Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Request for Comments on Renewal and Proposed Changes

Filed on regulations.gov — full text not in the inline record.

July 18, 2005 Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code 28221T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20460 Submitted via email to: oei.docket@epa.gov RE: OEI-2004-00061; FRL-7914-3, Toxic Chemical Release Reporting, Record keeping, Request for Comment on Renewal of Proposed EPA ICR Number 1363-14, OMB Control Number 2070-0093, 70 Fed.Reg. 28520 (May 18, 2005). Dear Sir or Madam: The American Chemistry Council (the Council or ACC) submits the following comments on the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed renewal of its Information Collection Request (ICR) for toxic chemical release reporting to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). ACC believes that the request requires additional clarification – particularly in the Agency’s burden estimate -- before meaningful public comment can be made on the proposed ICR renewal. A. Burden Estimate EPA indicates that the annual public burden under this information collection request is estimated at 47.1 hours for facilities submitting a Form R certification statement for a single listed PBT chemical and 25.2 hours for a Form R certification statement for a single listed non-PBT chemical. 70 Fed.Reg. at 28523. This burden estimate represents a sharp increase in estimated burden compared to the estimate reported by the Agency in 2003, and reflects a burden estimate negotiated with the Office of Management and Budget in January 2004.2 As the January 2004 terms of clearance 1 ACC notes that in several points in the Federal Register notice, an apparently incorrect docket number (2004-0001) is listed. See 70 Fed.Reg. 28520, third column, numbered paragraphs 5 and 6. 2 See OMB Memorandum to EPA, Terms of Clearance for TRI ICR Renewal, January 21, 2004 (document available in the docket for the current ICR request). Document Control Office Office of Environmental Information United States Environmental Protection Agency July 18, 2005 Page 2 indicate, however, there still appears to be a significant difference of opinion on the true burden of TRI reporting. Given that difference of opinion, ACC renews its call for the Agency to conduct a statistically significant survey of reporting facilities. EPA has taken some important steps toward burden reduction in the TRI program (e.g., activities resulting from Phases I and II of the TRI stakeholder dialogue). A new burden survey of the regulated community would provide important information on the program modifications made since 1996 (when the bulk of exiting burden data was collected) and would provide a basis for a meaningful estimate of burden in future ICRs. Further, ACC believes that the Office of Management and Budget should consider the burden survey a condition for approval of the proposed ICR renewal. Moreover, a new burden survey need not hamper the Agency’s ongoing effort to reduce the burden of the TRI program to the regulated community. ACC reiterates it's support for the streamlining modifications proposed by EPA in January 2005, and encourages the Agency to issue a final rule by Fall of this year.3 B. Clarification of Disclosure Basis In the proposed ICR renewal, EPA states that it “will disclose information that is covered by a claim of confidentiality only to the extent permitted by, and in accordance with, the procedures of TSCA section 14 and 40 CFR part 2.” 70 Fed.Reg. at 28522. This statement is identical to statements used in past ICR renewal requests. However, ACC believes that a clarification of the authority and procedures for disclosure under TSCA are warranted. In particular, EPA should clarify what relevance TSCA section 14 has to the potential disclosure of information reported as confidential under EPCRA section 313. Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, sections 350.1-350.27 establish the rules governing the assertion of confidentiality claims. Specific reference to Title 40, part 2 (EPA’s Freed…