gov), considerations of the 
EPCRA statutory definition of ``facility,'' as well as numerous other 
EPA activities addressing the oil and gas sector, warranted focusing 
this rulemaking on NGP facilities specifically.

D. Data Used To Evaluate NGP Facilities

1. Comment
    Several comments from industry suggested that the data EPA 
evaluated to support the proposed addition of NGP facilities were used 
improperly and incorrectly identified the number of U.S. NGP facilities 
that may trigger TRI reporting requirements. For example, in Table 2.2 
of EPA's economic analysis for the proposed rule (Ref. 4), EPA based 
its estimates of chemical forms TRI would receive on the number of 
facilities Canada's National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI), a 
program analogous to TRI, already covers that would be required to 
report (estimating that it would receive 242 forms from 31 reporting 
facilities with 10 or more full-time employees (FTEs) and reporting a 
TRI chemical, or 7.81 forms per facility). API contends that EPA should 
have included in its estimates those facilities with fewer than 10 
FTEs, not reporting a TRI chemical, that would thus not report to TRI, 
(which would result in less than one form per facility). API contends 
that this shows the reporting would provide little benefit to further 
the purposes of EPCRA section 313.
2. EPA Response
    EPA analyzed data from multiple sources and used modeling 
techniques to identify the estimated universe of NGP facilities that 
could trigger TRI reporting requirements if EPA were to add NGP 
facilities to the scope of industrial sectors covered by TRI (Ref. 4). 
These data sources included the U.S. Energy Information Administration 
survey (EIA-757 survey), Canada's NPRI, EPA's Risk Management Plan 
(RMP) Program, and EPA's Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP). 
Based on these datasets, EPA estimated that NGP facilities in the U.S. 
collectively manufacture, process, or otherwise use more than 21 
different TRI-listed chemicals. These chemicals include n-hexane, 
hydrogen sulfide, toluene, benzene, xylene, and methanol. Since the 
proposed rule, EPA updated its analysis and now estimates that between 
321 and 489 NGP facilities in the U.S. would meet the TRI employee 
threshold (10 full-time employees or equivalent) and manufacture, 
process, or otherwise use at least one TRI-listed chemical in excess of 
applicable threshold quantities (Ref. 5). Thus, because EPA is basing 
its estimates of facilities that would report to TRI only on the counts 
of NGP facilities with 10 or more full-time employees or equivalent and 
not the entire universe of NGP facilities in the U.S., EPA's estimated 
facility counts are commensurable with the 31 NPRI facilities and 
associated forms-per-facility ratios identified in the NPRI data. EPA's 
analysis clearly establishes that there are facilities within the 
candidate NGP industry group whose reporting can reasonably be 
anticipated to increase the information made available pursuant to 
EPCRA section 313, or otherwise further the purpose of EPCRA section 
313. Furthermore, based upon information submitted to the NPRI and the 
2017 EIA-757 survey of NGP facilities, as well as based on EPA's 
understanding of the sector, EPA expects that TRI reporting by U.S. NGP 
facilities will provide substantial release and waste management data.

E. Improper Use of Canada's NPRI Data by EPA To Evaluate NGP Facilities

1. Comment
    There were a few commenters who believed that EPA improperly used 
Canada's NPRI data to evaluate NGP facilities in the U.S. The 
commenters believe that EPA's use of the NPRI data overestimated the 
number of NGP facilities and number of TRI chemicals that would trigger 
thresholds to be reported under EPCRA section 313. One commenter 
expressed concern that EPA utilized NPRI data selectively by using it 
only to identify chemicals used in the NGP industry, but not to 
recognize from those same NPRI data that reported releases are almost 
exclusively to air, are therefore already reported to air emissions 
programs, and no releases to other media or other unique information 
would be reported to TRI (0334). Another commenter, though supportive 
of the rule, recommended EPA base its information factor conclusion on 
evidence from the actual facilities it would regulate rather than 
surrogate data from the NPRI.
2. EPA Response
    EPA disagrees that it improperly used Canada's NPRI data. The NPRI 
data provide information on what chemicals and associated quantities 
are universally used in the NGP industry. EPA used the NPRI data 
alongside other domestic information sources (e.g., EIA-757) to 
estimate what chemicals and associated quantities are likely used by 
NGP facilities in the U.S. As detailed in Unit III.G.2 of this notice, 
data reported to TRI include releases to media, including air, but also 
many other data elements--such as pollution prevention and other source 
reduction activities--not reported to air programs. That releases 
reported by Canadian NGP facilities to NPRI are predominantly to air 
does not render EPA's inferences on chemical usage improper or unsound, 
nor does it have a bearing on the utility of air emissions data and 
associated information reported to TRI. As stated in Unit III.G.2 of 
this notice, TRI is a nationwide database that places data in a 
central, publicly accessible location. Further, TRI data provide unique 
benefits in that they are collected annually; they reflect chemical 
emissions to multimedia, including air, water, and land; and they 
encompass source reduction and other pollution practices. Simply put, 
TRI reporting involves more than reporting on releases to air, and 
increasing the TRI dataset to include reporting from NGP facilities 
would provide access to data not otherwise available from other 
programs, and in a format that is readily accessible and designed for 
public use.

F. Prior Decision To Not Include Additional Oil and Gas Industry 
Sectors

1. Comment
    One commenter expressed concern that EPA did not provide sufficient

[[Page 66957]]

justification as to why the inclusion of NGP facilities under TRI 
should be revisited and why NGP facilities should ultimately be made 
subject to EPCRA section 313 reporting. Two other commenters, though in 
support of the rule, recommended that EPA reconsider its decision to 
limit the scope of the addition to processing facilities, and instead 
include extraction and mid-stream compressor facilities. Another 
commenter suggested that EPA include its rationale in the final rule 
for limiting the scope of the proposed addition to processing 
facilities.
2. EPA Response
    EPA disagrees that it has not provided sufficient justification for 
revisiting the inclusion of NGP facilities under TRI. In its 1997 
sector addition rulemaking, EPA considered the addition of the oil and 
gas industry group to TRI. At that time, EPA indicated that one 
consideration for not including the industry group was concern over how 
a ``facility'' would be defined for purposes of reporting in EPCRA 
section 313 (61 FR 33592) (FRL-5379-3). That issue, in addition to 
other questions, led EPA to not include, at the time, the oil and gas 
industry group as a whole.
    However, EPA has since determined that NGP facilities are 
appropriate for addition to the scope of TRI. The triennial survey of 
NGP facilities by the by the EIA (EIA-757 survey) (Ref. 6), identifies 
478 NGP facilities in the lower 48 states as of 2017. The continued 
growth of natural gas production since 2014 also provides justification 
for revisiting the inclusion of NGP facilities (Ref. 5). EPA estimated 
that over half of those facilities would annually meet TRI reporting 
thresholds and, if covered by the reporting requirements of TRI, be 
required to submit TRI information to EPA. The information likely to be 
obtained from these facilities is not readily available elsewhere.
    As described in the petition response (Ref. 3), when the three 
factors that EPA considered in the 1997 TRI sector addition (Ref. 7) 
are applied to NGP facilities, the chemical factor and activity factor 
are met by most NGP facilities--many TRI-listed chemicals are regularly 
manufactured, processed, or otherwise used at these facilities. With 
respect to the information factor (i.e., the third factor), the 
addition of NGP facilities to TRI would meaningfully increase the 
information available to the public and further the purposes of EPCRA 
section 313. As stated in Unit III.B.1 of this notice, using 
information from Canada's NPRI, a program analogous to TRI and which 
covers NGP facilities, EPA estimates that NGP facilities in the U.S. 
collectively manufacture, process, or otherwise use more than 21 
different TRI-listed chemicals. These chemicals include n-hexane, 
hydrogen sulfide, toluene, benzene, xylene, and methanol. In contrast, 
related facilities, such as extraction or compressor facilities, are 
not likely to meet the TRI full-time employee or activity thresholds, 
as EPA concluded in the 1997 TRI sector addition (Ref. 7).
    Because TRI coverage of NGP facilities would meet the chemical, 
activity, and information factors, and based on the number of NGP 
facilities that would be required to report to TRI, the Agency has 
provided adequate rationale for their addition to TRI.

G. The Addition the Rule Proposes Is Not Relevant to the Purposes of 
TRI

1. Comment
    Some commenters stated that the proposed rule would provide 
redundant data, and it is unnecessary to include NGP facilities on TRI 
because other regulatory programs already collect these data. 
Commenters assert that much of these data are already in the public 
domain and that NGP facilities already report spills and releases, 
track waste disposal activities, and obtain air permits and report 
deviations from permit conditions. In addition, commenters expressed 
that the focus of TRI is to increase the level of publicly available 
information to help communities plan for response actions in the event 
of a release. Commenters also expressed that NGP facilities ``do not 
pose the same level of risk as other facilities that Congress and EPA 
have deemed significant enough to include in the TRI'' (0478) as well 
as that hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are already covered under the 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP), 
which minimize risk of accidental releases. One commenter further 
expressed concern that NGP facility release data reported to TRI could 
be misunderstood or mischaracterized by the public, in that most NGP 
facility releases are authorized by permits (e.g., Clean Air Act 
permitting) and thus are planned and controlled.
2. EPA Response
    EPA disagrees that the data reporting that the rule would require 
is not relevant to the purposes of TRI. TRI's central focus is to 
provide information to federal, state, and local governments and the 
public, including citizens of communities surrounding covered 
facilities; to inform persons about releases of toxic chemicals to the 
environment; to assist governmental agencies, researchers, and other 
persons in the conduct of research and data gathering; to aid in the 
development of appropriate regulations, guidelines, and standards; and 
for other similar purposes. Further, though planning for an emergency 
response action is not a primary focus of TRI, information collected 
under TRI do help inform decision-making related to potential risk 
concerns. Moreover, the addition of NGP facilities would meaningfully 
increase the information available to the public on releases and other 
waste management of listed chemicals from the NGP sector and further 
the purposes of EPCRA section 313. Further, TRI is a nationwide 
database that places data in a central, publicly accessible location, 
and TRI data are uniform and commensurable, better enabling meaningful 
comparisons, analyses, and trend determinations.
    The Agency is aware that the public may misunderstand or 
misrepresent TRI data. Misuse or misinterpretation of information does 
not mean that the basis for collecting the information is invalid. EPA 
finds that the appropriate solution to this issue for TRI is education 
and outreach, rather than a decision not to include an otherwise 
eligible industry group on TRI. However, any potential for 
misconstruing TRI data is not unique to NGP facilities or the data they 
would submit. Further, EPA finds the activities and processes NGP 
facilities conduct are analogous to those of the Petroleum Refineries 
sector (NAICS 324110), which is a covered sector under TRI. Thus, 
including NGP facilities would provide information to TRI similar to 
what facilities in the petroleum refineries sector already provide. EPA 
provides a ``Factors to Consider When Using Toxics Release Inventory 
Data'' document to help stakeholders understand how to use TRI 
appropriately (accessible at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-03/documents/factors_to_consider_march_2019.pdf). EPA is 
amenable to recommendations on how to further improve stakeholders' 
ability to make use of TRI data.

H. NGP Facilities are Currently Regulated by Law (Federal and State)

1. Comment
    Some commenters referred to existing federal and state regulations, 
among them EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI) program, which 
already impose compliance obligations on NGP

[[Page 66958]]

facilities, as sufficient and a reason for EPA to withdraw the proposed 
rule.
2. EPA Response
    The Agency disagrees. Although EPA's NEI program also collects and 
publishes air emissions data pertaining to NGP facilities, TRI 
reporting by these facilities would offer key benefits the NEI does not 
provide. First, the NEI is limited to air emissions, whereas TRI 
requires disclosure of releases to air, land, and water, as well as 
waste management and pollution prevention information. Second, the NEI 
is published on a triennial basis, whereas TRI data are collected and 
published annually. Third, the different purposes of the two programs 
drive different uses of the data they collect. TRI was developed to 
provide the public with information about the disposition of toxic 
chemicals in their communities, whereas the NEI was developed to 
collect data to support air modeling and risk assessments at the 
national level.
    Further, any generation or collection of overlapping data by TRI is 
not unique to NGP facilities. As stated in its information collection 
request (ICR) (Ref. 8), EPA anticipates some overlap of TRI and other 
programs, and notes that section 313(g)(2) of EPCRA specifies that 
respondents may use readily available data collected pursuant to other 
provisions of law to complete the EPCRA section 313 reports.
    Finally, information required by these other statutes may not 
provide readily accessible multi-media release and transfer, inventory, 
or pollution prevention data with the same scope, level of detail, 
chemical coverage, and frequency of collection as data currently 
included in TRI. As described in Unit III.G.2, given TRI's community-
right-to-know foundations, TRI data are designed to be especially 
accessible and easy to use, and the systems that offer them to the 
public over the Web provide numerous analysis, download, and 
visualization tools. Thus, the rule provides benefits that other 
regulations and programs do not.

I. NGP Reporting Imposes Significant Burdens on the Regulated Community 
and EPA Underestimates These Burdens

1. Comment
    Some commenters stated that EPA's proposed rule underestimates the 
costs of compliance, the burden and related cost of reporting for NGP 
facilities, and associated cost of collecting economic data. Commenters 
also suggested that EPA does not take into account the full operational 
activities of NGP facilities and that the burden analysis that EPA 
conducted only considers cost to prepare and submit forms; the analysis 
does not account for costs associated with tracking and analysis of 
chemicals activity that do not reach reporting thresholds but 
nonetheless must be tracked as part of determining TRI reporting 
applicability. One commenter pointed to the 44 pages of guidance that 
EPA has published on the subject of threshold calculations alone as 
evidence of ambiguity and resultant baseline burden imposed on 
facilities to merely determine their reporting obligation. Another 
commenter suggested EPA reduce the scope of the final rule to focus 
only on the approximately 21 chemicals used by NGP facilities and not 
require reporting from NGP facilities on other TRI chemicals.
2. EPA Response
    As detailed in Unit III.F.2 of this notice, according to a 
triennial survey of NGP facilities by the EIA (EIA-757 survey), 
described further in the economic analysis EPA prepared for this 
rulemaking (Ref. 4), there were 517 NGP facilities in the lower 48 
states as of 2012. Since the proposed rule, an updated EIA survey 
estimated there were 478 such facilities as of 2017 (Ref. 5). EPA 
estimates that more than half of these facilities would annually meet 
TRI reporting thresholds for one or more of 21 different TRI-listed 
chemicals and, if covered by the reporting requirements of TRI, would 
be required to submit TRI information to EPA. The information likely to 
be obtained from these facilities is not readily available elsewhere.
    EPA disagrees that it has underestimated burden by failing to 
account for activities ancillary to Form R or A submittal, such as rule 
familiarization (i.e., staff at a facility that is reporting under 
EPCRA section 313 for the first time must read the reporting package 
and become familiar with the reporting requirements, which includes the 
time needed to review instructions, and the time needed to train 
personnel to respond to a collection of information), reporter 
compliance determination, or non-reporter compliance determination 
(i.e., those eligible facilities that will complete compliance 
determination but will not file a Form R or Form A). As described in 
the economic analysis of the proposed addition (Ref. 30) and included 
in the docket for the proposed rule, the new methodology used to 
estimate reporting burden in the proposed rule--Ratio-Based Burden 
Methodology (RBBM)--is a restructured and simplified formulation of the 
previously employed methodology; OMB approved this new methodology, 
which was published on April 28, 2011 (Ref. 35). When estimating 
reporting burden using RBBM, the Nominal Form R unit burden is the base 
number and Form A unit burden is set at 61.5% of that value. These unit 
burdens reflect burden associated with form activities including rule 
familiarization, reporter compliance determination, calculations and 
form completion, and recordkeeping. In addition to Form R and Form A 
burden, total TRI Program burden is captured by adding non-form 
burden--associated with supplier notification, non-reporter compliance 
determination, and petitions--to form burden.
    EPA disagrees with TPA's assertion that quantity of guidance on a 
subject is indicative of that subject's complexity and resulting burden 
that this rule would place on NGP facilities to assess their reporting 
obligations and prepare and submit reports. The 44 pages of guidance on 
threshold calculations to which TPA refers is a compendium of questions 
EPA has received over time from facilities across all TRI-covered 
industry sectors. It is not reasonable to suggest that a single NGP 
facility or all NGP facilities in aggregate would encounter a 
comparable quantity, or even a substantive portion, of those unique 
scenarios that all facilities in all covered industry sectors have 
identified in the TRI program's 35 years of existence where detailed 
guidance was provided. Further, EPA disagrees with TPA's suggestions 
that the Agency's offering of an ``advanced concepts'' training course 
and a threshold screening tool demonstrate the complexity of reporting. 
That some facilities have dealt with complexities does not lead to the 
conclusion that all facilities will face complexities. Indeed, TPA 
fails to identify any specific complexity that NGP facilities would 
face, whether shared by all covered facilities or specifically by NGP 
facilities due to this sector's unique activity characteristics.
    Where reporting requirements for NGP facilities overlap with other 
state and federal laws, as several commenters have identified, the 
Agency finds that because facilities already collect data and have 
mechanisms in place to do so, any additional burden increment from 
reporting to TRI on such overlapping requirements will be minimal. 
Finally, EPA disagrees that NGP facilities otherwise subject to 
reporting should be restricted to only report on the 21 TRI-listed 
chemicals EPA has identified as associated with the NGP industry. As 
described at 42 U.S.C. 11023(a) and (b)(1)(A) and (B), EPA has 
authority to

[[Page 66959]]

require reporting from covered facilities on all TRI-listed chemicals. 
While EPA has identified 21 TRI-listed chemicals associated with the 
NGP industry, the burden of determining what other TRI-listed chemicals 
or chemical categories is not associated with a specific facility is 
minimal. Requiring NGP facilities to report to TRI on chemicals and 
chemical categories in addition to the 21 that EPA has associated with 
the NGP industry is consistent with furthering the purposes of EPCRA 
section 313.

J. Applicability of Executive Order 13771

1. Comment
    Some commenters (0483, 0474, 0478) suggested that EPA consider E.O. 
13771 (Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs), which 
they claim specifies that any new regulation should impose zero 
incremental costs and that EPA identify two existing regulations to be 
eliminated to offset any potential incremental costs of a new 
regulation. Commenters believe that, in contravention of E.O. 13771, 
the proposed rule creates undue burden with limited benefit and is 
incompatible with the objective of energy independence and economic 
growth. API also stated that in EPA's response to the EIP petition on 
October 22, 2015, the Agency wrote that NGP facilities are already 
subject to a wide range of multi-media requirements, suggesting that 
the existence of these requirements bolsters its position that this 
action is in contravention of E.O. 13771.
2. EPA Response
    Executive Order 13771 of January 30, 2017 was revoked on January 
20, 2021. Thus, EPA finds that comments referencing E.O. 13771 are 
moot. EPA has delineated its response to concerns of undue and 
unwarranted burden in Unit III.C.4. of this notice.
Confusion for Facilities in Determining TRI Applicability

K. Definition of ``Facility'' Is Flawed and Confusing for Industry

1. Comment
    Some commenters believed that the statutory definition of 
``facility,'' as applied to NGP facilities in the context of this rule, 
is flawed and creates confusion among industry and significant burden 
in understanding TRI reporting requirements. One commenter stated that 
the unique definitions of facility under other (non-TRI) statutes and 
programs used by EPA in its TRI estimations inflated the actual number 
of NGP facilities that may need to report if the rule were finalized 
and NGP were added as a covered industry sector under TRI. One 
commenter stated that the definition of facility results in coverage of 
small and insignificant sources of emissions and contends that the 
occasional inclusion of remote non-NGP operations in reporting to TRI 
is an unintended consequence that goes beyond Congressional intent. 
Commenters further cite previously identified issues with how to apply 
the definition of ``facility'' to the entire Oil and Gas Industrial 
Sector as mentioned in the 1996 proposed rule (finalized in 1997), when 
EPA deferred adding the oil and gas extraction industry group ``because 
of questions regarding how particular facilities should be 
identified,'' (61 FR 33588) (FRL-5379-3), and assert that these 
questions apply to the proposed NGP rule as well. On the other hand, 
some commenters felt that EPA should interpret the facility definition 
more ``broadly'' to capture a collectively large source of potential 
environmental contamination from the Oil and Gas Industrial Sector more 
broadly.
2. EPA Response
    EPCRA section 329(4) defines the term ``facility'' to mean ``all 
buildings, equipment, structures, and other stationary items which are 
located on a single site or on contiguous or adjacent sites and which 
are owned or operated by the same person (or by any person which 
controls, is controlled by, or under common control with, such person) 
. . . .'' 42 U.S.C. 11049(4). See also, 40 CFR 372.3, which reflects 
the statutory definition and provides that a facility may contain more 
than one establishment, which the term establishment being defined as 
an economic unit, generally at a single physical location, where 
business is conducted or where services or industrial operations are 
performed. EPA disagrees that its application of the statutory 
definition of ``facility'' to the NGP facilities that are the subject 
of this rule is flawed. This rule does not add the entire Oil and Gas 
Industrial Sector to the TRI, and thus the ``questions regarding how 
particular facilities should be identified'' (61 FR 33588) (FRL-5379-3) 
at play in the 1996 proposed and 1997 final rule are not at play here. 
As EPA explained at pages 5-6 of its response to the EIP Petition, 
available at https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-TRI-2013-0281-0047, ``[u]nlike the remainder of this industrial sector . . ., natural 
gas processing plants readily meet the statutory definition of 
`facility' at EPCRA section 329(4), 42 U.S.C. 11049(4).''
    EPA also disagrees with the recommendation to apply the facility 
definition more ``broadly'' as part of this addition, such that 
geographically discrete oil and gas operations under common ownership 
should constitute a single facility under EPCRA. This comment to apply 
the ``facility'' definition more ``broadly,'' like the EIP petition, 
references Sierra Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 299 F. Supp. 2d 693 
(W.D. Ky. 2003), where discrete chicken houses spaced 50 to 60 feet 
apart, under common ownership, were considered a single facility under 
EPCRA. As detailed in its petition response, EPA finds the average 
physical distances separating oil and gas operations far exceed those 
at issue in Sierra Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. However, there will 
be situations where distances between sites will warrant such sites 
being considered one facility for TRI-reporting purposes. As an 
example, in scenarios where sites that would otherwise be contiguous or 
adjacent are separated by a right of way, such sites are considered one 
facility for Section 313 reporting purposes. Further, as indicated in 
the proposed rule, contiguous or adjacent sites with a common owner or 
operator can result in such sites being included in the reporting 
required by an NGP facility, though these contiguous or adjacent sites 
would otherwise not trigger reporting had they been geographically 
distant from the TRI-covered NGP facility. In light of the statutory 
definition of ``facility,'' which specifically provides that such 
adjacent or contiguous facilities under common ownership are a single 
facility, the Agency disagrees that inclusion of such facilities in 
reporting to TRI is contrary to Congressional intent.
    Although it is true that RMP and GHGRP have unique definitions of 
``facility,'' which differ from EPCRA and may cause EPA's estimates of 
NGP facilities to be higher or lower than those that would ultimately 
report to TRI, EPA finds that data from these programs are appropriate 
for modeling the universe of NGP facilities in the U.S. that would 
report to TRI as a range--the lower bound estimate of which is 321 
facilities--as well as estimating burden and determining if the 
addition would increase information made available pursuant to EPCRA 
section 313.

L. Confusion for Facilities in Determining TRI Applicability

1. Comment
    One commenter recommended that EPA clarify issues related to how

[[Page 66960]]

facilities determine their NAICS classification by referencing the 2012 
NAICS in the proposal, as significant changes were made to six of the 
NAICS sectors in 2017.
2. EPA Response
    TRI requires facilities to determine their own NAICS code(s), based 
on their on-site activities and by conducting NAICS keyword and 2- to 
6-digit searches on the U.S. Census Bureau website. Further, facilities 
may include multiple establishments that may have different NAICS codes 
as distinct and separate economic units. For TRI reporting, these 
facilities determine which economic activity contributes the majority 
or plurality of the facility's revenue. If the total value added of the 
products produced, shipped, or services provided at establishments with 
covered NAICS codes is greater than 50 percent of the value added of 
the entire facility's products and services, the entire facility meets 
the NAICS code criterion. If an establishment with a covered NAICS code 
has a value added of services or products shipped or produced that is 
greater than any other establishment within the facility (40 CFR 
372.22(b)(3)), the facility also meets the NAICS code criterion. A 
final rule was published in the Federal Register on December 26, 2017 
(82 FR 60906) (FRL-9970-02) to adopt 2017 NAICS codes for reporting 
year (RY) 2017 and subsequent reporting years. Accordingly, this final 
rule adds the portion of the industry sector categorized under NAICS 
211130 to the scope of TRI requirements. Qualifiers for NAICS codes are 
common in TRI reporting requirements.

M. Naturally Occurring Argument

1. Comment
    One commenter claimed that prior case law (the comment cited 
Barrick Goldstrike Mines, Inc. v. Whitman, 26 F. Supp. 2d 28, 41 
(D.D.C. 2003), and Nat'l Min. Ass'n v. Browner, 2001 WL 1886840, No. 
CIV. A. 97 N 2665, at *6 (D. Colo. 2001)) ``established (1) that under 
EPCRA section 313, the term `manufacture' of TRI chemicals is limited 
to the creation of the TRI chemical or compound as a result of human or 
industrial activities, and naturally occurring TRI chemicals and 
compounds originally present in a raw material feedstock will not be 
considered as `manufactured' within the meaning of EPCRA section 313 
and (2) the corollary that activities involving unaltered naturally 
occurring chemicals and compounds cannot be considered as `processing' 
within the meaning of EPCRA section 313 as the activity of `processing' 
requires the predicate of the EPCRA section 313 `manufacture' of the 
TRI chemical.'' (0482) This commenter contends that activities 
involving naturally occurring chemicals and compounds cannot be 
considered for manufacturing and processing thresholds. Based on this 
contention, the commenter asserts that EPA has overestimated the number 
of chemicals and facilities expected to trigger thresholds and thus 
provided a flawed rationale for the rule.
2. EPA Response
    EPA disagrees with the commenters' interpretation of cited case 
law. The courts did not determine that manufacture is limited to the 
creation of the TRI chemical; the courts instead held that preparation 
of a listed chemical can only be considered ``processing,'' per the 
EPCRA definition, where the chemical has already been ``manufactured'' 
by some other activity. Further, it was noted that manufacture includes 
activities such as preparation. When natural gas is extracted from the 
Earth, it may contain chemical components other than methane. During 
and after extraction, the natural gas and its components undergo 
various separation and preparation activities. When it reaches an NGP 
facility, the natural gas is no longer the naturally-occurring, raw 
material it was at the time of extraction; it has already undergone 
preparation activities prior to and upon arriving at the NGP facility. 
The NGP facility then continues preparing and processing the natural 
gas--separating certain impurities and other components, among other 
activities--and distributes into commerce the methane gas and certain 
other products. EPA finds these activities constitute ``processing'' 
within the meaning of EPCRA section 313(b)(1)(C)(ii) and 40 CFR 372.3, 
and align with longstanding interpretations of the processing threshold 
activity, such as facilities that primarily recover sulfur from natural 
gas (originally added by Congress when enacting the statute), and the 
Petroleum Refineries sector, which are already covered under TRI.

IV. Summary of Final Rule

A. Scope of Addition

    In this action, EPA is adding NGP facilities to the list of 
facilities subject to EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements.
    The proposed rule contained information on EPA's review of the 
natural gas liquid extraction sector and these specific NGP facilities 
(Ref. 2). NGP facilities are stationary surface facilities that receive 
gas from a gathering system that collects raw natural gas from many 
nearby wells and prepares the gas for delivery to the NGP facilities. 
These NGP facilities further process the natural gas (composed 
primarily of methane) to industrial or pipeline specifications and 
extract heavier liquid hydrocarbons from the prepared field natural 
gas. During this process, natural gas liquids (NGLs) (i.e., 
hydrocarbons heavier than methane) and contaminants (e.g., hydrogen 
sulfide, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen) are separated from the natural 
gas stream, resulting in processed, pipeline-quality natural gas. NGLs 
are fractionated on-site into isolated streams (e.g., ethane, propane, 
butanes, natural gasoline) or shipped off-site for subsequent 
fractionation or other processing. Hydrogen sulfide is often either 
disposed through underground injection or reacted into sulfuric acid or 
elemental sulfur, while carbon dioxide and nitrogen may be emitted to 
the atmosphere. The processed pipeline-quality natural gas is then 
transferred to consumers via intra- and inter-state pipeline networks. 
NGLs are primarily used as feedstocks by petrochemical manufacturers or 
refineries. SIC 1321 (Natural Gas Liquids) and NAICS 211130 (Natural 
Gas Liquid Extraction) comprise establishments that recover liquid 
hydrocarbons from oil and gas field gases (see discussion in Unit I.A. 
of this notice). NAICS 211130 includes facilities that recover sulfur 
from natural gas--such facilities already report TRI data to EPA 
because they are in SIC 2819 (Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, Not 
Otherwise Classified), which is a manufacturing sector covered by TRI. 
Current regulations only require NAICS 211130 facilities that recover 
sulfur from natural gas to report TRI data (i.e., facilities in SIC 
2819). Specifically, 40 CFR 372.23(b), which covers NAICS codes that 
correspond to SIC codes 20 through 39, lists NAICS 211130 but states: 
``Limited to facilities that recover sulfur from natural gas and 
previously classified under SIC 2819, Industrial Inorganic chemicals, 
Not Elsewhere Classified.'' By adding SIC 1321 to the scope of industry 
sectors covered by TRI and including SIC 1321 into the qualifier for 
the NAICS 211130 listing, EPA is expanding TRI coverage to include all 
NGP facilities that meet TRI-reporting thresholds.
    This rule does not add to TRI coverage of natural gas field 
facilities that only recover condensate from a stream of natural gas, 
lease separation facilities that separate condensate from natural gas, 
or natural gas pipeline

[[Page 66961]]

compressor stations that supply energy to move gas through transmission 
or distribution lines into storage. Additional examples of operations 
that this rule does not add to TRI coverage include Joule-Thompson 
valves, dew point depression valves, and isolated or standalone Joule-
Thompson skids. The industrial operations described in this paragraph 
often occur at or close to extraction sites and are typically 
classified under NAICS codes other than 211130 (e.g., NAICS 221210 
(Distribution of Natural Gas)), and thus are not within the scope of 
the NAICS code addition. However, the term ``facility'' is defined by 
EPCRA section 329(4) as all buildings, equipment, structures, and other 
stationary items which are located on a single site or on contiguous or 
adjacent sites and which are owned or operated by the same person (or 
by any person which controls, is controlled by, or under common control 
with, such person) 42 U.S.C. 11049(4). Accordingly, operations 
described in this paragraph could be part of a single ``facility'' with 
TRI reporting and recordkeeping requirements if they are contiguous or 
adjacent to ``buildings, equipment, structures, and other stationary 
items'' with a common owner or operator that are in a covered TRI 
industrial sector.

B. Why do some natural gas processing facilities already submit TRI 
reporting forms to EPA?

    Some NGP facilities are already subject to TRI reporting 
requirements because NGP facilities that recover sulfur from natural 
gas are part of a manufacturing sector that was originally subjected to 
reporting to TRI by Congress. Specifically, the scope of TRI sectors 
subject to reporting includes SIC code 2819 (Industrial Inorganic 
Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified), which was one of the 
manufacturing sectors in SIC 20-39 originally required to report to TRI 
by Congress. SIC code 2819 crosswalks to several manufacturing sector 
NAICS codes, including 211130 (Natural Gas Extraction), but only to the 
extent that it includes facilities that engage in sulfur recovery from 
natural gas.
    Thus, when EPA began to use NAICS codes for TRI reporting purposes, 
the Agency listed NAICS 211112 (for 2002, 2007 and 2012 NAICS) with a 
qualifier to limit TRI coverage of the sector to facilities that fit 
SIC code 2819. The 2017 NAICS for Natural Gas Extraction was updated to 
NAICS 211130. See 40 CFR 372.23(b) (211130--Natural Gas Extraction): 
``Limited to facilities that recover sulfur from natural gas 
(previously classified under SIC 2819, Industrial Inorganic chemicals, 
NEC (recovering sulfur from natural gas)).''

C. What are the environmental justice impacts of the final rule?

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes 
the federal executive policy on environmental justice (EJ). Its main 
provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable 
and permitted by law, to make EJ part of their mission by identifying 
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse 
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and 
activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the 
U.S. Executive Order 14008 (86 FR 19, February 1, 2021) reiterated a 
commitment to securing EJ and, among other provisions, directed 
agencies to make achieving EJ a part of their missions by developing 
programs, policies, and activities to address the cumulative impacts of 
environmental, health, and climate-related issues in disadvantaged 
communities.
    This regulatory action changes reporting requirements for NGP 
facilities and does not have any direct impact on human health or the 
environment. However, for communities living near NGP facilities, there 
is the potential for new information about toxic chemical releases and 
waste management practices occurring in those communities to become 
available through the TRI reporting data.
    To better understand how many people live near these facilities and 
the demographics of those communities, EPA used the EJSCREEN 
environmental justice screening and mapping tool (Ref. 10) to aggregate 
information about their populations and demographics. EJSCREEN uses 
information about the population living in each Census block group 
contained within a user-defined radius to estimate the total population 
and related demographic indicator information. In past screening 
experience, EPA has found it helpful to establish a suggested starting 
point for the purpose of identifying geographic areas that may warrant 
further EJ consideration, analysis, or outreach. For early applications 
of EJSCREEN, EPA identified the 80th percentile filter as that initial 
starting point. See Technical Information about EJSCREEN at https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/technical-information-about-ejscreen for more 
information (Ref. 11).
    Latitude and longitude information was available for all but seven 
facilities included in the upper bound estimate of the universe of 
affected NGP facilities, enabling EPA to make use of EJSREEN for 482 of 
the affected NGP facilities. Using EJSREEN, EPA summarized population 
demographics using a one- and three-mile radius around each facility to 
identify and understand EJ impacts in communities and help identify a 
community's potential vulnerability to environmental and health 
concerns.
    In total, there are approximately 1.4 million people living within 
three miles of at least one of the 482 NGP facilities identified. 
Demographic information about the number of these facilities exceeding 
the 80th national percentile value is included below. Some NGP 
facilities are located in communities where there are potential EJ 
considerations. For example, 41 NGP facilities are located in a three-
mile radius of communities where the low-income indicator exceeds the 
80th percentile. Note that potential EJ impacts in communities can be 
different when considered at distances other than the one- or three-
mile radii considered in the analysis provided below.

                      Table 1--Demographic Information Based on One and Three-Mile Radii Around NGP Facilities Using EJSCREEN Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Facilities exceeding 80th percentile
                                                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  One-mile radius                Three-mile radius
             Demographic indicator                             Description               ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                           Percent (out                    Percent (out
                                                                                              Number          of 482)         Number          of 482)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Income.....................................  The percent of individuals in                        42             8.7              41             8.5
                                                  households where the household income
                                                  is less than or equal to twice the
                                                  federal ``poverty level''.

[[Page 66962]]

 
People of Color................................  The percent of individuals who list                  20             4.1              31             6.4
                                                  their racial status as a race other
                                                  than white alone and/or list their
                                                  ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino.
Less than High School Education................  The percent of people age 25 or older                87            18.0             134            27.8
                                                  whose education is short of a high
                                                  school diploma.
Linguistic Isolation...........................  The percent of people living in a                    34             7.1              67            14.0
                                                  household in which all members age 14
                                                  years and over speak a non-English
                                                  language and also speak English less
                                                  than ``very well'' (have difficulty
                                                  with English).
Demographic Index..............................  Average of the Low Income and People of              23             4.8              32             6.6
                                                  Color indicators.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to note that one of the TRI program's primary goals 
is to engage in outreach to promote sustainability, inform community-
based environmental decision-making, and work toward environmental 
justice with the goal of achieving environmental protections for all 
communities. To meet this goal, the TRI program: Builds awareness of 
TRI resources through focused communications; Promotes discussion and 
collaboration among data users through webinars and conferences; 
Assists individual users and communities with analyses and 
interpretation; Engages with community and academic stakeholders to 
enhance understanding and use of data; and Develops tailored resources 
for supporting environmental justice and tribal research.

V. References

    The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically 
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and 
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are 
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even 
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For 
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the person 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. Environmental Integrity Project, Chesapeake Climate Action 
Network, CitizenShale, Clean Air Council, Clean Water Action, 
Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Earthworks, Elected Officials to 
Protect New York, Environmental Advocates of New York, Lower 
Susquehanna Riverkeeper, Natural Resources Defense Council, OMB 
Watch, PennEnvironment, Powder River Basin Resource Council, San 
Juan Citizens Council, Sierra Club, Texas Campaign for the 
Environment. Petition to Add the Oil and Gas Extraction Industry, 
Standard Industrial Code 13, to the List of Facilities Required to 
Report under the Toxics Release Inventory. October 24, 2012.
2. EPA. Proposed Rule; Addition of Natural Gas Processing Facilities 
to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Federal Register. 82 FR 1651, 
January 6, 2017 (FRL-9953-68).
3. USEPA. Formal Response to October 24, 2012, Petition to Add the 
Oil and Gas Extraction Industry, Standard Industrial Classification 
Code 13, to the List of Facilities Required to Report under Section 
313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. 
October 22, 2015.
4. USEPA, OPPT. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Addition of 
Natural Gas Processing Facilities to the Toxics Release Inventory. 
August 11, 2016.
5. USEPA, OPPT. Addendum to the Economic Analysis of the Proposed 
Addition of Natural Gas Processing Facilities to the Toxics Release 
Inventory; Applicable to the Final Rule. November 2021.
6. US Energy Information Administration (EIA). 757 Natural Gas 
Processing Plant Survey. 2017. https://www.eia.gov/survey/#eia-757.
7. USEPA. Final Rule; Addition of Facilities in Certain Industry 
Sectors; Revised Interpretation of Otherwise Use; Toxic Release 
Inventory Reporting; Community Right-to-Know. Federal Register. 62 
FR 23834. May 1, 1997. (FRL-5578-3).
8. USEPA, OPPT. Supporting Statement for an Information Collection 
Request (ICR) Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Final Rule 
ICR; Addition of Natural Gas Processing Facilities to the Toxics 
Release Inventory (TRI). EPA ICR No. 2560.01; OMB Control No. 2070-
[NEW]. November 2016.
9. USEPA, OPPT. TRI Regulatory Development Branch: Revising TRI 
Burden to Ratio-Based Methodology. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/136321RatioBasedMethodology.pdf.
10. USEPA. EPA's Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool 
(Version 2020). https://ejscreen.epa.gov/mapper.
11. USEPA. EJSCREEN Environmental Justice Mapping and Screening 
Tool; EJSCREEN Technical Documentation. September 2019.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive 
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was 
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for review under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) 
and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document that EPA prepared is 
assigned EPA ICR No. 2560.01 and OMB Control No.: 2070-[NEW] (Ref.8). 
You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is 
briefly summarized here. The information collection requirements are 
not enforceable until OMB approves them.
    Currently, the facilities subject to the reporting requirements 
under EPCRA section 313 and PPA section 6607 may use either EPA Toxic 
Chemicals Release Inventory Form R (EPA Form 1B9350-

[[Page 66963]]

1), or EPA Toxic Chemicals Release Inventory Form A (EPA Form 1B9350-
2). The Form R must be completed if a facility manufactures, processes, 
or otherwise uses any listed chemical above threshold quantities and 
meets certain other criteria. For the Form A, EPA established an 
alternative threshold for facilities with low annual reportable amounts 
of a listed toxic chemical. A facility that meets the appropriate 
reporting thresholds, but estimates that the total annual reportable 
amount of the chemical does not exceed 500 pounds per year, can take 
advantage of an alternative manufacture, process, or otherwise use 
threshold of 1 million pounds per year of the chemical, provided that 
certain conditions are met, and submit the Form A instead of the Form 
R. In addition, respondents may designate the specific chemical 
identity of a substance as a trade secret pursuant to EPCRA section 322 
(42 U.S.C. 11042) and 40 CFR part 350. OMB has approved the reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements related to Forms A and R, supplier 
notification, and petitions under OMB Control number 2070-0212 (EPA 
Information Collection Request (ICR) No. 2613.05) and those related to 
trade secret designations under OMB Control 2050-0078 (EPA ICR No. 
1428.11). As such, this ICR is intended to amend the existing ICR to 
include the following additional details:
    Respondents/affected entities: NGP facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (EPCRA section 313).
    Estimated number of respondents: 321 to 489.
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: 181,000 to 276,000 burden hours in the 
first year and approximately 86,000 to 131,000 burden hours in the 
steady state. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: approximately $11,846,000 to $18,044,000 in 
the first year and approximately $5,641,000 to $8,593,000 in the steady 
state.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the 
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB 
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the 
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to 
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection 
activities contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA, 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq. The small entities subject to the requirements of 
this action are NGP facilities. The Agency determined in its original 
economic analysis that the 282-444 facilities estimated to be impacted 
by this action are linked to 76-90 parent entities, of which 32-41 
qualify as small businesses as defined by the RFA, all of which are 
estimated to incur an annualized cost impact of less than 1%. Details 
of this analysis are presented in the EPA economic analysis (Ref. 4). 
As the fundamentals of that analysis apply here as well, the final rule 
is not expected to significantly impact a substantial number of small 
entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or 
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes 
no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the 
private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have 
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between 
the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule will 
not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal 
Governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or 
safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately 
affect children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in 
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental 
health risk or safety risk.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 
May 22, 2001), because it is not likely to have a significant adverse 
effect on the supply, distribution or use of energy and has not 
otherwise been designated by the Administrator of the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. As such, 
NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272 note, does not apply to this action.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    In accordance with Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 
1994) and Executive Order 14008 (86 FR 7619, January 27, 2021), EPA 
finds that this action will not result in disproportionately high and 
adverse human health, environmental, climate-related, or other 
cumulative impacts on disadvantaged communities. As discussed in more 
detail in Unit IV.C., EPA used the EJSCREEN environmental justice 
screening and mapping tool to better understand how many people live 
near these facilities and the demographics of those communities. The 
information collected through TRI reporting will serve to inform 
communities living near NGP facilities, and there is the potential for 
new information about toxic chemical releases and waste management 
practices occurring in those communities to become available through 
the TRI reporting data.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA 
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the 
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

    Environmental protection, community right-to-know, reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, and toxic chemicals.


[[Page 66964]]


    Dated: November 18, 2021.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 
Prevention.
    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 
40 CFR part 372 as follows:

PART 372--TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE REPORTING: COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW

0
1. The authority citation for part 372 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. Amend Sec.  372.23 by:
0
a. Adding numerically an entry for ``1321'' to the table in paragraph 
(a);
0
b. Adding numerically an entry for ``211130--Natural Gas Extraction'' 
to the table in paragraph (c).
    The additions read as follows:


Sec.  372.23  SIC and NAICS codes to which this Part applies.

    (a) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Major group or industry code        Exceptions and/or limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                              * * * * * * *
1321...................................
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Subsector code or industry code       Exceptions and/or limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
211130--Natural Gas Extraction.........  Limited to facilities
                                          classified under SIC 1321,
                                          Natural Gas Liquids.
 
                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-25646 Filed 11-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


