1	Inappropriate release of enforcement information via revision code	API
Comment: The reason for revision may be related to pending enforcement
actions. For instance, one of the codes involves EPA/state inspections
and one indicates voluntary disclosure through EPA's audit policy.
Revisions may be submitted by a company while a pending enforcement
action is still being resolved. During this process, companies are
rightfully sensitive about the status of the ongoing enforcement case.
By adding this data element, EPA is using the Form R and Form A to
collect and publicly distribute potential facility enforcement
information without any means of providing the explanatory information
necessary to understand the situation. A revised TRI report is not an
appropriate method to collect such information about enforcement
actions, which may still be in progress when the revision is filed.

Response:  EPA agrees with commenters that revisions may be submitted
while a pending enforcement action is still being resolved.  In response
to commenters concerns EPA has removed all revision codes specific to
enforcement.  In addition EPA has modified the proposed revision codes
as follows:  

New monitoring data (RR1)

New emission factor(s) (RR2) 

New chemical concentration data (RR3)

Recalculation(s) (RR4) 

Other reason(s) (RR5)

EPA has also decided to include an “other reason(s)” code for
revising a TRI form.





IPC	Comment: 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. 

Response:  EPA agrees with commenters that revisions may be submitted
while a pending enforcement action is still being resolved.  In response
to commenters concerns EPA has removed all revision codes specific to
enforcement.  In addition EPA has modified the proposed revision codes
as follows:  

New monitoring data (RR1)

New emission factor(s) (RR2) 

New chemical concentration data (RR3)

Recalculation(s) (RR4) 

Other reason(s) (RR5)

EPA has also decided to include an “other reason(s)” code for
revising a TRI form.



2	Revision codes are complex and increase reporting burden.	API	Comment:
This revision adds unnecessary complexity to the TRI Program's reporting
requirements; the code selection decision will add reporting burden,
with no added benefit to environmental protection.

Response:  EPA believes revisions and withdrawals play an important role
in improving TRI data quality especially due to ever improving
estimation and/or monitoring methodologies.  The revision codes offer
reporters an opportunity to identify reasons for revising their TRI
submissions, and to enable EPA to provide better guidance to facilities
for improving overall data quality.  However, in response to
commenters’ concerns that proposed revision codes add unnecessary
complexity to the TRI Program’s reporting requirements, EPA has
modified the proposed revision codes as follows:  

New monitoring data (RR1)

New emission factor(s) (RR2) 

New chemical concentration data (RR3)

Recalculation(s) (RR4) 

Other reason(s) (RR5)

Further, EPA has also decided to include an “other reason(s)” code
for revising a TRI form.  

The revision codes developed by EPA are based on information previously
provided to the Agency by TRI reporters identifying reasons for form
revision. EPA believes that reporters will be able to quickly and easily
determine the appropriate revision code to use, given that the set of
likely responses is well-defined. EPA maintains that the burden
associated with the slight procedural changes—that only apply to the
subset of forms that are revised—is negligible and assumed to be zero.





SOCMA	Comment: Adding boxes for mandatory revision codes adds
unnecessary complexity to the TRI Program's reporting requirements.

Response: EPA believes revisions and withdrawals play an important role
in improving TRI data quality especially due to ever improving
estimation and/or monitoring methodologies.  The revision codes offer
reporters an opportunity to identify reasons for revising their TRI
submissions, and to enable EPA to provide better guidance to facilities
for improving overall data quality.  However, in response to
commenters’ concerns that proposed revision codes add unnecessary
complexity to the TRI Program’s reporting requirements, EPA has
modified the proposed revision codes as follows:  

New monitoring data (RR1)

New emission factor(s) (RR2) 

New chemical concentration data (RR3)

Recalculation(s) (RR4) 

Other reason(s) (RR5)

Further, EPA has also decided to include an “other reason(s)” code
for revising a TRI form.

The revision codes developed by EPA are based on information previously
provided to the Agency by TRI reporters identifying reasons for form
revision. EPA believes that reporters will be able to quickly and easily
determine the appropriate revision code to use, given that the set of
likely responses is well-defined. EPA maintains that the burden
associated with the slight procedural changes—that only apply to the
subset of forms that are revised—is negligible and assumed to be zero.

3	Revision codes should have an “Other” category.	API	Comment: EPA
fails to provide an "Other" category. The list is incomplete and, if
this change is approved, there will be situations where the reason
behind a facility's revision is not in the proposed menu of revision
codes.

Response: In response to comments that proposed revision codes list is
incomplete without an “Other” category, EPA has decided to include
an “other reason(s)” code for revising a TRI form.

4	Clarification needed on “facility classification” in Revision code
(RF3).	API	Comment: Regarding the code "To update facility
classification (RF3)," it's unclear to us what the Agency means by
"facility classification." It appears EPA may intend "facility
classification" to mean changes to Section 4.2 of Part I of the Form R
or Form A, but since that data element is not referred to as "facility
classification," it is not clear.

Response:  The commenter requests clarification of proposed revision
code, “To update facility classification (RF3).”  Specifically, the
commenter is concerned whether this would apply to changes to Section
4.2 of Part I of Form R or Form A. EPA has removed “To update facility
classification (RF3)” code and modified the proposed revision codes as
follows:  

New monitoring data (RR1)

New emission factor(s) (RR2) 

New chemical concentration data (RR3)

Recalculation(s) (RR4) 

Other reason(s) (RR5)



5	Are revision codes optional?	API	Comment: In the Federal Register
notice, EPA writes this proposed addition: "will provide boxes on the
Form R and Form A where up to two codes...can be entered..."' It's
unclear whether a facility can choose to leave the Form blank and choose
not to enter one of the revision codes in the box when re-submitting the
Form.

Response:  The commenter requests clarification whether a facility can
choose not to enter any revision code when re-submitting the Form.  For
those reporters submitting a revision, the facility reporter must enter
a revision code.  EPA has decided, however, to modify proposed revisions
codes and include an “other reason(s)” code for revising a TRI form.

6	EPA has changed the mechanisms for revising a TRI submission but has
not discussed the change in the FR notice.	API	Comment: Upon reviewing
the ICRs, API discovered a proposed change to the RFI not discussed in
the Federal Register notice. In the 2006 RFI, EPA provides three
mechanisms for facilities to revise a TRI submission: TRI-ME via CDX;
TRI-ME via diskette; and hard copy form. In the Form R ICR, these three
mechanisms are still available for facilities to revise a TRI
submission, however the proposed requirements for the hard copy option
increase the difficulty for facilities to revise submissions on paper.

In the 2006 RFI, for hard copy revisions, facilities can make
corrections by one of three hard copy methods: (1) Facility Data Profile
(FDP); (2) Photocopy of Original; and (3) Blank Copy Form. In the Form R
ICR, EPA only lists the Photocopy of Original option for hard copy Form
changes. Nowhere in the ICR does EPA discuss why the Agency intends on
removing the Facility Data Profile and Blank Copy Form options. More
importantly, EPA fails to highlight this proposed change in the Federal
Register notice, thereby not alerting the public and the regulated
community of the "proposed" removal of the hard copy revision options.
API questions why EPA removed the Facility Data Profile (FDP) and Blank
Copy Form options.

EPA also changes the process for facilities to submit revisions via the
Photocopy of Original Submission option. Currently, as described in the
2006 RFI, facilities simply submit a photocopy of the original
submission with the corrections made in blue ink, and the certification
statement on page I, re-signed and re-dated. The Photocopy of Original
Submission option as described in the ICR requires facilities to provide
a photocopy of the original submission and attach as a cover page to the
photocopy of the original submission, page 1 of the most current year's
reporting form, which they would re-sign and re-date. Requiring
inclusion of page 1 from the current reporting year is unnecessary and
increases reporting complexity/ burden. More specifically, it is also
unclear how EPA would intend for this to work in eases where the most
recent report was submitted electronically, and the hard copy printed
from TRI-ME states "File Copy Do Not Submit to EPA" on it. Further, what
if a facility is revising a Form for a particular chemical where the
facility no longer meets the TRI reporting requirements for that
chemical? In this instance, there is no page one of the current year's
reporting form. Also, according to this ICR, EPA would require (on the
newly added cover page 1) that facilities re-sign and re-date the
certification statement and enter an "X" in the box next to "Revision"
along with the appropriate revision code in the space provided. The
proposed Form R that accompanies the ICR, however, does not include a
box to enter the "X." EPA needs to rethink the proposed process changes
associated with the Photocopy of Original Submission option.

Response: The commenter claims that proposed revision requirements for
the hard copy option increases the difficulty for facilities to revise
submissions on paper. The commenter also claims that EPA fails to
highlight the removal of two methods – facility data profile (FDP) and
blank copy form – for hard copy revisions.   The commenter is also
concerned about the requirement to append page 1 of the 2007 reporting
year form to a form being revised via paper.  In particular, the
commenter is concerned about those instances where a facility is
revising via the paper option a form that was originally submitted
electronically and whose print-out reads “File Copy Do Not Submit to
EPA.”.

EPA encourages facilities to use the Internet option to submit TRI forms
and to revise or  withdraw previous TRI submissions.  EPA finds it
unlikely that a facility would be unwilling to use electronic means to
revise a form that was originally submitted electronically.  However,
for those reporters who desire to revise a submission through the hard
copy option regardless of how the original submission was made, the
reporters need to append page 1 of the 2007 (or most recent form post
2007) to a hard copy of the original submission so that the reporters
can use the revision code box on the cover page 1 to supply the
appropriate code for revising the submission.  The purpose of attaching
the hard copy of the original submission is to ensure proper
identification of the form being revised.  EPA understands that in case
of a print-out of a form originally submitted electronically, the hard
copy will bear “File Copy Do Not Submit to EPA.”  Such a notation
will not adversely affect the revision process provided in the Reporting
Forms and Instructions.

The commenter also points out the instructions to enter ‘X’ in the
box next to the boxes for the revision codes, but the proposed form does
not have a box to enter ‘X’.  In response to this comment, EPA has
revised the instructions by removing the text, “enter an ‘X’” in
the box next to “Revision (enter code)” and instead provided two
code boxes for entering appropriate revision code(s).



7	Need for suggested withdrawal codes is questioned.	API	Comment: API is
supportive of the addition of a withdrawal field, but questions the need
for the suggested withdrawal codes, for reasons similar to those noted
above for the proposed revision codes.

Response: The commenters are supportive of the addition of a withdrawal
field, but question the need for the suggested withdrawal codes. In
response to comments, EPA has revised proposed withdrawal codes:
Facilities may request a withdrawal for one or two of the following
reasons: 

Did not meet the reporting threshold for manufacturing, processing, or
otherwise use (WT1)

Did not meet the reporting threshold for number of employees (WT2) 

Not in a covered NAICS Code (WT3) 

Other reason(s) (WO1)

EPA understands revisions and withdrawals play an important role in
improving TRI data quality especially due to ever-improving estimation
and/or monitoring methodologies. This offers an opportunity to identify
reasons for revision and withdrawal, and to provide better guidance to
facilities in that industry sector for improving overall data quality.



SOCMA	Comment: SOCMA is supportive of the addition of a withdrawal
field, but questions the need for the suggested withdrawal codes, for
reasons similar to those noted above for the proposed revision codes.

Response:  The commenters are supportive of the addition of a withdrawal
field, but question the need for the suggested withdrawal codes. In
response to comments, EPA has revised proposed withdrawal codes:
Facilities may request a withdrawal for one or two of the following
reasons:

Did not meet the reporting threshold for manufacturing, processing, or
otherwise use (WT1)

Did not meet the reporting threshold for number of employees (WT2) 

Not in a covered NAICS Code (WT3) 

Other reason(s) (WO1)

EPA understands revisions and withdrawals play an important role in
improving TRI data quality especially due to ever-improving estimation
and/or monitoring methodologies. This offers an opportunity to identify
reasons for revision and withdrawal, and to provide better guidance to
facilities in that industry sector for improving overall data quality.

8	Withdrawal codes should have

an “Other” category.	API	Comment: If EPA decides to require
withdrawal codes, API suggests that EPA create an "Other" category for
withdrawal reasons beyond the proposed withdrawal codes.

Response:  The commenter has suggested EPA to create “Other”
category to withdrawal codes. In response to comments, EPA has modified
proposed withdrawal codes and added an “other reason(s)” category.
Facilities may request a withdrawal for one or two of the following
reasons:

Did not meet the reporting threshold for manufacturing, processing, or
otherwise use (WT1)

Did not meet the reporting threshold for number of employees (WT2) 

Not in a covered NAICS Code (WT3) 

Other reason(s) (WO1)



9	Identifying Form Preparer may be inappropriate.	API	Comment: TRI
reporting is a complex yearly process involving a multitude of facility
(e.g., refinery) personnel. Due to the need for the involvement of
several individuals across a facility, it is API's position that EPA
should have one single facility contact, which is the Technical Contact.
In some cases, the form preparer (when not the technical contact) is a
third-party consultant hired by the facility to help complete the Form.
In such instances, it would be particularly inappropriate for EPA to
contact the form preparer directly, and the facility would likely have a
contractual relationship with the consultant that would prohibit them
from dealing with EPA on behalf of the company. Thus, the form preparer
would refer the Agency back to the Technical Contact. This situation
would be counter-productive and burdensome for both the facility and
EPA.

Response:  EPA acknowledges API’s concern regarding the direct contact
of a contractor by EPA and, will not add the form preparer elements to
the TRI forms.  

 



IPC	Comment: 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.   

Response: EPA acknowledges the IPC’s concern regarding the direct
contact of a contractor by EPA and, will not add the form preparer
elements to the TRI forms.



SOCMA	Comment: Addition of a field for "Form Preparer" for use by a
facility if the form preparer is a different individual than the
"Technical Contact" is problematic and requires reconsideration.

Response:  The comment by SOCMA does not clarify why specifically
including a field for the form preparer is problematic.  But in response
to similar comments from others, EPA has decided to add the form
preparer elements to the TRI forms.



10	Make Form Preparer optional	API	Comment: If EPA decides to provide a
field on the Form R and Form A for "Form Preparer," API urges EPA to
clearly state in the RFI that facilities may leave the field blank
(thereby making completion of this data element optional). In the Form R
ICR, EPA does write "If you choose to designate the same person as both
the Technical Contact and the Form Preparer, you may enter "Same as
Section 4.3" in this space." However, the technical contact and form
preparer may not necessarily be the same person. If the form preparer is
not the same person as the technical contact (e.g., the form preparer is
an external consultant), then the facility should not be obligated to
list them, but it would be incorrect to state that they are the same
person as the technical contact.

Response:  EPA will not add the form preparer elements to the TRI forms.
 

11	Addition of public contact is a good idea	API	Comment: API has no
objection to the addition of an e-mail address field for the "Public
Contact" to Form R and the addition of a field for the "Public Contact
Name" to Form A, along with associated telephone number and e-mail
address fields. These changes can potentially make facility contact more
efficient.

Response:  EPA thanks API for the positive comment and will implement
the change to the TRI forms.

12	Additional Point of contact information is unnecessary	IPC	Comment:
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. 

Response:   EPA acknowledges the IPC’s concern regarding burden, and
upon calculating the burden on industry relative to the burden reduction
realized by EPA through this action, will not add the form preparer
elements to the TRI forms.

13	Classification of business size is difficult, clearer guidance on
business size should be provided, small business field should be
optional	API	Comment: We are also concerned about potential liability
and enforcement risk associated with wrongly certifying the small
business status of the parent company. Finally, the Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) is not the appropriate mechanism
to collect small business data. The data are not required by the statute
and at a minimum should not be mandatory on Forms R and A.

As the SBA definition does not provide a concise, definitive definition
of what constitutes a small business and in light of the potential
liability for companies associated with the inclusion of this data
element, API suggests that the small business field be optional. At a
minimum, EPA should clearly define what constitutes a small business in
the TRI Reporting Forms and Instructions (RFI).

Response: After further consideration of the proposed small business
data element, including the concerns raised by commenters, EPA has
decided not to pursue, at this time, the collection of information
related to the small business status of companies reporting to TRI.





IPC	Comment: In the July ICR, EPA 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:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_t
ablepdf.pdf" 
http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_ta
blepdf.pdf 

Response:  After further consideration of the proposed small business
data element including the concerns raised by commenters, EPA has
decided not to pursue, at this time the collection of information
related to the small business status of companies reporting to TRI.





SOCMA	Comment: The small business field should be optional. At a
minimum, EPA should clearly define what constitutes a small business in
the 'TRI Reporting Forms and Instructions (RFI), and clarify why it
needs this information.

Response:  After further consideration of the proposed small business
data element including the concerns raised by commenters, EPA has
decided not to pursue, for the present time, the collection of
information related to the small business status of companies reporting
to TRI.



14	Proposed alternate approach to collecting size of business.	IPC
Comment: 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. 

Response:  After further consideration of the proposed small business
data element including the concerns raised by commenters, EPA has
decided not to pursue, at this time, the collection of information
related to the small business status of companies reporting to TRI.

15

	EPA underestimates burden associated with determining small business
qualification.

	IPC

	Comment: 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 their small business qualifications 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.

Response: This comment no longer applies due to the decision made on
comments #13 and #14. EPA has decided not to pursue, at this time the
collection of information related to the small business status of
companies reporting to TRI.



16	Additional basis of estimate codes add unnecessary complexity,
reporting burden, and enforcement risk.

	API

	Comment: API has reviewed the proposed "basis of estimate" codes
provided in the ICR for Form R. We believe these additions add
unnecessary and unjustified complexity to the "basis of estimate" data
element. As with most changes to TRI's reporting requirements, EPA
underestimates the burden of increasing the menu of code options. Along
with an increase in burden, the proposed additional codes would increase
enforcement risk for the reporting entity in the event that the entity
selects the wrong code.

Response:  EPA orginally proposed the following ten “basis of
estimate” codes:

M1-	Estimate is based on chemical-specific continuous emission
monitoring data or measurements for the EPCRA  XE "EPCRA"   section 313
chemical.

M2-Estimate is based on chemical-specific periodic and/or random
monitoring, including source testing data or measurements for the EPCRA 
XE "EPCRA"   section 313 chemical.

C-	Estimate is based on mass balance calculations, such as calculation
of the amount of the EPCRA  XE "EPCRA"   section 313 chemical in wastes
entering and leaving process equipment.

E1-	Estimate is based on chemical-specific published emission factors,
such as those relating release quantity to through-put (e.g., air
emission factors) for the EPCRA  XE "EPCRA"   section 313 chemical.

E2-	Estimate is based on chemical-specific site-specific emission
factors, such as those relating release quantity to through-put (e.g.,
air emission factors) for the EPCRA  XE "EPCRA"   section 313 chemical.

O1-	Estimate is based on non-chemical specific published emission
factors, such as that relating release quantity of fluids per equipment
type (e.g., synthetic organic chemical industry emission factors).  XE
"EPCRA"  

O2-	Estimate is based on non-chemical specific site-specific emission
factors, such as that relating release quantity of fluids per equipment
type.   XE "EPCRA"  

O3-	Estimate is based on parametric emissions monitoring of surrogate
parameters.  Parameters that are followed up for operation control
purposes (like temperature, conductivity, pressure and pH) can also have
good correlation to the actual emission levels. A combination of
surrogates may result in a strong relationship to the parameter to be
monitored. 

O4-	Estimate is based on published emission models that are generally
based on physico-chemical principles and empirical relationships.  The
most familiar model is USEPA’s TANKS 4.09D developed for estimating
organic emissions from storage tanks. 

O5-	Estimate is based on other approaches such as engineering
calculations (e.g., estimating volatilization using published
mathematical formulas) or best engineering judgment.  This would include
applying estimated removal efficiency to a treatment, even if the
composition of the waste before treatment was fully identified through
monitoring data.

In response to commenters’ concerns, EPA has decided to modify the
proposed approach by consolidating the O1 through O5 basis of estimate
codes to a single O basis of estimate code. The following codes are the
revised basis of estimate codes:

M1-	Continuous emission monitoring  XE "EPCRA"  

M2-	Periodic or random emission monitoring  XE "EPCRA"  

C-	Mass balance calculations  XE "EPCRA"  

E1-	Published emission factor  XE "EPCRA"  

E2-	Site-specific emission factor  XE "EPCRA"  

O-	Other methods of estimation  XE "EPCRA"  

  

EPA believes that by having facilities report the detailed basis of
estimates the Agency will be in a better position to help TRI reporters
improve estimation methodologies and  hence the overall quality of the
data they submit to the TRI program. Having this more detailed
information, EPA will be better able to more effectively direct TRI
compliance assistance and data quality assessments to those sectors with
the greatest need.  

For example, the TRI Program noted certain facilities in a industry
sector had reported approximately an order of magnitude lower releases
for a specific chemical compared to similar size facilities, although
all these facilities identified  emission factors (E) as the basis of
estimate. On further follow-up, the TRI Program learned that facilities
that reported lower releases had used industry-developed,
facility-specific emission factors, whereas the facilities that reported
higher release had used approximately 20 year old EPA-developed emission
factors. The TRI Program contacted the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS) Emissions Factors Group about this new emission
factor. OAQPS is currently working with industrial facilities to update
the emission factors inventory.

  

EPA acknowledges that increasing the menu of basis of estimate code
options may slightly increase Form R reporting burden (basis of estimate
codes do not apply to Form A). On the basis that two of the current
codes are still valid (C and O) and the remaining two current codes (M
and E) are divided in to four new codes (E1, E2, M1, and M2), EPA has
re-estimated the incremental burden associated basis of estimate codes. 
  In the OMB-approved methodology described in comment #22, estimates of
reporting burden for data elements on Form R Sections 5 and 6 are
disaggregated to include burden associated with selecting and recording
basis of estimate codes in addition to calculating and reporting total
releases or transfers.  

Based on this methodology, first-year incremental burden associated with
reporting basis of estimate codes for a non-PBT form is now estimated to
require an additional 1.88 minutes. Subsequent-year burden associated
with reporting basis of estimate codes for a non-PBT form is now
estimated to require an additional 1.41 minutes. As a reminder, these
estimates of incremental burden are meant to represent a typical
facility and thus reflect average reporting burden.



	

	SOCMA

	Comment: The proposed additional "basis of estimate" codes add
unnecessary and unjustified complexity to the "basis of estimate" data
element.

Response: In response to commenters’ concerns EPA has decided to
modify the basis of 

estimate codes as follows:

M1-	Continuous emission monitoring  XE "EPCRA"  

M2-	Periodic or random emission monitoring  XE "EPCRA"  

C-	Mass balance calculations  XE "EPCRA"  

E1-	Published emission factor  XE "EPCRA"  

E2-	Site-specific emission factor  XE "EPCRA"  

O-	Other methods of estimation  XE "EPCRA"  

  

EPA believes that by having facilities report the detailed basis of
estimates the Agency will be in a better position to help TRI reporters
improve estimation methodologies and  hence the overall quality of the
data they submit to the TRI program. Having this more detailed
information, EPA will be better able to more effectively direct TRI
compliance assistance and data quality assessments to those sectors with
the greatest need.  

For example, the TRI Program noted certain facilities in a industry
sector had reported approximately an order of magnitude lower releases
for a specific chemical compared to similar size facilities, although
all these facilities identified  emission factors (E) as the basis of
estimate. On further follow-up, the TRI Program learned that facilities
that reported lower releases had used industry-developed,
facility-specific emission factors, whereas the facilities that reported
higher release had used approximately 20 year old EPA-developed emission
factors. The TRI Program contacted the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS) Emissions Factors Group about this new emission
factor. OAQPS is currently working with industrial facilities to update
the emission factors inventory.

  

EPA acknowledges that increasing the menu of basis of estimate code
options may slightly increase Form R reporting burden (basis of estimate
codes do not apply to Form A). On the basis that two of the current
codes are still valid (C and O) and the remaining two current codes (M
and E) are divided in to four new codes (E1, E2, M1, and M2), EPA has
re-estimated the incremental burden associated basis of estimate codes. 
  In the OMB-approved methodology described in comment #22, estimates of
reporting burden for data elements on Form R Sections 5 and 6 are
disaggregated to include burden associated with selecting and recording
basis of estimate codes in addition to calculating and reporting total
releases or transfers.  

Based on this methodology, first-year incremental burden associated with
reporting basis of estimate codes for a non-PBT form is now estimated to
require an additional 1.88 minutes. Subsequent-year burden associated
with reporting basis of estimate codes for a non-PBT form is now
estimated to require an additional 1.41 minutes. As a reminder, these
estimates of incremental burden are meant to represent a typical
facility and thus reflect average reporting burden.

17

	EPA needs to justify need for additional BOE codes.

	API

	Comment: More importantly, EPA provides no information on how the data
will be used. It is our understanding that EPA does not use the "basis
of estimate" information currently reported on Form R. Thus, we question
the utility of increasing the number of "basis of estimate" codes to
ten.

Furthermore, in the Federal Register notice announcing the changes, EPA
notes that the new set of codes would make the TRI "basis of estimate"
codes comparable to the codes used by the Canadian government, making it
easier to analyze and compare data between the United States and
Canada.3 If the U.S. government wishes to achieve consistency between
the data elements of each nation's inventory, a dialogue and fair
assessment of increased reporting burden versus potential benefit, is
necessary to determine the level required and to ensure they arc
justified by a true need for the data. It appears that EPA simply
intends to incorporate the "basis of estimate" codes used in Canada's
National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) with no analysis. The goal
of "making it easier to analyze and compare data between the United
States and Canada" is far from sufficient justification, in and of
itself, for adding burden and complexity to the U.S. TRI Program.

Response: In response to commenters’ concerns, EPA has decided to
modify the proposed approach by consolidating O1 through O5 basis of
estimate codes to a single O basis of estimate code. The following are
modified basis of estimate codes:

M1-	Continuous emission monitoring  XE "EPCRA"  

M2-	Periodic or random emission monitoring  XE "EPCRA"  

C-	Mass balance calculations  XE "EPCRA"  

E1-	Published emission factor  XE "EPCRA"  

E2-	Site-specific emission factor  XE "EPCRA"  

O-	Other methods of estimation  XE "EPCRA"  

  

In addition, EPA believes that by having facilities report the detailed
basis of estimates the Agency will be in a better position to help TRI
reporters improve estimation methodologies and  hence improve the
overall quality of the TRI data. By using this information, EPA will be
better able to direct TRI compliance assistance and data quality
assessments to those sectors with the greatest need.

For example, the TRI Program noted certain facilities in a industry
sector had reported approximately an order of magnitude less releases
for a specific chemical compared to similar size facilities, though all
these facilities identified emission factors (E) as the basis of
estimate. On further follow-up, the TRI Program learned that facilities
that reported lower releases had used industry-developed,
facility-specific emission factors, whereas the facilities that reported
higher releases had used approximately 20 year old EPA-developed
emission factors. The TRI Program contacted the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Emissions Factors Group about this new
emission factor. OAQPS is currently working with industrial facilities
to the update emission factors inventory.



18

	Are BOE codes required?



Comment: If EPA nevertheless decides to incorporate these changes, the
Agency needs to clarify whether facilities are required to use the new
"basis of estimate" codes, or whether use of the new "basis of estimate"
codes is optional. In the Federal Register notice, EPA writes "...for
use on Form R which facilities can use to indicate the principal method
used to determine the quantities reported to the TRI Program" (emphasis
added).

Response: The facility must select a basis of estimate code.  In
response to commenters’ concerns EPA has, however, decided to modify
the proposed approach by consolidating O1 through O5 basis of estimate
codes to a single O basis of estimate code. The following are modified
basis of estimate codes:

M1-	Continuous emission monitoring  XE "EPCRA"  

M2-	Periodic or random emission monitoring  XE "EPCRA"  

C-	Mass balance calculations  XE "EPCRA"  

E1-	Published emission factor  XE "EPCRA"  

E2-	Site-specific emission factor  XE "EPCRA"  

O-	Other methods of estimation  XE "EPCRA"  

  

In addition, EPA believes that by having facilities report the detailed
basis of estimates the Agency will be in a better position to help TRI
reporters improve estimation methodologies and  hence improve the
overall quality of the TRI data. By using this information, EPA will be
better able to direct TRI compliance assistance and data quality
assessments to those sectors with the greatest need.

For example, the TRI Program noted certain facilities in a industry
sector had reported approximately an order of magnitude less releases
for a specific chemical compared to similar size facilities, although
all these facilities identified emission factors (E) as the basis of
estimate. On further follow-up, the TRI Program learned that facilities
that reported lower releases had used industry-developed,
facility-specific emission factors, whereas the facilities that reported
higher releases had used approximately 20 year old EPA-developed
emission factors. The TRI Program contacted the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS) Emissions Factors Group about this new
emission factor. OAQPS is currently working with industrial facilities
to the update emission factors inventory.



19

	What is meant by published emission models?

	API

	Comment: In addition, EPA should also clarify what the Agency means by
"published emission models" within the context of proposed code 04.
Would that also include vendor-developed software? For example, two
common models related to wastewater are EPA's WATER9 and vendor
developed TOXCHEMI-. Would both of these models be considered
"published," or only WATER9?

Response:  In response to commenters’ concerns EPA has decided to
modify the proposed approach by consolidating O1 through O5 basis of
estimate codes to a single O basis of estimate code. The following are
modified basis of estimate codes:

M1-	Continuous emission monitoring  XE "EPCRA"  

M2-	Periodic or random emission monitoring  XE "EPCRA"  

C-	Mass balance calculations  XE "EPCRA"  

E1-	Published emission factor  XE "EPCRA"  

E2-	Site-specific emission factor  XE "EPCRA"  

O-  Other methods of estimation



20

	Suggested revisions to proposed additional BOE codes.

	API

	Comment: API has one technical comment on the proposed instructions for
selection of monitoring codes contained in the ICR. In the ICR EPA
writes, "Monitoring data should be indicated as the basis of estimate
only if the EPCRA § 313 chemical concentration is measured in the waste
being released into the environment." API would like to emphasize that
not all waste for which "basis of estimate" codes must be selected is
released into the environment. Thus, we suggest that EPA revise this
sentence as follows: "Monitoring data should be indicated as the basis
of estimate only if the EPCRA § 313 chemical concentration is measured
in the waste."

Response: EPA agrees with the commenter and has modified the proposed
text as “Monitoring data should be indicated as the basis of estimate
only if the EPCRA section 313 chemical concentration is measured in the
waste.”

21

	Rule familiarization and training burden are underestimated	API
Comment: In general, EPA does not adequately acknowledge the time
required for rule familiarization and does not adequately consider time
spent for training. Contrary to EPA's assumption, rule familiarization
is not an activity that occurs only for a first-time reporter. To comply
with TRI reporting requirements, rule familiarization is an ongoing
activity that is necessary each year. EPA is continually issuing new
interpretations and guidance, and there are over 40 guidance documents
posted on EPA's TRI web site under "TRI Guidance Documents."9 In
addition, EPA cannot assume that the same person at a facility
accomplishes TRI reporting each year. Staff rotation and turnover occur
in all businesses, and a person new to TRI reporting spends significant
time on rule familiarization. EPA itself conducts TRI training sessions
and, in addition, trade associations and individual companies conduct
and sponsor training.

Response:  EPA does not feel it is appropriate to adjust rule
familiarization burden, since the proposed form changes are not thought
to appreciably affect this activity. Current estimates of reporting
burden including rule familiarization; compliance determination; report
completion; and recordkeeping and submission are based on an
OMB-approved methodology.  Activities such as reviewing requirements and
procedures, consulting guidance documents or the TRI hotline, and
participating in training are included in rule familiarization. EPA
acknowledges that rule familiarization burden does not account for staff
turnover at reporting facilities.  However, EPA believes that the
overestimates in reporting burden articulated in comment #22 more than
offset the potential underestimate created by not accounting for staff
turnover. 





IPC

	Comment: 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.

Response: EPA does not feel it is appropriate to adjust rule
familiarization burden since the proposed form changes are not thought
to appreciably affect this activity. Current estimates of reporting
burden including rule familiarization; compliance determination; report
completion; and recordkeeping and submission are based on an
OMB-approved methodology.  Activities such as reviewing requirements and
procedures, consulting guidance documents or the TRI hotline, and
participating in training are included in rule familiarization. EPA
acknowledges that rule familiarization burden does not account for staff
turnover at reporting facilities.  However, EPA believes that the
overestimates in reporting burden articulated in comment #22 more than
offset the potential underestimate created by not accounting for staff
turnover. 



22

	Reporting burden associated with the proposed form changes is
underestimated.	API	Comment: In the Federal Register notice announcing
the ICR effort, EPA writes "Based on calculations using RY 2005 data,
the total burden hours for the 2008-2010 ICRs... would be...modestly
increased by 16% due to the proposed revisions of the reporting forms
and instructions."" According to the Form R 1CR, completion of Form R
for non-PBT chemicals requires an estimated 67.6 hours per form in the
first year and 24.6 hours per form in subsequent years. Thus, EPA
believes that the increase in burden (for non-PBT chemicals) as a result
of the proposed changes discussed herein is 6.49 minutes per Form R in
the first year and 2.36 minutes per Form R in subsequent years. Based on
the extent of the proposed changes, we believe that EPA in its burden
assessment significantly underestimates the reporting burden. Many of
the proposed changes impose complicated coding systems that will require
substantial company time and resources. For example, on any one Form R,
there can easily be 5 - 10 entries that require a "basis of estimate"
code, and facilities typically have multiple forms to submit, so simply
reading all the "basis of estimate" code choices and deciding which code
correctly represents the principal method used to determine each of the
multiple data elements will take significantly more than the 6.49
minutes in year one or 2.36 minutes in subsequent years. Some of our
members have estimated that it would take them 8 hours or more to
determine the correct "basis of estimate" codes from the list proposed,
due to complications arising from the increased specificity, such as
distinguishing between chemical-specific and non-chemical specific
emission factors. We urge EPA to review the Agency's burden estimates
and recognize that the proposed changes will add significant burden to
completion of the TRI Program's reporting requirements.

Response:  EPA relies on an OMB-approved methodology to estimate TRI
reporting burden overall and for the incremental changes to Form R and
Form A proposed in the ICR. This methodology, outlined in the Economic
Analysis supporting the TRI Forms Modification Rule, is used to develop
data-element-specific estimates of reporting burden. 

EPA developed reporting burden estimates for the proposed form changes
based on the time required to complete similar tasks or data elements on
the current reporting forms.  EPA has reviewed calculations and revised
estimates for certain form/instruction changes (see response to comments
#3, #4). 

Burden estimates are meant to represent average respondent burden.  As
with any average, some facilities will be above the average, and others
will be below it. Large, complex facilities may require more than the
average time to comply.  However, there are many other facilities
subject to the rule that are not large or complex and may require less
than the average time to comply. 

Also see response to comments #1, #3, #4, and #14.





SOCMA

	Comment: Based on the extent of the proposed changes, SOCMA believes
that EPA in its burden assessment significantly underestimates the
reporting burden. Many of the proposed changes impose complicated coding
systems that will require substantial company time and resources.

Response: EPA relies on an OMB-approved methodology to estimate TRI
reporting burden overall and for the incremental changes to Form R and
Form A proposed in the ICR. This methodology, outlined in the Economic
Analysis supporting the TRI Forms Modification Rule, is used to develop
data-element-specific estimates of reporting burden. 

EPA developed reporting burden estimates for the proposed form changes
based on the time required to complete similar tasks or data elements on
the current reporting forms.  EPA has reviewed calculations and revised
estimates for certain form/instruction changes (see response to comments
#3, #4). 

Burden estimates are meant to represent average respondent burden.  As
with any average, some facilities will be above the average, and others
will be below it. Large, complex facilities may require more than the
average time to comply.  However, there are many other facilities
subject to the rule that are not large or complex and may require less
than the average time to comply. 

Also see response to comments #1, #3, #4, and #14.

23

	Reporting burden survey is needed.	API

	Comment: As stated in previous API comments, we believe a new,
statistically robust burden survey is warranted to produce a reliable
and accurate estimate of TRI reporting burden under the current
regulations and using current reporting tools (i.e., TRI-ME). A new
burden survey is increasingly important as the TRI program continues to
change, with the addition of new chemicals and modifications to TRI's
reporting requirements, in addition to the multitude of additions
discussed herein. EPA needs to better characterize and quantify the
burden associated with the TRI program.

Response:  EPA relies on the OMB-approved methodology for estimating the
TRI reporting burden and does not believe that it would be practical to
conduct a broad based survey on the 

TRI reporting burden at this time, since such a survey itself would
impose an additional, separate burden on the reporting community.

24

	Changes to Form R and A should be through rulemaking not ICR.

	API

	Comment: API strongly urges EPA to make any changes to Forms R and A
through notice and comment rulemaking. Changes to TRI's reporting Forms
affect many thousands of facilities (and also many users of TRI data).
The changes proposed in the ICRs discussed herein would add data fields,
and impose a somewhat complicated coding system for three of the fields.
Such changes warrant full notice and comment through the process
established under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

The ICR process is not the appropriate process for taking comments on
changes to the data collected under the TRI program. It is not
reasonable to expect that the regulated community and other members of
the public have been adequately alerted to proposed TRI changes when
they are effectively buried in an ICR notice, and not highlighted in a
specific notice of proposed changes. In fact, specifics on many of the
proposed changes are not even directly discussed in the ICRs; all of the
proposed codes are listed in an appendix to the respective ICR. Further,
the title of the Federal Register notice does not mention proposed
changes to Forms R and A, and the summary for the notice makes only
passing reference to "incorporating proposed minor changes." API is
alert to EPA making such changes through ICRs, only because the Agency
has done so in the past and thus we review all ICRs carefully. We do not
think many other members of the public are aware that the Agency uses
ICRs in this way, and we point to the relatively small number of
comments EPA's receives on ICRs as evidence of this.

Response:  EPA believes that the ICR notice-and-comment process is
appropriate for making certain form changes.  ICRs are intended 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 process adequately alerts the
public to proposed changes in the information collection, including form
changes, and provides an adequate opportunity for the public to submit
comments.  At the same time, the Agency acknowledges that some of the
proposed ICR changes described in the first Federal Register notice
could have been proposed through the notice-and-comment rulemaking
process under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA); therefore, in
response to comments and in order to reduce the potential impact of the
proposed form changes on facilities, EPA is making the following changes
to its ICR renewal requests for Form R and/or Form A:  

The proposed codes for revisions will be simplified and include an
option for “other reasons;” 

The proposed codes for withdrawals will be simplified and include an
option for “other reasons;”  

The proposed new field for a facility’s “form preparer” will not
be included.

The proposed new field concerning the small business status of a
facility or its parent company will not be included; and

The proposed codes for “basis of estimate” will be simplified and
include a code for other methods.

In addition, EPA will revise the title of the second Federal Register
notices to clarify that the TRI Program’s proposed ICR renewals
include some proposed changes to the TRI forms. 





IPC

	Comment: 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).

Response:  EPA believes that the ICR notice-and-comment process is
appropriate for making certain form changes.  ICRs are intended 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 process adequately alerts the
public to proposed changes in the information collection, including form
changes, and provides an adequate opportunity for the public to submit
comments.  At the same time, the Agency acknowledges that some of the
proposed ICR changes described in the first Federal Register notice
could have been proposed through the notice-and-comment rulemaking
process under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA); therefore, in
response to comments and in order to reduce the potential impact of the
proposed form changes on facilities, EPA is making the following changes
to its ICR renewal requests for Form R and/or Form A:  

The proposed codes for revisions will be simplified and include an
option for “other reasons;” 

The proposed codes for withdrawals will be simplified and include an
option for “other reasons;”  

The proposed new field for a facility’s “form preparer” will not
be included.

The proposed new field concerning the small business status of a
facility or its parent company will not be included; and

The proposed codes for “basis of estimate” will be simplified and
include a code for other methods.

In addition, EPA will revise the title of the second Federal Register
notices to clarify that the TRI Program’s proposed ICR renewals
include some proposed changes to the TRI forms.  

25

	ICR has not justified the continued collection of data on metals based
on flawed PBT methodology.	IPC

	Comment: EPA no longer has any justification for requiring facilities
to incur the significant burden of reporting TRI information on metals
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.

Response: The commenter refers to the EPA document titled, “Framework
for Metals Risk Assessment,” which was released on March 8, 2007 

(   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/osa/metalsframework" 
http://www.epa.gov/osa/metalsframework  ).  The Framework outlines key
principles about metals and describes how they should be considered in
conducting human health and ecological risk assessments.  It is not a
prescriptive manual on how any particular type of assessment should be
conducted within EPA, but rather guidance on how key principles
concerning metals can be considered in metals assessments.  EPA is in
the process of evaluating the TRI Program’s methodology for assessing
metals in light of the general principles and guidance provided by the
Metals Framework, and the Agency will be able to respond more fully to
the comment once that evaluation has been finalized.  EPA is committed
to ensuring that its regulations are based on sound scientific
principles and appropriate, high-quality data, and it will continue to
work to ensure that this is the case.  The TRI Program’s currently
proposed ICR renewals, including the burden estimates, reflect the
number of forms that the TRI Program currently collects based on the
existing TRI regulations.  If the TRI regulations are revised in the
future for any reason, the TRI Program’s ICRs and the associated
burden estimates will be revised as appropriate.



SGCD

	Comment: 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.

Response:  The commenter refers to the EPA document titled, “Framework
for Metals Risk Assessment,” which was released on March 8, 2007

(  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/osa/metalsframework" 
http://www.epa.gov/osa/metalsframework  ).  The Framework outlines key
principles about metals and describes how they should be considered in
conducting human health and ecological risk assessments.  It is not a
prescriptive manual on how any particular type of assessment should be
conducted within EPA, but rather guidance on how key principles
concerning metals can be considered in metals assessments.  EPA is in
the process of evaluating the TRI Program’s methodology for assessing
metals in light of the general principles and guidance provided by the
Metals Framework, and the Agency will be able to respond more fully to
the comment once that evaluation has been finalized.  EPA is committed
to ensuring that its regulations are based on sound scientific
principles and appropriate, high-quality data, and it will continue to
work to ensure that this is the case.  The TRI Program’s currently
proposed ICR renewals, including the burden estimates, reflect the
number of forms that the TRI Program currently collects based on the
existing TRI regulations.  If the TRI regulations are revised in the
future for any reason, the TRI Program’s ICRs and the associated
burden estimates will be revised as appropriate.

26	EPA has failed to fulfill requirements of the PRA and IQG

	IPC

	Comment: 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. 

Response:  The commenter refers to the EPA document titled, “Framework
for Metals Risk Assessment,” which was released on March 8, 2007 

(  HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/osa/metalsframework" 
http://www.epa.gov/osa/metalsframework  ).  The Framework outlines key
principles about metals and describes how they should be considered in
conducting human health and ecological risk assessments.  It is not a
prescriptive manual on how any particular type of assessment should be
conducted within EPA, but rather guidance on how key principles
concerning metals can be considered in metals assessments.  EPA is in
the process of evaluating the TRI Program’s methodology for assessing
metals in light of the general principles and guidance provided by the
Metals Framework, and the Agency will be able to respond more fully to
the comment once that evaluation has been finalized.  

EPA is committed to ensuring that its regulations are based on sound
scientific principles and appropriate, high-quality data, and will
continue to work to ensure that this is the case.  The TRI Program’s
currently proposed ICR renewals, including the burden estimates, reflect
the number of forms (both PBT and non-PBT forms) that the TRI Program
currently collects based on the existing TRI regulations.  If the TRI
regulations are revised in the future for any reason, the TRI
Program’s ICRs and the associated burden estimates will be revised as
appropriate.

EPA disagrees with the comment that “EPA is disseminating PBT
information that is inaccurate, incomplete, unreliable, and possibly
biased.”  The TRI Program has instituted a number of procedures and
automated data quality checks to ensure that the TRI data received are
of high quality, and the data that the TRI Program currently provides to
the public are consistent with the Agency’s implementation of the TRI
regulations as they currently stand.  If the commenting organization has
a concern about the quality of a specific piece of data that the TRI
Program has made available to the public, then the organization may
submit an error notification through EPA’s Envirofacts Data Warehouse
Web site. 





SGCD

	Comment: However, SGCD 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.

Response:  The commenter refers to the EPA document titled, “Framework
for Metals Risk Assessment,” which was released on March 8, 2007 

(   HYPERLINK "http://www.epa.gov/osa/metalsframework" 
http://www.epa.gov/osa/metalsframework  ).  The Framework outlines key
principles about metals and describes how they should be considered in
conducting human health and ecological risk assessments.  It is not a
prescriptive manual on how any particular type of assessment should be
conducted within EPA, but rather guidance on how key principles
concerning metals can be considered in metals assessments.  EPA is in
the process of evaluating the TRI Program’s methodology for assessing
metals in light of the general principles and guidance provided by the
Metals Framework, and the Agency will be able to respond more fully to
the comment once that evaluation has been finalized.  

EPA is committed to ensuring that its regulations are based on sound
scientific principles and appropriate, high-quality data, and will
continue to work to ensure that this is the case.  The TRI Program’s
currently proposed ICR renewals, including the burden estimates, reflect
the number of forms (both PBT and non-PBT forms) that the TRI Program
currently collects based on the existing TRI regulations.  If the TRI
regulations are revised in the future for any reason, the TRI
Program’s ICRs and the associated burden estimates will be revised as
appropriate.

EPA disagrees with the comment that “EPA is disseminating PBT
information that is inaccurate, incomplete, unreliable, and possibly
biased.”  The TRI Program has instituted a number of procedures and
automated data quality checks to ensure that the TRI data received are
of high quality, and the data that the TRI Program currently provides to
the public are consistent with the Agency’s implementation of the TRI
regulations as they currently stand.  If the commenting organization has
a concern about the quality of a specific piece of data that the TRI
Program has made available to the public, then the organization may
submit an error notification through EPA’s Envirofacts Data Warehouse
Web site. 





TRI Form R and Form A ICR Renewal 2007

Summary of American Petroleum Institute (API), Association of Connecting
Electronic Industries (IPC), Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers
Association (SOCMA), and Society of Glass and Ceramic Decorators (SGCD)
Comment

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
                   

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
           

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                       

    #                             Topic                                 
Author                                                                  
  Comment/Response                                                      
     

     PAGE  30                                                           
          

                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
 DATE \@ "M/d/yyyy"  12/5/2007 

