Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 28, 2021 / Proposed Rules 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 DUNS number for this company when one exists see: http
www.dnb.com/duns-number.html.
Additionally, the Agency is proposing to add a data element to the Form R and Form A certification for a facility to report the name and identification-U
NS 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 DUNS numbers.
A facility whose U.S.-based parent company is not owned by any foreignbased 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 facilitys foreign parent company, if applicable. First, EPA is interested in receiving comments on whether to include reporting the applicable foreign parent company. The alternative would be to codify the parent company definition but limit the guidance and reporting form data elements such that only the highest U.S.-based company would be reported. Additionally, EPA is interested in receiving comments on whether to add a new data element to the reporting form to identify the proper foreign parent company, if any. EPA
considered the following three options, and the proposed rulemaking reflects Option 3:
Option 1: Parent company definition would be codified and included in the Reporting Forms and Instructions RFI. The reporting regulations would only require reporting the highest-level U.S.-based parent company in the current data element under Part I, Section 5.1.
Option 2: Codified parent company definition would be similar to that proposed in this document, plus EPA
would include instructions for how to report a foreign parent company in Part I, Section 5.1 instead of the highest-level U.S.-based parent company when
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:08 Sep 27, 2021

Jkt 253001

applicable. No additional data element would be added to the reporting form.
Option 3: Codified parent company definition identical to that proposed in this document, including reporting both the highest-level U.S.-based parent company and highest-level foreign parent company, and add a new data element to Part I, Section 5 of the reporting forms for reporting the name of a foreign company and its DUNS
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, nonPOTW 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 facilitys 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, nonPOTW 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 facilitys 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.

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

53581

III. References The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
1. USEPA, OPPT. 2020 Standardized Parent Company Names. January 2021.
2. USEPA, OPPT. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Parent Company Definition for TRI Reporting. March 29, 2021.
3. USEPA, OPPT. TRI National Analysis 2019. January 2021.
4. USEPA, OPPT. Information Collection Request Supporting Statement. Proposed Rule ICR: Parent Company. Definition for TRI Reporting. April 2021.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at http www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget OMB for review.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act PRA
The information collection activities in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget OMB under the PRA. The Information Collection Request ICR document that the EPA
prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 2597.01 Ref. 4. You can find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this proposed rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
This proposed action would require all TRI reporters to refer to TRI
regulatory text in reporting their parent companys. 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,
E:FRFM28SEP1.SGM

28SEP1