TRI Form R and Form A ICR Renewal 2011 Response to Comments, including 

Summary of American Petroleum Institute (API) and Portland Cement Association (PCA) Co

 # Topic Author Comment/Response 

 1 

 

1 Changes to Form R and A should 

be through rulemaking not ICR. 

API Comment: API continues to be concerned about EPA's pract

outside the process of notice and comment rulemaking. ... Chaare changes to reporting requirements, and warrant full notice 

established under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Response: EPA believes that the ICR process is appropriate fo

and not all changes to forms must go through the APA notice-intended to solicit public comments not only on burden estimaquality, and utility of the data collection (5 CFR 1320.8(d)). Eadequately alerts the public to proposed changes in the informchanges, and provides an adequate opportunity for the public tappreciates comments received through the ICR process and futhe appropriate balance of burden and information collection. I

order to reduce the potential impact of the proposed form chanchanges based on comments as follows in this table. 

2 Proposed revision to remove the 

Parent Company “NA” option impedes accurate reporting for reporters with no parent company under legal definition.

API Comment: In some instances, there is not a parent company u

definition. For these cases, NA is appropriate. Naming an entitcompany would be problematic and create legal issues. Also noStandardized Parent Company Names for TRI Reporting states have a Parent Company." Response: “Parent company” is not defined in either EPCRA o

40 CFR Part 372. EPA has consistently required that the parenhighest level company in the United States. Replacing the “NAwith a check box that reads “No U.S. Parent Company (for TRI explicitly promote consistency in reporting the highest level U.S

intended to indicate that the reported parent company is the samused in other legal contexts and where, for example, there is a fTherefore, EPA will add the phrase “for TRI reporting purposes

on Form R and the instructions in the RFI document. Additionally, the commenter refers to the EPA document titledNames for TRI Reporting,” which was released in April 2010 (http://www.epa.gov/tri/report/parent_company/RY2009_Cor

df). EPA will update that document to be consistent with this 
TRI Form R and Form A ICR Renewal 2011 Response to Comments, including 

Summary of American Petroleum Institute (API) and Portland Cement Association (PCA) Co

 # Topic Author Comment/Response 

 2 

 

3 Reporting burden for Section 8.10 

revision is significant and underestimated. 

API Comment: The proposed form would ask if the facility engage

activities (including both newly implemented and/or ongoing) reporting year. This would be a significant change that would 

facilities. ... This proposed change to section 8.10 also raises aestimated a zero burden increase from the proposed changes, bimpose additional burden. ... This additional records review an

section 8.10 is estimated to require at least several hours per fa

Response: After further consideration of the proposed data ele

implemented and ongoing source reduction activities, includinthe commenter, EPA has decided to only collect information oreduction activities at this time. The currently approved forms to newly implemented activities, while the instructions advise those newly implemented. Therefore, to make the two consistthe form text to match the instructions. The burden associated negligible. 

4 Additional Question 9.1 

“Miscellaneous Information” 

PCA Comment: Of particular note is the proposal to add a new ques

and optional information” regarding certain data submission. P

offered by the agency to allow facilities to provide additional F

EPA use or interpret that data as stated in Step 4, page 7844 of Response: EPA acknowledges PCA’s approval of the proposa

“Miscellaneous Information.” 

 API Comment: It is not clear how EPA will manage this "miscellane

databases. Will this information be provided to TRI data users the information be categorized or searchable in any way?Response: EPA is committed to ensuring that data submitted made available to the public. Question 9.1 (in Section 9 “Miscgenerate text data. This new text data field will provide data thdatabase and will be accessible in the same way as existing TR

5 Add the word “mixture” to the 

instructions on Form R, Part II, Section 1. 

API Comment: In the following sentence (which appears in Part 2, 

NOT complete this section if you are reporting a mixture in Se“component” should be added after “mixture”. 
TRI Form R and Form A ICR Renewal 2011 Response to Comments, including 

Summary of American Petroleum Institute (API) and Portland Cement Association (PCA) Co

 # Topic Author Comment/Response 

 3 

 

Response: EPA agrees to make this change to correct the sente

individual chemicals and do not apply to mixtures but instead is incorrect to imply that a facility would be reporting a mixtur

6 Form corrections are needed. API Comment: See API’s table titled Proposed Changes to Form R

and 21, which contain substantive comments) for a list of clerinoted by API. Response: EPA agrees with the commenter’s observations and 

corrections to Form R. 

7 Clarify effective date. API Comments: API's understanding from discussions with EPA i

to take effect for reporting year 2011, i.e., forms due in July 2in the FR notice. With this and other actions, EPA needs to be 

would be implemented. Response: The commenter correctly notes that the revisions o

expected to be effective as of RY 2011. EPA does not mention become effective when OMB approves this ICR. The current 

renewal request is pending and will be superseded by the new 

approved.