TRI Form R and Form A ICR Renewal 2011 Response to Comments, includingSummary of American Petroleum Institute (API) and Portland Cement Association (PCA) Comments# Topic Author Comment/Response15/24/20111Changes to Form R and A shouldbe through rulemaking not ICR.APIComment:APIcontinues to be concerned about EPA's practice of making changes to Form Routside the process of notice and comment rulemaking. ... Changes to the form and/or instructionsare changes to reporting requirements, and warrantfull notice and comment through the processestablished under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).Response:EPA believes that the ICR process is appropriate for making certain form changesand not all changes to forms must go throughthe APA notice-and-comment process. ICRs areintended to solicit public comments not only on burden estimates, but also on the necessity,quality, and utility of the data collection (5 CFR 1320.8(d)). EPA believes that the ICR processadequately alerts the public to proposed changes in the information collection, including formchanges, and provides an adequate opportunity for the public to submit comments. EPAappreciates comments received through the ICR process and fully considers them to determinethe appropriate balance of burden and information collection. In response to comments and inorder to reduce the potential impact of the proposed form changes on facilities, EPA is makingchanges based on comments as follows in this table.2 Proposed revision to remove theParent Company “NA” optionimpedes accurate reporting forreporters with no parent companyunder legal definition.APIComment:In some instances, there is not a parent company under the relevant legaldefinition. For these cases, NA is appropriate. Naming an entity that is not technically the parentcompany would be problematic and create legal issues. Also note that EPA's documentStandardized Parent Company Names for TRI Reportingstates "Your facility may or may nothave a Parent Company."Response:“Parent company” is not defined in either EPCRA or in the associated regulations in40 CFR Part 372. EPA has consistently required that the parent company to be reported is thehighest level company in the United States.Replacing the “NA” option for parent companywith a check box that reads “No U.S. ParentCompany (for TRI Reporting purposes)” will moreexplicitly promote consistency inreporting the highest level U.S. company. This change is notintended to indicate that the reported parentcompany is the same parent company as would beused in other legal contexts and where, for example, there is a foreign parent company.Therefore, EPA will add the phrase “for TRI reporting purposes” to the instructional languageon Form R and the instructions in the RFI document.Additionally, the commenter refers to the EPAdocument titled, “Standardized Parent CompanyNames for TRI Reporting,” which was released in April 2010(http://www.epa.gov/tri/report/parent_company/RY2009_Corporate_Parent%20Companies.pdf). EPA will update that document to beconsistent with this form change.TRI Form R and Form A ICR Renewal 2011 Response to Comments, includingSummary of American Petroleum Institute (API) and Portland Cement Association (PCA) Comments# Topic Author Comment/Response25/24/20113 Reporting burden for Section 8.10revision is significant andunderestimated.APIComment:The proposed form would ask if the facility engaged in any source reductionactivities (including both newly implemented and/or ongoing) for the chemical during thereporting year. This would be a significant changethat would require additional analysis byfacilities. ... This proposed change to section8.10 also raises an issue of burden. EPA hasestimated a zero burden increase from the proposed changes, but in reality the change wouldimpose additional burden. ... This additionalrecords review and associated reporting forsection 8.10 is estimated to require at least several hours per facility.Response:After further consideration of the proposed data element requiring reporting on newlyimplementedand ongoingsource reduction activities, including the burden concerns raised bythe commenter, EPA has decided to only collect information on the most recent year of sourcereduction activities at this time. The currentlyapproved forms do not indicate that 8.10 appliesto newly implemented activities, while the instructions advise to limit the activities reported tothose newly implemented. Therefore, to makethe two consistent, EPA is proposing to changethe form text to match the instructions. The burden associated with this form revision isnegligible.4 Additional Question 9.1“Miscellaneous Information”PCAComment:Of particular note is the proposal toadd a new question to capture “miscellaneousand optional information” regarding certain data submission. PCA views favorably the rationaleoffered by the agency to allow facilities to provide additional Form R information that may helpEPA use or interpret that data as statedin Step 4, page 7844 of the FR notice.Response:EPA acknowledges PCA’s approval of the proposal to add Question 9.1 on“Miscellaneous Information.”APIComment:It is not clear how EPA will manage this "miscellaneous information" in itsdatabases. Will this information be provided to TRI data users and, if so, in what format? Willthe information be categorized or searchable in any way?Response:EPA is committed to ensuring that data submitted on the TRI Reporting Forms aremade available to the public. Question 9.1 (in Section 9 “Miscellaneous Information”) willgenerate text data. This new textdata field will provide data that will become a part of the TRIdatabase and will be accessible in the same way as existing TRI data.5 Add the word “mixture” to theinstructions on Form R, Part II,Section 1.APIComment:In the following sentence (which appears in Part 2, Section 1 of Form R) “DONOT complete this section if you are reporting a mixture in Section 2 below,” the word“component” should be added after “mixture”.TRI Form R and Form A ICR Renewal 2011 Response to Comments, includingSummary of American Petroleum Institute (API) and Portland Cement Association (PCA) Comments# Topic Author Comment/Response35/24/2011Response:EPA agrees to make this change to correct the sentence. Form R reports are forindividual chemicals and do not apply to mixtures but instead their component chemicals so itis incorrect to imply that a facility would be reporting a mixture.6 Form corrections are needed. APIComment:See API’s table titled Proposed Changes to Form R, (all rows except 3, 5, 18, 19,and 21, which contain substantive comments) for a list of clerical inconsistencies in Form Rnoted by API.Response:EPA agrees with the commenter’s observations and will make these clericalcorrections to Form R.7 Clarify effective date. APIComments:API's understanding from discussions with EPAis that the new form is intendedto take effect for reporting year 2011, i.e., formsdue in July 2012. However, this is not statedin theFRnotice. With this and other actions, EPAneeds to be clear on when the new formwould be implemented.Response:The commenter correctly notes that the revisions outlined in this ICR Renewal areexpected to be effective as of RY 2011. EPA does not mention an effective date because theybecome effective when OMB approves this ICR. The current forms are valid while therenewal request is pending andwill be superseded by the new forms when the ICR Renewal isapproved.