Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0155-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Parent Company Definition for Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Reporting
Posted Date: 2021-09-28T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 28, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53577-53583]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20965]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 372

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0155; FRL-6004-01-OCSPP]
RIN 2070-AK42

Parent Company Definition for Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 
Reporting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to codify the definition of ``parent company'' 
for purposes of reporting to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). 
Although the existing regulation requires facilities reporting to TRI 
to identify their parent company in annual reporting forms, no codified 
definition of this data element exists. Among the facilities reporting 
to TRI are those with complicated corporate ownership structures. As 
such, effort is required each year by reporting facilities and EPA to 
clarify how the parent company data element should be represented on 
the form. A codified definition of parent company would allow EPA to 
address various corporate ownership scenarios explicitly and reduce the 
reporting burden caused by regulatory uncertainty. This proposed rule 
would clarify existing regulations to reporting facilities and add a 
foreign parent company data element, if applicable, while improving the 
Agency's data quality.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 29, 2021. Under 
the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection 
provisions are best assured of consideration if the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) receives a copy of your comments on or 
before October 28, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification 
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0155, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for 
submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA 
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with 
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer 
service via email, phone, and webform. 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: Stephanie Griffin, Data 
Gathering and Analysis Division, Mailcode 7410M, Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 
(202) 564-1463; email address: griffin.stephanie@epa.gov.
    For general information contact: The Emergency Planning and 
Community Right-to-Know Information Center; telephone number: (800) 
424-9346, TDD (800) 553-7672; website: https://www.epa.gov/home/epa-hotlines.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if your facility 
submits annual reports under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and 
Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), 42 U.S.C. 11023, and section 6607 
of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), 42 U.S.C. 13106, to EPA and 
States or Tribes of the facility's environmental releases or other 
waste management quantities of covered chemicals. (Pursuant to 40 CFR 
372.30(a), facilities located in Indian country are required to report 
to the appropriate tribal government official and EPA instead of to the 
State and EPA. See April 19, 2012 (77 FR 23409) (FRL-9660-9)). To 
determine whether your facility is affected by this action, you should 
carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR part 372, 
subpart B. The following list of North American Industrial 
Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, 
but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this 
document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
     Facilities included in the following NAICS manufacturing 
codes

[[Page 53578]]

(corresponding to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20 
through 39): 311*, 312*, 313*, 314*, 315*, 316, 321, 322, 323*, 324, 
325*, 326*, 327, 331, 332, 333, 334*, 335*, 336, 337*, 339*, 111998*, 
113310, 211130*, 212324*, 212325*, 212393*, 212399*, 488390*, 511110, 
511120, 511130, 511140*, 511191, 511199, 512230*, 512250*, 519130*, 
541713*, 541715*, or 811490*. (* Exceptions and/or limitations exist 
for these NAICS codes.)
     Facilities included in the following NAICS codes 
(corresponding to SIC codes other than SIC codes 20 through 39): 
212111, 212112, 212113 (corresponds to SIC code 12, Coal Mining (except 
1241)); or 212221, 212222, 212230, 212299 (corresponds to SIC code 10, 
Metal Mining (except 1011, 1081, and 1094)); or 221111, 221112, 221113, 
221118, 221121, 221122, 221330 (all are limited to facilities that 
combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for 
distribution in commerce) (corresponds to SIC codes 4911, 4931, and 
4939, Electric Utilities); or 424690, 425110, 425120 (limited to 
facilities previously classified in SIC code 5169, Chemicals and Allied 
Products, Not Elsewhere Classified); or 424710 (corresponds to SIC code 
5171, Petroleum Bulk Terminals and Plants); or 562112 (limited to 
facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract 
or fee basis (previously classified under SIC code 7389, Business 
Services, NEC)); or 562211, 562212, 562213, 562219, 562920 (limited to 
facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 
subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.) (corresponds to SIC code 4953, 
Refuse Systems).
     Federal facilities.

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

    Covered facilities in specified SIC codes that manufacture, 
process, or otherwise use listed toxic chemicals in amounts above 
specified threshold levels report certain facility specific information 
about such chemicals, including the annual releases and other waste 
management quantities. EPCRA section 313(g)(1) requires EPA to publish 
a uniform toxic chemical release form for these reporting purposes, and 
it also prescribes, in general terms, the types of information that 
must be submitted on the form. Congress also granted EPA broad 
rulemaking authority to allow the Agency to fully implement the 
statute, to ensure the release forms are available to inform the public 
of toxic chemical releases and ``to assist governmental agencies, 
researchers, and other persons in the conduct of research and data 
gathering'' (EPCRA section 313(h)). EPCRA section 328 states that: 
``The Administrator may prescribe such regulations as may be necessary 
to carry out this chapter'' (42 U.S.C. 11048).

C. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is proposing to codify the definition of ``parent company'' for 
TRI reporting purposes. Under this proposed action, EPA would clarify 
existing guidance and provide reporting clarity for facilities, 
including those owned by corporate subsidiaries, multiple owners, 
foreign entities, or that are publicly owned.
    Currently, facilities required to report to TRI must also report 
their parent companies and identify whether any reportable off-site 
transfers of TRI chemicals are sent to a facility also owned by that 
same parent company. Reporting facilities rely on the TRI Reporting 
Forms and Instructions (RFI) to report this information and to address 
questions, including what constitutes a ``parent company'' for TRI 
reporting purposes. The RFI does not address all scenarios applicable 
to many TRI facilities, including facilities owned by subsidiaries of 
larger companies; facilities with multiple owners, none of whom are a 
majority owner; joint ventures that are not purely 50:50; facilities 
directly owned by foreign entities; and publicly-owned facilities. EPA 
is proposing to codify that the ``parent company'' for TRI reporting 
purposes is the highest-level company with the largest ownership 
interest in the TRI facility as of December 31 of the reporting year. 
This proposal addresses the following ownership scenarios:
     A facility is owned by a single company, which is not 
owned by another company;
     A facility is owned by a single company, which is owned by 
another company;
     A facility is owned by multiple companies, including 
companies that are themselves owned by other entities;
     A facility is owned by a joint venture or cooperative;
     A facility is owned, at least in part, by a foreign 
company; and
     A facility is owned by the federal government, or a state, 
tribal, or municipal government.
    EPA is also proposing to require facilities reporting to TRI to 
utilize standardized naming conventions for parent company reporting, 
as provided in the annual TRI RFI, available as a downloadable Excel 
file (``Standardized Parent Company Names'') at www.epa.gov/tri/rfi. 
These naming conventions address common formatting discrepancies, such 
as punctuation, capitalization, and abbreviations (for example, 
``Corp'' for ``Corporation'').

D. Why is the Agency proposing this action?

    The Agency's current guidance on reporting the parent company on a 
TRI form has resulted in reporter confusion in situations such as a 
facility having multiple owners, or no single entity owning at least 
50% of the facility. Further, codifying the definition of parent 
company for the variety of ownership scenarios that exist for TRI 
reporting facilities will provide regulatory certainty and reporting 
clarity for the facilities. In previous years, relying only on a broad 
definition of parent company in the RFI, the Agency has found that many 
facilities inaccurately report parent company information to TRI, 
resulting in efforts to contact individual facilities to verify their 
facility's ownership structure after every annual reporting cycle. EPA 
has also worked to standardize parent company formatting for data 
quality purposes. As a result of the formatting standardization, TRI 
facilities are instructed to report parent companies using common 
abbreviations (for example, reporting ``Inc'' for ``Incorporation'') 
and identical punctuation and capitalization styles, where appropriate 
(Ref. 1). Thus, TRI reports and EPA databases more accurately reflect 
which facilities are owned by the same parent company, rather than 
counting parent companies reported with variations in spelling, 
capitalization, punctuation, or abbreviations as unique companies.
    Without a straightforward definition and a standardized format, 
regularly having to complete data quality screenings on TRI reporting 
forms is a considerable burden for TRI reporting facilities. Each year, 
after receiving TRI reporting forms, EPA conducts initial analyses on 
parent company data received and identifies potential errors on forms, 
such as unexplained changes in the parent company listed by a facility 
on its TRI reporting form (e.g., change in name from what was reported 
for the previous year, misspellings, or discrepancies in formatting). 
After the initial analyses, EPA then reaches out to individual 
facilities both to verify whether a different parent company name 
should have been submitted on the reporting form and to confirm whether 
the updated and standardized naming format should be used going 
forward.
    For example, for Reporting Year 2019, the Agency received TRI 
reporting forms

[[Page 53579]]

from 21,394 facilities. EPA needed to contact 2,119 of those facilities 
regarding their submitted parent company name to conform the submitted 
name to the standardized format and reflect the highest-level parent 
company in the U.S. (9.9% of all TRI facilities). The number of 
facilities affected by the parent company standardization effort for 
Reporting Year 2019 was similar to the numbers in Reporting Years 2012 
(19% of TRI facilities), 2013 (21% of facilities), 2014 (15% of 
facilities), 2015 (14% of facilities), 2016 (8.5% of facilities), 2017 
(4.5% of facilities), and 2018 (6.8% of facilities). Even though EPA 
prepopulates standardized parent company names into TRI-MEweb--the 
reporting software used by TRI facilities--for use in the next 
reporting year, the Agency still has to reach out to thousands of TRI 
facilities annually to ensure they submit accurate, standardized parent 
company names. While time-saving measures have been implemented over 
the past few years, regulatory uncertainty over this definition 
remains, and verifying and standardizing parent company information 
remains burdensome for reporters, necessitating a rule to improve 
reporting efficiency for TRI facilities and the Agency's data quality 
efforts.
    Additionally, collecting the highest-level foreign parent company 
name in addition to the highest level-U.S.-based parent company name 
would ensure greater data consistency for TRI data users than just 
including one name (i.e., either the highest-level U.S.-based company, 
or the foreign parent company). The distinct data elements for U.S.-
based and foreign parent company names enable data users to include or 
exclude any foreign parent companies from analyses or searches as they 
choose. Allowing either a U.S.-based or foreign parent company name to 
be reported for the same data element would prevent TRI's public data 
tools from distinguishing companies that are owned by U.S.-based 
entities from those that are foreign-owned. TRI data users include 
researchers, industry, the public, and other EPA and government 
reporting programs. Conversely, a single data element that reflects 
just the single highest-level parent company, whether it is based in 
the U.S. or abroad, would prevent any data user from reasonably and 
efficiently determining where the company is based, unless further data 
of the listed parent company, such as address, was also required.
    Finally, this proposed rule would more closely align the definition 
of parent company for TRI reporters with the definition codified by the 
Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Program at 40 CFR 711.3. Differences in 
this proposed definition and the definition codified in the CDR 
regulations result from differences in the respective programs' 
longstanding terms of art (e.g., TRI uses ``facilities,'' whereas CDR 
uses ``sites''), as well as from edits intended to provide greater 
clarity in the TRI context. For instance, the proposed TRI definition 
slightly differs from CDR regulations in the paragraph referring to 
50:50 joint ventures (40 CFR 372.3) in order to clarify that a joint 
venture should be reported as its own parent company, irrespective of 
whether any of the joint participants is owned by a higher-level 
company. Nonetheless, this proposed rule would bring the codified 
definition of ``parent company'' under TRI regulations much closer to 
the codified definition under CDR regulations. Having nearly identical 
definitions between the TRI and CDR programs will support EPA's ability 
to compare the databases for data quality purposes. Additionally, the 
Greenhouse Gas Reporting program (GHGRP) has codified the definition of 
parent company at 40 CFR 98.3(c)(11). While the GHGRP definition of 
this data element has some differences from the CDR definition and this 
rulemaking's proposed definition, there are many similarities between 
the definitions, including the need to report the highest-level company 
in the facility's ownership hierarchy and the requirement to refer to 
reporting instructions for standardized naming conventions. Thus, this 
proposed definition and reporting requirement is similar to those 
codified under other EPA reporting rules. Ultimately, this proposed 
definition is expected to promote understanding of the data element 
within the regulated community, especially among those facilities which 
also report to CDR and are already familiar with the codified 
definition.

E. What are the estimated incremental impacts?

    EPA has evaluated the potential incremental impacts of this 
proposed rulemaking, including alternative options. The details are 
presented in the economic analysis prepared for the proposed rule (Ref. 
2), which is available in the docket and is briefly summarized here.
    EPA estimates the incremental impacts across all facilities to be 
up to $1,209,202 in the first year, and up to $14,020 every subsequent 
year, with no annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. 
The paperwork burden is estimated to be up to 18,091 hours the first 
year, and up to 210 hours every subsequent year. However, these 
estimated impacts do not include the cost and time savings for 
facilities who have previously had difficulty interpreting EPA's 
guidance on this data element, nor do these impacts include the reduced 
need for communication between the Agency and facilities in the annual 
effort to standardize parent company names. The benefits of the 
proposed rule are described qualitatively in the economic analysis, as 
some of the benefits are unable to be monetized (such as the improved 
ability of various TRI data users to analyze parent company-level 
information thoroughly); thus, the estimated incremental impact listed 
does not factor in benefits. EPA estimates that a total of 21,458 
entities may be impacted by this proposed rule.

F. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to EPA through regulations.gov 
or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you 
claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail 
to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify 
electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that 
is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment 
that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that 
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for 
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting 
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. Background

A. What is a facility's ``Parent Company'' for TRI reporting purposes?

    In the RFI, ``parent company'' is described as: ``the highest-level 
company, located in the United States, that directly owns at least 50 
percent of the voting stock of [the facility's] company . . . . [A] 
facility that is a 50:50 joint venture is its own parent company. When 
a facility is owned by more than one company and none of the facility 
owners directly owns at least 50 percent of its voting stock, the 
facility should provide the name of the parent company of either the 
facility operator

[[Page 53580]]

or the owner with the largest ownership interest in the facility.''

B. How does the Agency use parent company data?

    After receiving annual TRI reporting forms, EPA uses TRI's parent 
company data to better understand typical industry practices regarding 
chemical use and waste management activities. Pursuant to PPA section 
6607, TRI reporting facilities must also report information on source 
reduction and other waste management activities.
    The TRI National Analysis, published annually (see: https://www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis), looks at how the top parent companies 
(based on quantity of production-related waste managed) managed their 
wastes in terms of recycling, treatment, energy recovery, and releases. 
EPA uses this parent company-level data to compare the methods by which 
the various parent companies are managing their wastes, especially when 
considering the number of facilities owned by each parent company, in 
keeping with the PPA. Similarly, the TRI National Analysis highlights 
the top source reduction activities used by the top parent companies 
(based on number of source reduction activities), such as improved 
process modifications and product substitutions (Ref. 3). Further, 
considering facilities owned by the same parent company allows EPA to 
compare waste management and pollution prevention activities within a 
given sector, particularly when a parent company is primarily composed 
of same-sector facilities. In addition to improving EPA's understanding 
of industry waste management and source reduction practices, collecting 
parent company-level data allows TRI data users and reporting 
facilities to highlight best practices, which may also help other 
facilities and companies achieve the pollution prevention goals of the 
PPA. A more precise understanding of the structures and practices at 
TRI facilities leads to improvements in the source reduction 
information that is relied upon to develop effective control strategies 
(PPA section 6602(a)).

C. What are the benefits of foreign parent company data?

    Environmental agencies, industry, and the public also use TRI data. 
EPA program offices use TRI data, along with other data, to help 
establish programmatic priorities, evaluate potential hazards to human 
health and the natural environment, and undertake appropriate 
regulatory and/or enforcement activities. EPA believes that TRI data on 
the facility's foreign parent company are of interest to the public 
because of the potential social benefits resulting from the 
availability of these data. Making TRI information on foreign parent 
companies available to the public may provide incentives for facilities 
to reduce TRI chemical releases. For example, the public availability 
of release information aggregated at the foreign parent company level 
may induce these parent companies to encourage facilities to reduce 
releases when such changes would not otherwise be in the parent 
company's interest if release information were not in the public 
domain. Potential social benefits derived from voluntary follow-on 
activities include decreased costs of waste treatment and disposal, 
lower probability of accidental releases and lower clean-up costs in 
the event of such releases, reduced contamination of natural resources, 
improved air and water quality, and reduced risks to human health. Such 
social benefits would be partially offset by the social costs to 
implement the changes, such as using flare gas recovery recycling and 
installing vapor recovery systems. The net social benefits of the 
information provided by the proposed rule and the possible follow-on 
activities equal the difference between the total benefits and the 
total costs of the activities leading to reduced releases (Ref. 2).
    For facilities that are owned by a foreign company (i.e., the 
facility itself or its highest-level U.S.-based parent company are 
owned by a foreign-based company), identifying foreign parent companies 
would bring additional clarity on reporting guidelines. Current TRI 
reporting definitions result in the facility reporting a U.S.-based 
parent entity that is often a subsidiary or holding company of a 
larger, foreign company. In many cases, facility personnel know the 
foreign company's name more readily than the domestic holding company's 
name. Further, in cases where TRI facilities are directly owned by a 
foreign company, with no U.S.-based subsidiary or holding company, the 
facilities are unable to report any parent company under the existing 
definition, only indicating ``No U.S. Parent Company (for TRI reporting 
purposes)'' in the TRI reporting form checkbox. Issues surrounding 
foreign ownership of TRI reporting facilities have caused reporting 
uncertainty for facilities in the past. The reporting of the highest-
level foreign company in these situations would help improve TRI 
reporting for facilities by possibly allowing TRI reporting software to 
help suggest parent company names submitted by facilities with similar 
parent company data and industrial activities.
    Reporting a facility's foreign parent company name and its Dun and 
Bradstreet identification number (D-U-N-S number), if applicable, would 
not only create greater certainty among relevant TRI reporting 
facilities, it would also provide TRI data users with more accurate 
parent company-level data. Including foreign parent company data would 
enhance parent company data collected at the U.S. level. Notably, this 
would allow TRI data users to compare the data across the same foreign 
parent when no U.S.-based parent exists and conduct the same trend 
analyses as users could for the highest-level U.S.-based parent. For 
TRI data analysis purposes, listing a subsidiary or holding company 
rather than the actual parent company is an impediment to TRI data 
users seeking to conduct a more accurate and comprehensive assessment 
of the waste management and source reduction activities by parent 
companies. As multiple subsidiaries or holding companies may exist 
underneath larger corporations, excluding foreign parent companies 
proves difficult to aggregate at the actual parent company level. 
Whereas facilities whose highest-level parents are foreign-based cannot 
be identified easily by current TRI data, requiring the reporting of a 
highest-level foreign parent would allow EPA and its data users to 
analyze trends at a more appropriate corporate level, similar to 
current analysis of U.S.-based companies. Under complex corporate 
ownership structures, TRI facilities ultimately owned by foreign parent 
companies are required to report a U.S.-based company that may not be 
easily recognizable as an entity within a larger, foreign firm. For 
instance, holding companies and subsidiaries with different names from 
their foreign parent are currently listed in TRI data under the 
subsidiary and lesser-known names that do not accurately represent the 
true ownership structure of a facility. This may skew analyses of TRI 
parent company data by suggesting foreign firms may not be as involved 
in the ownership and operation of TRI reporting facilities as U.S.-
based companies. Collecting and analyzing data on foreign parent 
companies of TRI facilities would provide more accurate data for TRI 
data users.

D. Will additional information need to be reported to TRI under this 
proposal?

    EPA will continue to provide a data element in the facility 
identification

[[Page 53581]]

sections of the Form R and Form A Certification Statement for a 
facility to report the name of the highest-level U.S.-based parent 
company, as well as the D-U-N-S number for this company when one exists 
(see: http://www.dnb.com/duns-number.html). Additionally, the Agency is 
proposing to add a data element to the Form R and Form A certification 
for a facility to report the name and identification-U-N-S number of a 
foreign-based parent company, if there is one. A facility whose 
highest-level U.S.-based parent company is owned by a foreign company 
would report both the U.S.-based parent company (Part I, Section 5.1 on 
the reporting forms) and the foreign parent company (the proposed Part 
I, Section 5.3 on the reporting forms), and their D-U-N-S numbers.
    A facility whose U.S.-based parent company is not owned by any 
foreign-based company would simply check an ``NA'' box (or similar) in 
the proposed Part I, Section 5.3 on the reporting forms.

E. Request for Comments

    EPA requests comments on the implementation of this proposed 
rulemaking, including alternative reporting scenarios for this data 
element. EPA solicits comments on the extent to which TRI reporting 
form regulations and guidance includes a facility's foreign parent 
company, if applicable. First, EPA is interested in receiving comments 
on whether to include reporting the applicable foreign parent company. 
The alternative would be to codify the parent company definition but 
limit the guidance and reporting form data elements such that only the 
highest U.S.-based company would be reported. Additionally, EPA is 
interested in receiving comments on whether to add a new data element 
to the reporting form to identify the proper foreign parent company, if 
any. EPA considered the following three options, and the proposed 
rulemaking reflects Option 3:
     Option 1: Parent company definition would be codified and 
included in the Reporting Forms and Instructions (RFI). The reporting 
regulations would only require reporting the highest-level U.S.-based 
parent company in the current data element under Part I, Section 5.1.
     Option 2: Codified parent company definition would be 
similar to that proposed in this document, plus EPA would include 
instructions for how to report a foreign parent company in Part I, 
Section 5.1 instead of the highest-level U.S.-based parent company when 
applicable. No additional data element would be added to the reporting 
form.
     Option 3: Codified parent company definition identical to 
that proposed in this document, including reporting both the highest-
level U.S.-based parent company and highest-level foreign parent 
company, and add a new data element to Part I, Section 5 of the 
reporting forms for reporting the name of a foreign company and its D-
U-N-S number, in addition to reporting the highest-level U.S.-based 
parent company, when applicable.
    All three options are included in the economic analysis, which is 
available in the docket for this rulemaking (Ref. 2).
    Additionally, Part II, Section 6.2 of the Form R includes a 
checkbox which indicates whether an off-site, non-POTW (publicly owned 
treatment works) location that receives a transfer from the reporting 
facility is under the management or control of the reporting facility, 
or under the management or control of that facility's parent company. 
EPA included this element on the Form R to ``give users of [TRI] data 
an important indication of the relative level of responsibility for the 
ultimate disposition of the chemical in the environment'' (52 FR 21159; 
June 4, 1987). When the Agency added this checkbox, it indicated that 
this information would likely to be readily available to submitters. 
Id. Accordingly, EPA believes that extending this checkbox to apply to 
an off-site, non-POTW location that receives a transfer from the 
reporting facility that is under the management or control of the 
reporting facility, or under the management or control of that 
facility's U.S.-based or foreign parent company would provide users of 
TRI data an important indication of the relative level of 
responsibility for the ultimate disposition of the chemical in the 
environment. The proposed regulatory text changes in this action do not 
address this additional data element at this time. EPA does not 
anticipate a measurable increase in burden were the checkbox to apply 
to foreign parent ownership and thus the economic analysis does not 
reflect Section 6.2 checkbox reporting. Similarly, EPA believes that a 
facility is likely to know whether or not it is transferring waste to 
another facility with a common parent company, either U.S.-based or 
international; transfers to such a facility are likely conducted at 
least in part due to their common ownership. EPA is requesting comment 
on the benefits and burdens that might accrue should EPA extend this 
checkbox to include parent ownership beyond the U.S.-based parent.

III. 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 
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

1. USEPA, OPPT. 2020 Standardized Parent Company Names. January 
2021.
2. USEPA, OPPT. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Parent Company 
Definition for TRI Reporting. March 29, 2021.
3. USEPA, OPPT. TRI National Analysis 2019. January 2021.
4. USEPA, OPPT. Information Collection Request Supporting Statement. 
Proposed Rule ICR: Parent Company. Definition for TRI Reporting. 
April 2021.

IV. 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.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document 
that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2597.01 (Ref. 
4). You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this proposed 
rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
    This proposed action would require all TRI reporters to refer to 
TRI regulatory text in reporting their parent company(s). Facilities 
which report to TRI currently rely on guidance for this required data 
element but lack a codified definition. Additionally, all TRI reporters 
with foreign parent companies would be required to submit additional 
information (indicate the foreign parent company name or not 
applicable). This proposed action would allow TRI data users, which 
include the general public, industry, researchers,

[[Page 53582]]

and the media, to better aggregate and understand this data.
    Respondents/affected entities: The proposed rule will affect any 
facility required to report to TRI. This proposed action would not 
change the universe of TRI reporting facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory, 42 U.S.C. 11023.
    Estimated number of respondents: 21,458.
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden hours: Across all facilities, the total 
first year burden hours will be up to 18,091 hours, and up to 210 hours 
every subsequent year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated burden cost: Up to $1,209,202 in the first year, 
and up to $14,020 every subsequent year, includes $0 annualized capital 
or operation and maintenance costs.
    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.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at 
the beginning of this proposed rule. You may also send your ICR-related 
comments to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using 
the interface at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this 
particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 
Review--Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function. 
Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the ICR between 30 
and 60 days after receipt, OMB must receive comments no later than 
October 28, 2021. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related comments in 
the 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. The 
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small 
privately-owned facilities and municipal government-owned facilities 
who are required to report to EPA under EPCRA section 313. The Agency 
has determined that all entities, including any small entities, may 
experience an impact of incurring annualized costs of less than 1%. 
Details of this analysis are presented in EPA's economic analysis (Ref. 
2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any 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). This proposed 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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern 
environmental 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, because it is 
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order 
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an 
environmental health or safety standard. This action is a procedural 
change and does not have any impact on human health or the environment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

    Community right-to-know, Environmental protection, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 21, 2021.
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 
Prevention.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, EPA proposes to amend 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. In Sec.  372.3, add in alphabetical order the definition for 
``Parent company'' to read as follows:

Sec.  372.3   Definitions.

* * * * *
    Parent company means the highest-level company(s) of the facility's 
ownership hierarchy as of December 31 of the year for which data are 
being reported according to the following instructions. The U.S. parent 
company is located within the United States while the foreign parent 
company is located outside the United States:
    (1) If the facility is entirely owned by a single U.S. company that 
is not owned by another company, that single company is the U.S. parent 
company.
    (2) If the facility is entirely owned by a single U.S. company that 
is, itself, owned by another U.S.-based company (e.g., it is a division 
or subsidiary of a higher-level company), the highest-level company in 
the ownership hierarchy is the U.S. parent company. If there is a 
higher-level parent company that is outside of the United States, the 
highest-level foreign company in the ownership hierarchy is the foreign 
parent company.
    (3) If the facility is owned by more than one company (e.g., 
company A owns 40 percent, company B owns 35 percent, and company C 
owns 25 percent), the highest-level U.S. company

[[Page 53583]]

with the largest ownership interest in the facility is the U.S. parent 
company. If there is a higher-level foreign company in the ownership 
hierarchy, that company is the foreign parent company.
    (4) If the facility is owned by a 50:50 joint venture or a 
cooperative, the joint venture or cooperative is its own parent 
company.
    (5) If the facility is entirely owned by a foreign company (i.e., 
without a U.S.-based subsidiary within the facility's ownership 
hierarchy), the highest-level foreign parent company is the facility's 
foreign parent company.
    (6) If the facility is federally owned, the highest-level federal 
agency or department operating the facility is the U.S. parent company.
    (7) If the facility is owned by a non-federal public entity (such 
as a municipality, State, or tribe), that entity is the U.S. parent 
company.
* * * * *
0
3. In Sec.  372.85, revise paragraph (b)(8) to read as follows:

Sec.  372.85   Toxic chemical release reporting form and instructions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (8) Legal name of the facility's U.S.-based parent company and its 
Dun and Bradstreet identification number.
    (i) Legal name of the facility's highest-level foreign parent 
company and its Dun and Bradstreet identification number, when 
applicable.
    (ii) The facility must report using the standardized conventions 
for the naming of a parent company as provided in the toxic chemical 
release inventory reporting instructions identified in paragraph (a) of 
this section.
* * * * *
0
4. In Sec.  372.95, revise paragraph (b)(12) to read as follows:

Sec.  372.95   Alternate threshold certification and instructions.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (12) Legal name of the facility's U.S.-based parent company and its 
Dun and Bradstreet identification number.
    (i) Legal name of the facility's highest-level foreign parent 
company and its Dun and Bradstreet identification number, when 
applicable.
    (ii) The facility must report using the standardized conventions 
for the naming of a parent company as provided in the toxic chemical 
release inventory reporting instructions identified in paragraph (a) of 
this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2021-20965 Filed 9-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P