Document ID: EPA-HQ-OEI-2004-0006-0013
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-11-17T05:00Z

TOXIC
CHEMICAL
RELEASE
REPORTING
EPA
Responses
to
Comments
Received
regarding
the
ICR
Renewal
for
Form
R
EPA
ICR
Number
1363.14;
OMB
Control
Number
2070­
0093
Docket
Number:
OEI­
2004­
0006
Revised
November
2,
2005
Commenter
Major
Comments
(
summarized
&

paraphrased)
EPA's
Response
to
Comment
Fern
Abrams
Director,
Environmental
Policy
IPC
 
Association
Connecting
Electronics
Industries
IPC
believes
that
this
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
does
not
reflect
the
changes
that
were
made
in
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
(
TRI)
Reporting
Forms
Modification
Rule
and
recommends
that
EPA
withdraw
the
current
ICR
and
re­
propose
a
modified
ICR,
in
concert
with
the
Administrative
Procedures
Act
(
APA).

In
preparing
a
modified
ICR,
IPC
urges
EPA
to
consider
its
previous
comments
on
that
rule
(
dated
March
11,
2005).

IPC
believes
that
EPA
has
underestimated
the
burden
associated
with
TRI
reporting
and
specifically
PBT
reporting.

The
designation
of
lead
as
a
persistent,

bioaccumulative,
and
toxic
(
PBT)
chemical
and
EPA
agrees
that
the
ICR
supporting
statement
that
was
available
in
May
2005
(
when
the
first
FR
notice
concerning
this
ICR
was
published)
did
not
reflect
the
changes
that
were
subsequently
made
in
the
TRI
Reporting
Forms
Modification
Rule,
which
was
finalized
on
July
12,
2005
(
70
FR
39931).
The
Agency
has
since
modified
the
supporting
statement
for
this
ICR
to
reflect
the
finalization
of
the
TRI
Reporting
Forms
Modification
Rule.
Because
the
ICR
process
is
not
bound
by
APA
requirements,
EPA
believes
it
is
unnecessary
to
withdraw
the
current
ICR.
Interested
parties
will
have
the
opportunity
to
comment
on
the
modified
supporting
statement
in
the
comment
period
that
follows
EPA's
submittal
of
this
ICR
to
OMB.

EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter
that
the
Agency
has
underestimated
the
burden
associated
with
TRI
reporting.
The
Agency
notes
that
its
burden
estimates
already
show
higher
burden
levels
for
PBT
chemical
reports
than
for
non­
PBT
reports
in
part
because
of
the
lack
of
availability
of
range
reporting
for
the
former.

Also,
first­
year
submissions
are
also
higher
than
subsequent
year
submissions.
Although
the
commenter
states
that
the
Agency
has
underestimated
the
reporting
burden,
it
does
not
provide
specific
information
or
data
supporting
its
position
or
a
recommendation
for
how
much
the
burden
estimate
should
be
adjusted
upward.

The
designation
of
lead
as
a
PBT
was
addressed
during
the
TRI
Lead
Rulemaking
dated
January
17,
2001.
EPA's
response
to
this
2
Commenter
Major
Comments
(
summarized
&

paraphrased)
EPA's
Response
to
Comment
the
elimination
of
the
de
minimis
exemption
for
PBTs
significantly
increase
the
reporting
burden
on
industry.

IPC
believes
that
EPA
should
only
seek
a
oneyear
renewal
of
this
ICR
because
an
upcoming
burden
reduction
rule
is
anticipated
by
December
2006.
issue
is
available
on
the
TRI
Web
site
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
tri/
lawsandregs/
lead/
tri_
pb_
rule.
htm,
or
through
EPA
Docket
ID
Number
OPPTS­
400140.

To
seek
a
one­
year
renewal
would
put
a
tremendous
burden
on
EPA
because
of
the
time
and
effort
involved
in
renewing
an
ICR
and
a
lack
of
adequate
resources
to
do
so.
Interested
parties
have
an
opportunity
to
comment
on
burden
estimates
for
the
TRI
Burden
Reduction
Proposed
Rule,
which
was
published
on
October
4,
2005
(
70
FR
57822).

Howard
Feldman
American
Petroleum
Institute
By
using
an
average
facility
burden,
EPA
is
not
adequately
addressing
the
reporting
burden
for
larger,
more
complex
facilities.

EPA
fails
to
recognize
that
the
burden
associated
with
rule
familiarization
is
incurred
more
than
once.
Many
activities
contribute
to
this
burden,
including
the
review
of
new
Agency
guidance
and
interpretations,
as
well
as
new
environmental
regulations
from
other
programs.
In
addition,
due
to
staff
turnover
and
the
need
to
bring
in
new
personnel,
the
burden
of
rule
familiarization
may
be
incurred
by
a
facility
more
than
once.
The
Form
R
reporting
burden
will
vary
from
facility
to
facility
according
to
the
complexity
of
the
facility's
operations
and
the
knowledge
and
experience
of
the
respondent
who
is
completing
the
form.
However,
the
purpose
of
the
ICR
supporting
statement
is
not
to
characterize
the
relative
burden
across
all
facility
sizes
and
classes,
but
rather
to
characterize
the
total
burden
and
average
facility
burden.
The
Agency
notes
that
although
larger
facilities
may
be
more
complex
than
smaller
facilities,
they
are
often
better
able
to
afford
more
knowledgeable
and
experienced
technical
support
to
facilitate
compliance
with
environmental
regulations.

The
Agency
agrees
that
it
is
important
to
address
the
burden
associated
with
rule
familiarization
in
subsequent
reporting
years,

and
EPA
is
currently
conducting
an
engineering
analysis
of
the
burden
associated
with
both
rule
familiarization
and
compliance.

EPA
disagrees
with
the
commenter
regarding
the
attribution
of
the
burden
associated
with
other
programs'
environmental
regulations
to
the
burden
for
Form
R.
The
burden
associated
with
other
environmental
regulations
should
be
accounted
for
in
the
ICRs
for
those
other
regulations,
not
as
part
of
the
ICR
for
Form
R.
While
it
is
possible
that
rule
familiarization
could
be
incurred
by
new
staff
in
subsequent
years,
that
familiarization
burden
is
likely
to
be
only
a
3
Commenter
Major
Comments
(
summarized
&

paraphrased)
EPA's
Response
to
Comment
EPA
should
undertake
a
new
survey
that
more
accurately
characterizes
the
TRI
reporting
burden.

EPA
should
follow
through
on
promulgating
a
TRI
burden
reduction
rule.
fraction
of
the
time/
costs
that
were
incurred
initially
due
to
the
recordkeeping
requirements
for
Form
R.
Having
access
to
the
Form
Rs
that
were
submitted
in
previous
years,
as
well
as
the
calculations
used
to
estimate
releases
and
transfers,
is
likely
to
mitigate
the
burden
associated
with
rule
familiarization
in
subsequent
reporting
years.

In
general,
federal
agencies/
department
do
not
conduct
surveys
of
10
or
more
people/
organizations
when
developing
estimates
for
ICRs,
simply
because
conducting
such
surveys
would
impose
an
additional
burden
on
the
public,
which
seems
contrary
to
the
intent
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act.
EPA's
TRI
Program
will
wait
until
EPA
has
received
and
analyzed
public
comments
on
the
proposed
Burden
Reduction
Rule
that
was
published
on
October
4,

2005
(
70
FR
57822),
before
deciding
whether
or
not
to
conduct
a
survey
of
the
TRI
reporting
community
concerning
reporting
burdens.

EPA
promulgated
a
burden
reduction
rule,
the
TRI
Reporting
Forms
Modification
Rule,
on
July
12,
2005,
and
published
a
TRI
Burden
Reduction
Proposed
Rule
on
October
4,
2005.
EPA
also
published
a
notice
and
notified
Congress
that
it
will
be
examining
the
possibility
of
modifying
the
frequency
of
reporting
under
the
TRI
Program.

The
Agency
will
decide
whether
to
pursue
a
change
in
reporting
frequency
after
it
has
held
discussions
with
a
variety
of
stakeholders
and
conducted
some
initial
analyses.
More
information
on
these
activities
can
found
on
the
TRI
Web
site
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
tri/
index.
htm.

Nancy
J.
Dotson
Eastman
Chemical
Company
EPA
should
clarify
within
the
text
of
this
ICR
the
extent
of
its
authority
to
disclose
information
that
is
claimed
as
confidential.
EPA
will
disclose
information
submitted
under
EPCRA
section
313
that
is
covered
by
a
claim
of
confidentiality
only
to
the
extent
permitted
by,
and
in
accordance
with,
EPCRA
section
322
and
the
4
Commenter
Major
Comments
(
summarized
&

paraphrased)
EPA's
Response
to
Comment
Eastman
Chemical
Company
disputes
the
EPA's
burden
estimates
for
Form
R.

EPA
should
conduct
a
statistically
valid
survey
across
all
industries
and
prepare
burden
estimates
by
industry.

Eastman
urges
EPA
to
propose
changes
that
will
result
in
significant
burden
reduction.
procedures
in
40
CFR
part
350
and
40
CFR
part
2.
TSCA
section
14
does
not
govern
claims
of
confidentiality
made
under
EPCRA
section
313.
The
reference
to
TSCA
section
14
was
inadvertently
included
and
has
been
removed
from
the
ICR
supporting
statement
as
an
authority
for
deciding
whether
to
disclose
information
that
is
covered
by
a
claim
of
confidentiality
under
EPCRA
section
322.

The
commenter
asserts
that
EPA's
average
Form
R
burden
estimate
is
low
because,
in
its
view,
larger
facilities
are
more
complex
and
would
take
more
time
to
complete
a
Form
R
than
smaller
facilities.

While
we
agree
with
the
general
statement
that
a
larger
or
more
complex
facility
may
incur
more
burden
than
a
smaller
one,
the
Agency
believes
that
the
commenter
has
not
adequately
explained
why
this
shows
that
EPA's
average
burden
estimate
(
which
includes
both
large
and
small
facilities)
is
low.

In
general,
federal
agencies/
department
do
not
conduct
surveys
of
10
or
more
people/
organizations
when
developing
estimates
for
ICRs,
simply
because
conducting
such
a
survey
would
impose
an
additional
burden
on
the
public,
which
seems
contrary
to
the
intent
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act.
EPA's
TRI
Program
will
wait
until
EPA
has
received
and
analyzed
public
comments
on
the
TRI
Burden
Reduction
Proposed
Rule
published
on
October
4,
2005,

before
deciding
whether
or
not
to
conduct
a
survey
of
the
TRI
reporting
community
concerning
reporting
burdens.

EPA
promulgated
a
burden
reduction
rule,
the
TRI
Reporting
Forms
Modification
Rule
on
July
12,
2005
and
published
a
TRI
Burden
Reduction
Proposed
Rule
on
Oct.
4,
2005.
EPA
also
published
a
notice
and
notified
Congress
that
it
will
be
examining
the
possibility
of
altering
the
frequency
of
reporting
under
the
TRI
Program.
The
Agency
will
decide
whether
to
pursue
a
change
in
reporting
frequency
after
it
has
held
discussions
with
a
variety
of
stakeholders
5
Commenter
Major
Comments
(
summarized
&

paraphrased)
EPA's
Response
to
Comment
and
conducted
some
initial
analyses.
More
information
on
these
activities
can
found
on
the
TRI
Web
site
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
tri/
index.
htm.

Michael
Walls
American
Chemistry
Council
American
Chemistry
Council
disputes
EPA's
burden
estimates.
EPA
should
conduct
a
survey
of
reporting
facilities
to
develop
more
accurate
burden
estimates.

EPA
should
clarify
the
relevance
of
TSCA
Section
14
to
the
potential
disclosure
of
information
reported
as
confidential
under
EPCRA
Section
313.
In
general,
federal
agencies/
department
do
not
conduct
surveys
of
10
or
more
people/
organizations
when
developing
estimates
for
ICRs,
simply
because
conducting
such
a
survey
would
impose
an
additional
burden
on
the
public,
which
seems
contrary
to
the
intent
of
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act.
EPA's
TRI
Program
will
wait
until
EPA
has
received
and
analyzed
public
comments
on
the
TRI
Burden
Reduction
Proposed
Rule
published
on
October
4,
2005,

before
deciding
whether
or
not
to
conduct
a
survey
of
the
TRI
reporting
community
concerning
reporting
burdens.

EPA
will
disclose
information
submitted
under
EPCRA
section
313
that
is
covered
by
a
claim
of
confidentiality
only
to
the
extent
permitted
by,
and
in
accordance
with,
EPCRA
section
322
and
the
procedures
in
40
CFR
part
350
and
40
CFR
part
2.
TSCA
section
14
does
not
govern
claims
of
confidentiality
made
under
EPCRA
section
322.
The
reference
to
TSCA
section
14
was
inadvertently
included
and
has
been
removed
from
the
ICR
supporting
statement
as
an
authority
for
deciding
whether
to
disclose
information
that
is
covered
by
a
claim
of
confidentiality
under
EPCRA
section
322.