## September 10, 2007

Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code 2822T

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20460

RE: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-TRI-2007-0355, 72 FR 37762-37766 (July 11,
2007)

Agency Information Collection Activities, Proposed Collections; Toxic
Chemical Release Reporting; Request for Comments on Proposed Renewals of
Form R (EPA ICR No. 1363.15, OMB Control No. 2070-0093) and Form A
Certification Statement (EPA ICR No. 1704.09, OMB Control No. 2070-0143)

IPC-Association Connecting Electronics Industries is pleased to submit
the following comments in response to the above referenced Information
Collection Request (ICR).

IPC believes that the July 2007 ICR has inaccurately estimated the
burden to Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) reporters. The ICR has failed
to account for the latest scientific information which questions the
validity of the PBT (persistent bioaccumulative toxic) methodology
currently used by EPA to evaluate metals. As such, the ICR has neglected
to fulfill statutory requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) to justify the necessity of TRI metals information collection and
requirements of the EPA Information Quality Guidelines (IQG) to
disseminate accurate TRI data.

IPC is the national trade association for the electronics
interconnection industry, and represents more than 2500 member
companies. IPC members manufacture printed circuit boards (PCBs) and
electronic assemblies, which are used in a variety of electronic devices
including computers, cell phones, pacemakers, and sophisticated missile
defense systems. Although IPC members include electronic giants, sixty
percent of IPC members meet the Small Business Administration's
definition of "small business." The typical IPC member has 100 employees
and has a profit margin of less than four percent.

IPC would like to commend EPA for achieving the delicate task of
rebalancing the TRI program without compromising the public's right to
information when issuing the EPA TRI Burden Reduction Rule (71 FR 76932,
December 2006). As reflected in the July 2007 ICR, the TRI Burden
Reduction Rule is expected to reduce Form R respondent burden from
3,746,590 hours to 3,215,715 hours. The ICR estimates that approximately
11,780 Form Rs (from a TRI Form R universe of 78,535) will be replaced
by Form As due to increased Form A eligibility. The burden reductions
that are enabled through the TRI Burden Reduction Rule will enhance the
utility of the TRI program by allowing the public to focus on facilities
that represent a genuine risk to their community. IPC supports EPA's TRI
improvement efforts and encourages the Agency to continue to explore
burden-saving TRI reforms that do not jeopardize the public's right to
know, or the quality of the TRI database.

Since 2001, when EPA inappropriately lowered the TRI reporting threshold
for lead from 25,000 lbs to 100 lbs based on the PBT criteria, the
reporting burden on industry drastically increased. The TRI Lead
Rule[^1] nearly doubled the number of TRI reporters for lead in the
electrical and electronic manufacturing industries. In fact, in the
first year alone under the new lead threshold, TRI Form R reports were
filed by 2,025 facilities in the electrical and electronics equipment
manufacturing sector. According to the July 2007 ICR, completion of Form
R for PBT chemicals requires an estimated 66.8 hours per form in the
first year and 46.3 hours per form in subsequent years. To date,
industry has endured this significant burden for six TRI reporting
cycles since promulgation of the TRI Lead Rule.

In order to quell overwhelming concern expressed over the scientific
validity of application of the PBT criteria to lead, EPA promised to
seek external peer review. While the logical process would have been to
examine the science behind the TRI Lead Rule **before** implementing the
rule, EPA decided to conduct the external peer review **after** the TRI
Lead Rule was adopted. EPA committed to undertaking a cross-Agency
metals assessment framework in 2001, with a final Scientific Advisory
Board (SAB) review of the framework to be completed in 2003. After years
of missed deadlines and a litany of broken promises, the final
*Framework for Metals Assessment* was nearly four years overdue when
released in March 2007. Every step of that assessment, from the Metals
Action Plan, to the Issue Papers, to the final Metals Assessment
Framework, has emphasized the inapplicability of the PBT criteria to
metals.

EPA no longer has any justification for requiring facilities to incur
the significant burden of reporting TRI information on metals releases
based on the flawed PBT methodology. The Metals Framework clearly
concludes that the basis under EPA's PBT approach for evaluating
bioaccumulation is inappropriate for assessing metal hazard:

*The latest scientific data on bioaccumulation do not currently support
the use of the bioconcentration factor (BCF) and bioaccumulation factor
(BAF) values when applied as generic threshold criteria for the hazard
potential of inorganic metals in human and ecological risk assessment
(e.g. classification as a persistent bioaccumulative toxic \[PBT\]
chemical).*

The Framework particularly emphasizes the unique properties of metals
(versus organic compounds) that should be considered by all EPA programs
and regional offices in metal risk assessments. The Framework directly
contradicts the TRI Lead Rule's assumption that the basic properties of
the PBT approach "are fundamentally the same for organic chemicals as
they are for inorganic chemicals, including metals and metal compounds."

Given the findings of the Framework, the July ICR has not justified the
continued collection of TRI information on metals based on the
scientifically flawed PBT methodology.

IPC believes EPA's ICR has also failed to fulfill requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) and EPA's Information Quality Guidelines
(IQG). Under requirements of the PRA §3508, EPA must justify whether the
information collected under TRI is necessary for carrying out the
functions of the Agency and whether it will have practical utility. The
collection, use and dissemination of accurate scientific information are
integral to EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment.
However, instead of fulfilling its mission, EPA has created unnecessary
public concern by inappropriately classifying metals as PBTs. In fact,
collecting and disseminating TRI information based on the flawed PBT
criteria provides the public with virtually meaningless metals risk
information which serves no practical utility. IPC urges EPA to
adequately justify the necessity for collection of TRI information on
metals releases based on the flawed PBT methodology.

Under EPA's IQG, EPA must ensure that the "disseminated information is
being presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner,
and as a matter of substance, is accurate, reliable and unbiased."
Collecting and disseminating information based on a flawed methodology
is not presenting the information in an accurate manner. Since EPA's PBT
approach for metals is scientifically flawed according to EPA's Metals
Framework, EPA is disseminating PBT information that is inaccurate,
incomplete, unreliable, and possibly biased. Therefore, the quality and
utility of the TRI data is significantly compromised. IPC encourages EPA
to disseminate accurate scientific information consistent with the IQG.
Given that the July ICR has not complied with requirements of the PRA
and IQG, IPC urges EPA to promptly revise the TRI Lead Rule by
withdrawing the PBT classification of lead. After amending the TRI Lead
Rule, EPA should issue a new ICR to reflect the significant burden
reduction benefits of aligning the TRI Program with the scientific
findings of the Metals Framework.

The July ICR also grossly underestimates the burden associated with rule
familiarization. According to the ICR, the burden associated with rule
familiarization occurs only in the first year that a facility becomes
subject to reporting. In subsequent years, a facility's staff is assumed
to be familiar with the requirements that apply to their facility. IPC
believes that rule familiarization is an ongoing activity that does not
end after the first year. EPA's TRI website alone has over 40 guidance
documents that TRI filers need to constantly review for new
interpretations or guidance. EPA also needs to consider that given
employee turnover and shifts in job responsibilities, the same employee
may not be completing TRI forms every year. A person new to TRI
reporting must invest a significant amount of time in training in order
to familiarize themselves with the TRI Program requirements. IPC urges
EPA to revise the burden estimates in the July ICR to account for the
rule familiarization burden incurred by subsequent year filers.

IPC has the following comments in response to the proposed new data
elements identified in the July ICR. In general, IPC believes that the
ICR process is inappropriate for announcing proposed changes to the TRI
forms. We are extremely concerned that significant changes in the TRI
forms have been concealed in an ICR notice, rather than being properly
addressed through a notice and comment rulemaking. In fact, the title of
the Federal Register Notice announcing the ICR reflects no indication
that EPA is proposing to make changes to the TRI forms. As a result, the
changes will go unnoticed by the vast majority of TRI filers who are
most likely unaware that EPA is using the ICR process as a means to add
new data fields to the TRI forms. In the interest of maintaining
transparency, IPC urges EPA to initiate a full notice and comment period
for the proposed new data elements as required under the Administrative
Procedures Act (APA).

In the July ICR, EPA has proposed to include a check box in both TRI
forms to indicate whether a reporting facility's parent company is a
small business. The ICR states that this information will help EPA
determine the impact of regulatory changes on small businesses quickly
and accurately. While IPC agrees that this information could be useful,
merely posing the question without adequate instructions on how to
determine whether a facility is a small business will likely result in
erroneous and inaccurate data. Since TRI reporters may not be fully
aware of the Small Business Administration's criteria for qualifying as
a small business, EPA must provide clear guidance explaining how to
appropriately ascertain the data requested. IPC suggests that EPA
explain in the TRI guidance documents and training materials that the
SBA defines a small business based on either millions of dollars or
number of employees, depending on North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) codes. EPA should also provide the SBA "Table of Small
Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry
Classification System Codes," in the TRI guidance documents, accompanied
by a hyperlink directly to the SBA document:
<http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf>

An alternative approach would be for EPA to collect information on the
number of employees by providing check boxes for several employee ranges
(i.e. less than 100 employees, more than 100 employees). EPA can use
this information to determine whether the facility is a small business.

IPC also believes that the ICR has underestimated the burden associated
with determining small business qualification. The ICR states that the
burden expected with this new data element would be 15.4 minutes the
first year and 0.8 minutes in subsequent years. Without EPA providing
further guidance, TRI filers would need to search the SBA website for
the SBA Small Business Standards to determine if indeed the facility
meets SBA qualifications for small business designation. TRI filers
would also need to consult with the appropriate internal staff and
obtain the necessary company information. The total time spent to
ascertain the necessary data would undeniably exceed the15.4 minutes
proposed by the ICR. Additionally, EPA cannot assume that once a company
checks that it is a small business in the first reporting year, the
burden would be reduced to 0.8 minutes in subsequent years. Facilities
will have to verify its small business qualification every year since
employee and revenue numbers may fluctuate between TRI reporting cycles.
Therefore, while the burden for subsequent year filers should be less
than first year filers, it is significantly more than the mere 0.8
minutes (48 seconds) allotted by the ICR.

The July ICR also proposes to include new data elements to enhance the
point of contact information by adding fields in Forms A and R for "Form
Preparer," and a "Public Contact" field in Form A. IPC believes that the
proposed points of contact are unnecessary since Form A and R already
request "Technical Contact" information and Form R additionally requires
a "Public Contact." According to the ICR rationale, EPA staff have "in a
number of instances in the past" contacted the "Technical Contact" and
have been referred to another individual who prepared the form on the
facility's behalf. IPC believes that it is inappropriate for EPA to
contact a third-party form preparer without notifying the facility.
Since EPA should obtain authorization from the facility before
contacting a third-party form preparer, collecting form preparer contact
information on the TRI forms would be counter-productive and should be
removed from the ICR. Additionally, IPC believes that a small number of
instances in the past, where EPA has had to make a few phone calls to
identify an appropriate facility contact, do not serve as a justifiable
reason for adding entire new fields to the reporting forms which burden
the universe of TRI filers. If these instances are significant, EPA must
provide numerical estimates for the frequency of occurrences where EPA
has had to identify the appropriate contact to address questions
regarding a facility's data submission. EPA must also calculate the
staff burden against the TRI reporter burden to properly demonstrate the
justification for additional points of contact. Unless the staff burden
exceeds the projected industry burden, the new data elements should be
removed from the ICR.

EPA also proposes to add boxes on both TRI forms where up to two codes
can be entered to indicate the main reason(s) that a form is being
revised. Currently reporters are required to check a box to indicate
that the form is a revision but are not required to provide a reason for
the revision. The July ICR proposes 16 reasons for which a facility can
request a revision. IPC is concerned that reasons such as "to revise as
a result of an EPA/State inspection," could be used to collect
enforcement and compliance information on facilities, which is not the
purpose of the TRI Program. According to EPCRA §313, the data submitted
in the forms are intended to inform the public about releases of toxic
chemicals in the environment, not to inform the public on a facility's
compliance record.. IPC is also concerned that publicizing such
information may discourage TRI form revisions and diminish the quality
and accuracy of the TRI data. IPC suggests that unless facilities are
provided adequate privacy protection, EPA should not collect information
on the reasons for revisions.

IPC appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed
renewal of information collection. IPC understands and supports the need
for cost effective, science-based regulations that are protective of the
public welfare. EPA must adequately fulfill PRA requirements to justify
metals TRI data collection and IQG requirements to provide the public
with accurate and reliable data on metals releases. In order to properly
collect and disseminate information on the true level of PBT releases to
the environment, EPA must revise the TRI program to reflect the
scientific results of the Metals Framework. EPA must also ensure that
any changes to the TRI Program are properly addressed through a full
notice and comment rulemaking as required under the APA.

We look forward to working with EPA to improve data collection under the
TRI Program. Please contact me at 703-522-0225 or
<saharosman-sypher@ipc.org> should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Sahar Osman-Sypher

Project Manager, Environmental, Health and Safety

[^1]: Lead and Lead Compounds; Lowering of Reporting Thresholds;
    Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting (66 FR
    4500; January 17, 2001): Final Rule