Community Right to Know Reporting Requirements Under Sections 311 and 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, Request for Comment on Renewal of Information Collection Request (ICR)

The American Petroleum Institute (API) is pleased to present comments to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) on its Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection; Comment Request; Community Right-To-Know Reporting Requirements Under Sections 311 and 312 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA), EPA ICR Number 1352.11, OMB Control Number 2050?0072; 72 FR 43636-43638, August 6, 2007. API is the primary trade association of America?s oil and natural gas industry, and represents more than 400 members involved in all aspects of the industry. All API members file reports pursuant to EPCRA sections 311 and 312, and thus have a direct interest in any actions pertaining to the requirements. Our members have much experience submitting these reports and thus can offer informed comments on the effort required to make the submissions. In the attached comments, API urges EPA to fully address its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), which include evaluating the accuracy of the Agency?s burden and minimizing the burden of the collection of information on those who are required to respond. In particular, we urge EPA to address the following key issues: ?EPA?s estimates of 1.6 hours for a 311 report and 3.1 hours for a Tier I or Tier II 312 report are inaccurate and not adequately supported. Our members report that their facilities spend weeks, not hours, on these reports. Accuracy of burden estimates is discussed in section I. ?The current program is unnecessarily burdensome due to its inconsistent implementation in different States. The result is that facilities need to take multiple steps to remain in compliance with both the letter of the federal requirement and the State?s preferred or required method for receiving the report. Although much of the confusion and burden is caused by actions of the States (e.g., through their requirements for how to submit), it is EPA?s obligation to address this situation. The information collection results only from the federal requirements which are the subject of this ICR. EPA and States should work together to devise one form that would be submitted to all States (and would be consistent with the federal regulations) and one system for electronic reporting. The burden of inconsistent program implementation is discussed in section II. ?API comments highlight two program revisions that are necessary to increase the efficacy and reduce the burden of the program: (1) allow separate reporting from multi-establishment facilities and (2) finalize an exemption for substances with minimal hazards and risks. Both of these issues have been under consideration by EPA for over ten years. To meet its obligations under the PRA, EPA needs to make a final decision on these ideas, and API recommends that they be implemented. See section III of the comments. ?API and others have in the past asked EPA for clarification of specific issues. In order to meet its obligation to minimize burden, it is important that EPA offer clarification on these issues. See section IV for discussion of the specific issues.

API's comments cover on the ICR are listed below in three main categories: 1.) Reporting under EPCRA section 312 (?Tier II? reporting) has become increasingly burdensome due to inconsistency in program implementation, including inconsistency among States and between federal requirements and corresponding State regulations and policies. 2.) EPA should make program revisions that would reduce burden for reporting facilities (and have been proposed by EPA): oMulti-Establishment Facilities oExemption for Substances with Minimal Hazards and Risks oImproved Information and Training 3.) EPA should clarify some key issues that cause ongoing confusion regarding the requirements: oThreshold Determinations for Non-EHSs oGroupings for EPCRA section 311 Reporting oOn-Site Storage vs. Present On-Site oChemical Substance vs. Mixture for Some CAS Numbers oCombining Similar Materials for Reporting Purposes oScope of the Laboratory Exemption