Proposed Rule2021-20965
Parent Company Definition for Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Reporting
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 28, 2021
Issuing agencies
Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract
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.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 86 Issue 185 (Tuesday, September 28, 2021)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">http://www.regulations.gov</a>. 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 <a href="https://www.epa.gov/dockets">https://www.epa.gov/dockets</a>.
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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5b3c29323d3d323575282f3e2b333a35323e1b3e2b3a753c342d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0661746f60606f6828757263766e67686f634663766728616970">[email protected]</span></a>.
For general information contact: The Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Information Center; telephone number: (800)
424-9346, TDD (800) 553-7672; website: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/home/epa-hotlines">https://www.epa.gov/home/epa-hotlines</a>.
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:
<bullet> 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.)
<bullet> 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).
<bullet> 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:
<bullet> A facility is owned by a single company, which is not
owned by another company;
<bullet> A facility is owned by a single company, which is owned by
another company;
<bullet> A facility is owned by multiple companies, including
companies that are themselves owned by other entities;
<bullet> A facility is owned by a joint venture or cooperative;
<bullet> A facility is owned, at least in part, by a foreign
company; and
<bullet> 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 <a href="http://www.epa.gov/tri/rfi">www.epa.gov/tri/rfi</a>.
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 <a href="http://regulations.gov">regulations.gov</a>
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 <a href="http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html">http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html</a>.
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: <a href="https://www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis">https://www.epa.gov/trinationalanalysis</a>), 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: <a href="http://www.dnb.com/duns-number.html">http://www.dnb.com/duns-number.html</a>). 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:
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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 <a href="http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders">http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders</a>.
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 <a href="http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain">www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain</a>. 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
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 28, 2021.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.