[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 203 (Friday, October 21, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63950-63955]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22833]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 372

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0155; FRL-6004-02-OCSPP]
RIN 2070-AK42


Parent Company Definition for Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) 
Reporting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing a rule 
to codify the definition of ``parent company'' for purposes of 
reporting to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and to require the 
reporting of a foreign parent company when applicable. The existing 
regulation requires facilities reporting to TRI to identify their 
parent company in annual reporting forms. This rule adds a codified 
definition of this data element. 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 will allow EPA to address 
various corporate ownership scenarios explicitly and will reduce the 
reporting burden caused by regulatory uncertainty. This rule clarifies 
existing requirements to reporting facilities and adds a foreign parent 
company data element, while improving the Agency's data quality.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 20, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified under docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0155, is available online 
at https://www.regulations.gov or in person at the Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket) in the Environmental 
Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC). Please review the visitor 
instructions and additional information about the docket available at 
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    For technical information contact: Stephanie Griffin, Data 
Gathering and Analysis Division, (7406M), Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: 
(202) 564-1463; email address: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The Emergency Planning and 
Community Right-to-Know Information Center; telephone number: (800) 
424-9346, TDD (800) 553-7672; website: https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/epa-hotlines#epcraic.

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.

[[Page 63951]]

Potentially affected entities may include:
     Facilities included in the following NAICS manufacturing 
codes (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.)
     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).
     Federal facilities.
     Any facility which the EPA Administrator has determined to 
be subject to TRI reporting requirements under the discretionary 
authority of EPCRA section 313(b)(2).

B. What is the Agency's authority for taking this action?

    EPA is taking this action under EPCRA sections 313(g)(1) and 328, 
42 U.S.C. 11023(g)(1) and 11048.
    In general, EPCRA section 313 requires owners and operators of 
covered facilities in specified SIC codes that manufacture, process, or 
otherwise use listed toxic chemicals in amounts above specified 
threshold levels to 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), 42 U.S.C. 11023(h)).
    EPCRA section 328 (42 U.S.C. 10048) states that: ``The 
Administrator may prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to 
carry out this chapter.''

C. What action is the Agency taking?

    EPA is codifying the definition of ``parent company'' for TRI 
reporting purposes. Under this rule, EPA is clarifying existing 
guidance and providing reporting clarity for facilities, including 
those owned by corporate subsidiaries, multiple owners, foreign 
entities, or that are publicly owned. EPA is also requiring facilities 
to report their highest-level foreign parent company, when applicable, 
beginning with Reporting Year 2023, for forms due by July 1, 2024 and 
for each subsequent reporting year. With this rule, the definition of 
``parent company'' for TRI reporting is more closely aligned with 
definitions under other reporting programs, including the Chemical Data 
Reporting (CDR) rule (40 CFR part 711) and the Greenhouse Gas Reporting 
Program (GHGRP) rule (40 CFR part 98).
    The definition of ``parent company'' within TRI reporting 
regulations is the highest-level company with the largest ownership 
interest in the TRI facility as of December 31 of the reporting year. 
This addresses the following ownership scenarios:
     A facility is owned by a single company, which is not 
owned by another company;
     A facility is owned by a single company, which is owned by 
another company;
     A facility is owned by multiple companies, including 
companies that are themselves owned by other entities;
     A facility is owned by a joint venture or cooperative;
     A facility is owned, at least in part, by a foreign 
company; and
     A facility is owned by the Federal Government, or a state, 
tribal, or municipal government.
    EPA is also requiring facilities reporting to TRI to use 
standardized naming conventions for parent company reporting, as 
provided in the annual TRI Reporting Forms and Instructions (RFI), 
available as a downloadable Excel file (``Standardized Parent Company 
Names'') at https://www.epa.gov/tri/rfi. These naming conventions 
address common formatting discrepancies, such as punctuation, 
capitalization, and abbreviations (for example, ``Corp'' for 
``Corporation'').

D. Why is the Agency taking this action?

    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 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. Because the Agency's longstanding guidance 
has repeatedly resulted in reporter confusion in situations such as a 
facility having multiple owners, or when no single entity owns at least 
50 percent of a facility, EPA is taking this action to provide 
certainty over what must be reported for this data element. In addition 
to greater regulatory certainty and clarity for facilities, the Agency 
believes this will also provide time-saving benefits for both EPA and 
the reporting community. In previous years, the Agency has found that 
many facilities, relying only on a broad definition of ``parent 
company'' in the RFI, inaccurately report parent company information to 
TRI, resulting in repeated efforts to contact individual facilities to 
verify their facility's ownership structure after each reporting year.
    EPA is also requiring the use of a standardized naming convention 
for parent companies, including identical punctuation and 
capitalization styles or using common abbreviations (for example, 
reporting ``Inc'' for ``Incorporation'') (Ref. 1). The conventions have 
been included in TRI guidance for several reporting cycles, and their 
inclusion in the CFR would formalize the requirement to adhere to them 
for the purpose of TRI data harmonization. The naming convention is 
primarily a tool to streamline the data quality and aggregation 
activities on submitted data. Thus, TRI reports and

[[Page 63952]]

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.
    EPA is also finalizing the requirement for TRI facilities to submit 
their highest-level foreign parent company, where applicable. EPA 
recognizes that there are a variety of ownership situations for TRI 
facilities. In some situations, a TRI facility is owned, at least in 
part, by a company outside of the United States. In these cases, the 
facility is required to report on both their highest-level U.S.-based 
and foreign parent companies, as applicable. Collecting the highest-
level foreign parent company name in addition to the highest level-
U.S.-based parent company name ensures 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). TRI data users 
include researchers, industry, the public, and other EPA and government 
reporting programs. 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. 
Conversely, allowing either a U.S.-based or foreign parent company name 
to be reported for the same data element (i.e., a single parent company 
field, regardless of location) would prevent TRI's public data tools 
from distinguishing companies that are owned by U.S.-based entities 
from those that are foreign-owned. This single data element 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.
    EPA is finalizing the requirement for reporting a foreign parent 
company to begin with Reporting Year 2023, for forms due by July 1, 
2024. The later date for this requirement will both enable EPA to 
update the TRI-MEweb reporting software with the beginning of a new 
reporting year, and the reporting community to familiarize themselves 
with the new data requirement.
    Ultimately, this rule more closely aligns the definition of parent 
company for TRI reporters with the definition codified by the 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 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 codified definition of 
``parent company'' under TRI is much closer to the codified definition 
under CDR. Having nearly identical definitions between the TRI and CDR 
programs supports EPA's ability to compare the databases for data 
quality purposes. Additionally, the 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 
rule's definition, there are many similarities across 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 
definition and reporting requirement is similar to those already 
codified under other EPA reporting rules. This rule promotes 
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 of this action?

    EPA has evaluated the potential incremental impacts of this rule. 
The details are presented in the economic analysis prepared for the 
rule (Ref. 2), which is available in the docket and is briefly 
summarized in this unit.
    EPA estimates the incremental impacts across all facilities to be 
up to $1,239,572 in the first year, and up to $14,238 every subsequent 
year, with no annualized capital or operation and maintenance costs. 
The paperwork burden is estimated to be up to 17,833 hours the first 
year, and up to 205 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 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 21,154 entities 
(i.e., all TRI reporting facilities) are impacted by this rule.

II. Background

    As discussed in the proposed rule (Ref. 3), EPA proposed to codify 
a definition of ``parent company'' for TRI reporting purposes and to 
require the reporting of the foreign parent company when applicable. In 
the proposed rule, EPA described how codifying this definition provides 
greater clarity to TRI reporting facilities and greater consistency 
with other reporting programs. While EPA proposed adding a data element 
for the highest-level foreign parent company, the Agency specifically 
requested public comment on this proposed additional data element. The 
proposed rule Economic Analysis (Ref. 4) also provided estimated burden 
and costs associated with three different scenarios: simply codifying a 
definition of ``parent company'' and not requiring the reporting of 
foreign parent companies; codifying a definition of ``parent company'' 
and requiring only the reporting of the highest-level parent company of 
the facility, which may be a U.S. or foreign company; and codifying a 
definition of ``parent company'' and requiring the reporting of the 
U.S. parent company and foreign parent company, if applicable.
    In the proposed rule, EPA estimated the incremental burden of the 
action, under Option 3 which would require reporting both the highest-
level U.S. parent company and foreign parent company, if applicable. 
The estimated incremental burden was 18,091 hours across the entire 
reporting universe of 21,458 facilities in the first year, while 
subsequent reporting years would see an impact of 210 hours.

III. Summary of Comments and EPA Responses

    In response to the proposed rule, EPA received four public 
comments. The commenters included two individuals (one anonymous), one 
law firm on behalf of a client, and one state environmental agency. 
This unit summarizes the comments received and EPA's response to each 
comment.
    Comment #1. One private citizen was supportive of the rule to 
promote corporate accountability. The commenter also suggested that TRI 
track carbon dioxide emissions.
    EPA response. Although carbon dioxide is not a TRI listed chemical, 
and

[[Page 63953]]

therefore TRI does not track carbon dioxide emissions, EPA appreciates 
the commenter's support of the rule. EPA also points out that the 
Agency has other information reporting programs which may provide such 
data, such as the GHGRP which tracks facility-level emissions from the 
largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.
    Comment #2. The anonymous commenter was critical of the rule, 
stating that codifying this data element only serves to boost EPA's 
enforcement authority against facilities who misreport their parent 
company name. The commenter also questioned EPA's claims of how the 
proposed rule may improve TRI data quality and reduce burden for 
correcting submitted parent company information. The commenter also 
thought that requiring facilities to report the foreign parent in 
addition to the U.S.-based parent would be burdensome for the 
respondent and should not be required.
    EPA response. EPA appreciates this perspective and understands that 
requiring corporate structure data elements for reporting to TRI may 
cause minimal work to each facility in the first year of reporting. EPA 
respectfully disagrees that codifying these data elements will not lead 
to improved data quality outcomes. Rather, EPA's experience with TRI 
facility submissions for parent company information is that lack of a 
codified definition results in inconsistent data. EPA believes that 
without a codified definition, there would be continued inconsistency 
in naming conventions, conflicting interpretations of the data 
elements, and an inability to perform trend analysis across all TRI 
facilities.
    Comment #3. The law firm commenter generally supports the rule and 
encourages TRI facilities to reduce their toxic chemical releases. The 
commenter also advocated for clearer guidance for determining which 
entity should report under TRI for those facilities with complex 
corporate structures (i.e., when the facility owner and operator are 
different entities, and the facility owner does not have operating or 
permitting control).
    EPA response. EPA appreciates the commenter's support of the rule. 
In response to the commenter's questions related to reporting 
responsibilities between different facility owners and operators, EPA 
would direct the commenter to the language in EPCRA and in the TRI 
implementing regulations, as well as longstanding guidance documents, 
for clarity on which entity is responsible for reporting. For instance, 
under ECPRA section 313(b)(1), TRI reporting requirements apply to both 
``owners and operators of [covered facilities]''. EPA has also codified 
this requirement at 40 CFR 372.5. Additionally, TRI reporting guidance 
materials reiterate that both the owner and operator of a covered 
facility are subject to reporting requirements, and both may be liable 
for penalties if no reports are received from a covered facility. 
However, for practical purposes, EPA believes the operator is generally 
more likely to have necessary information for TRI reporting. Readers 
are directed to TRI Q&As for additional information, including Q&A 86 
(Ref. 5).
    Comment #4. The state environmental agency commenter did not 
support the rule, stating that EPA's focus on this data element is 
``misplaced'' in light of ``ongoing misperception'' caused by the TRI. 
The commenter submitted comments on TRI data including that reported 
releases do not distinguish between permitted and regulated releases 
(such as to POTWs or waste storage areas) and unauthorized releases. 
The commenter requested that EPA distinguish those types of releases in 
the TRI data by collecting and reporting releases by percentage of 
regulated releases. The commenter also suggested that EPA focus efforts 
on certain entities including plastics, pharmaceuticals, and other 
manufacturers.
    EPA response. EPA appreciates the concerns expressed by the 
commenter and their depth of knowledge regarding the TRI program. 
However, the concerns outlined in their comments are beyond the scope 
of the proposed rule.

IV. Summary of Final Rule

    EPA is finalizing the rule as proposed. The Agency also updated the 
estimated incremental impacts of this action based on 2022 wage rates 
and the number of TRI reporting facilities for Reporting Year 2020, the 
most recent year for which EPA has complete data at this time (Ref. 2). 
EPA considered public comments received and the estimated incremental 
costs of the three options discussed in the proposed rule, including 
the addition of a data requirement for a highest-level foreign parent 
company. The economic impact analysis demonstrates that the costs of 
requiring both a U.S.-based and foreign parent company are minimal, 
especially with the use of TRI-MEweb, EPA's web-based TRI reporting 
tool. When facilities input their parent company(ies), the information 
is only needed once to apply across all reporting forms, and 
information submitted in previous years can be imported to forms 
submitted for subsequent years if the information has not changed. 
Thus, TRI facilities need only to provide this information once, unless 
and until the appropriate parent company(ies) changes. Thus, TRI 
facilities must report their highest-level U.S.-based parent companies, 
following the definition of ``parent company'' as codified in 40 CFR 
372, beginning with Reporting Year 2022, for which reports are due by 
July 1, 2023. TRI facilities must also report their highest-level 
foreign parent company, if applicable, beginning with Reporting Year 
2023, for which reports are due by July 1, 2024.

V. 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. EPA, OPPT. RY 2021--Standardized Parent Company Names. 
January 2022. https://ordspub.epa.gov/ords/guideme_ext/f?p=guideme:rfi-home#downloadable.
    2. EPA, OPPT. Economic Analysis of the Parent Company Definition 
for TRI Reporting. July 18, 2022.
    3. EPA. Proposed Rule; Parent Company Definition for Toxics 
Release Inventory (TRI) Reporting. Federal Register. 86 FR 53577, 
September 28, 2021 (FRL-6004-01-OCSPP).
    4. EPA, OPPT. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Parent Company 
Definition for TRI Reporting. March 29, 2021.
    5. EPA. ECPRA Section 313 Questions & Answers: 2019 
Consolidation Document. April 2019. https://ordspub.epa.gov/ords/guideme_ext/guideme_ext/guideme/file/2019qa.pdf.
    6. EPA. Supporting Statement for an Information Collection 
Request (ICR) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA); entitled 
``Parent Company Definition for TRI Reporting; Final Rule (RIN 
2070AK42).'' EPA ICR No. 2597.02; OMB Control No. 2070-0216. October 
2022.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders 
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders#influence.

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 under

[[Page 63954]]

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 
3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    The information collection activities in this final rule have been 
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The 
information Collection Request (ICR) document that EPA prepared is 
assigned EPA ICR No. 2597.02 and identified by OMB Control No. 2070-
0216 (Ref. 6). You can find a copy of the ICR in the rulemaking docket 
and it is briefly summarized in this unit. The information collection 
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them.
    Currently, the facilities subject to the reporting requirements 
under EPCRA section 313 and PPA section 6607 may use either EPA Toxic 
Chemicals Release Inventory Form R (EPA Form 1B9350-1), or EPA Toxic 
Chemicals Release Inventory Form A (EPA Form 1B9350-2), as appropriate 
under 40 CFR 372. OMB has approved the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements related to Forms A and R, supplier notification and 
petitions under OMB Control number 2070-0212 (EPA ICR No. 2613.04) and 
those related to trade secret designations under OMB Control 2050-0078 
(EPA ICR No. 1428.11). As such, once this ICR is approved, EPA intends 
to ask OMB to amend the existing ICR to include the following 
additional details:
    Respondents/affected entities: See Unit I.A. of this document. This 
action will not change the universe of TRI reporting facilities.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (EPCRA section 313).
    Estimated number of respondents: 21,154 facilities.
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: Across all facilities, the total first year 
burden hours will be up to17,833 hours and up to 205 burden hours every 
subsequent year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: Up to $1,239,572 in the first year and up to 
$14,238 every subsequent year. This estimate 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 EPA 
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB approves 
this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the Federal 
Register.

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, 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq. In making this determination, EPA concludes that the 
impact of concern for this rule is any significant adverse economic 
impact on small entities and that the agency is certifying that this 
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because the rule has no net burden on the 
small entities subject to the rule.
    The small entities subject to the requirements of this action are 
TRI facilities, which include small privately-owned facilities and 
municipal government-owned facilities who are required to report to EPA 
under EPCRA section 313. Based on the results of the small entity 
analysis, a total of 7,669 small parent entities are estimated to be 
parent companies of TRI reporting facilities (7,653 private businesses 
and 16 municipalities). The Agency has determined that all small 
entities impacted by this rule will incur compliance costs less than 
one percent of revenues under the rule and only in the first year 
following this rule's effective date. Details of this analysis are 
presented in the Economic Analysis of the final rule (Ref. 2), which is 
available in the docket. The Agency has therefore concluded that this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate 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, November 9, 2000) because it will 
not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes. This rule will not impose substantial 
direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, nor would it 
change the relationship between the Federal government and Indian 
tribes. This rule only impacts Indian tribes if they own or operate a 
TRI reporting facility and are required to report to EPA under EPCRA 
section 313. Because TRI facilities owned or operated by public 
entities do not have foreign parent companies, this rule does not 
impose any additional reporting requirements on those facilities or 
public entities. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this 
action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    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 a ``significant energy action'' as defined in 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not 
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution 
or use of energy and has not otherwise been designated as a significant 
energy action by the Administrator of the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action does not involve technical standards that would require 
Agency consideration under NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272.

[[Page 63955]]

J. Executive Orders 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and Low-
Income Populations and Executive Order 14008: Tackling the Climate 
Crisis at Home and Abroad

    EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order 
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) and Executive Order 14008 (86 FR 
7619, January 27, 2021) because this rule does not establish an 
environmental health or safety standard.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and EPA 
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the 
Comptroller General of the United States. This action is not a ``major 
rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372

    Community right-to-know, Environmental protection, Reporting and 
recordkeeping.

    Dated: October 17, 2022
Michal Freedhoff,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 
Prevention.

    Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 
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 a definition for ``Parent 
company'' to read as follows:


Sec.  372.3  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Parent company means the highest-level company (or companies) 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 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 (e.g., 
a State, municipal, or tribal government), 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) Name of the facility's parent company, including:
    (i) Legal name of the facility's highest-level U.S.-based parent 
company and its Dun and Bradstreet identification number, when 
applicable.
    (ii) Beginning with the reporting year ending December 31, 2023, 
for which reporting forms are due July 1, 2024, and for each subsequent 
reporting year, the legal name of the facility's highest-level foreign 
parent company and its Dun and Bradstreet identification number, when 
applicable.
    (iii) 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) Name of the facility's parent company, including:
    (i) Legal name of the facility's highest-level U.S.-based parent 
company and its Dun and Bradstreet identification number, when 
applicable.
    (ii) Beginning with the reporting year ending December 31, 2023, 
for which reporting forms are due July 1, 2024, and for each subsequent 
reporting year, the legal name of the facility's highest-level foreign 
parent company and its Dun and Bradstreet identification number, when 
applicable.
    (iii) 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. 2022-22833 Filed 10-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P