Jump to main content.

Frequently Asked Questions
2012 Chemical Data Reporting

Completing Form U

23. General

23.1 Does a whole new Form U need to be completed for each chemical substance?
If you are reporting information for more than one chemical substance at your site, you must report information for all reportable chemical substances on one Form U. However, only Part II and III of Form U are completed for each reportable chemical substance at a site. The certification statement and Part I are completed once for a Form U, regardless of the number of chemical substances reported. Part IV of Form U is only completed in the special case of a joint submission.


23.2 Can one Form U be submitted for the same chemical substance used at two different sites?
No. You must submit a separate Form U for each site you are required to report. Therefore, in cases where you have two separate sites manufacturing the same chemical substance, you must prepare separate Form Us for each site.


23.3 What is the purpose of the certification statement?
The certification statement applies to all the information supplied on Form U and should be signed only after the form has been completed. The CDR submission must be certified, indicating that the submitted information has been completed in compliance with the CDR requirements and that any confidentiality claims are true and correct. To certify, the certification statement must be electronically signed and dated by an authorized official at the company. The authorized official typically is a senior official with management responsibility for the person (or persons) completing the form.


23.4 Should I report known values and estimated values differently on Form U?
No. Report all information requested in Form U to the extent it is known to or reasonably ascertainable by you. Note that for 2012 CDR reporting, you may no longer report processing and use information as NRO or “not readily obtainable” for Part III . It has been substituted with the more stringent “known to or reasonably ascertainable by” reporting standard.

24. Reporting Standard

24.1 Please provide further clarification on the scope of what would be required under the “known to or reasonably ascertainable by” reporting standard. How would this reporting standard apply to processing and use information? How does this standard differ from the “not readily obtainable standard,” previously applicable to such reporting?
Does the change of standard indicate that “extensive file searches and customer surveys” are now expected of submitters in order to assemble data for the purposes of chemical data reporting? The term “known to or reasonably ascertainable by” is defined at 40 CFR 704.3. It means “all information in a person’s possession or control, plus all information that a reasonable person similarly situated might be expected to possess, control, or know.” By contrast, “readily obtainable” information does not even cover all the information in a submitter’s possession or control. As defined for the 2006 IUR, it was limited to what was known by certain “management and supervisory employees of the submitter.” See 68 FR 879 (2003).

Under the “known to” portion of the standard, a submitter must therefore ascertain what it knows about the processing and use of a chemical substance it manufactures (including imports), without confining its inquiry to what is known to managerial and supervisory employees. A submitter would also be expected to review other information which the manufacturer (including importer) may have in its possession. This standard requires that submitters conduct a reasonable inquiry within the full scope of their organization (not just the information known to managerial or supervisory employees). The inquiry would be as extensive as a reasonable person, similarly situated, might be expected to perform within the organization. Information derived from customer surveys or other customer contacts, like any other information, would be “known to” the submitter if it is available after a reasonable inquiry within the organization. The standard does not necessarily require that the manufacturer conduct an exhaustive survey of all employees.

Inquiry under the “reasonably ascertainable” portion of standard may also entail inquiries outside the organization to fill gaps in the submitter’s knowledge. Note however, that if particular information cannot be derived or reasonably estimated without conducting further customer surveys (i.e., without sending a comprehensive set of identical questions to multiple customers), it would not be “reasonably ascertainable” to the submitter. Thus there is not a need to conduct new customer surveys for purposes of the CDR. As described above, however, existing customer survey data may nevertheless be “known to” the organization.


24.2 What are some examples of types of information that are considered to be in a person’s possession or control or that a reasonable person similarly situation might be expected to possess, control, or know?
Information could be possessed by employees or other agents of the company reporting under the CDR rule, including persons involved in the research, development, manufacturing, or marketing of a chemical substance. This information includes knowledge gained through discussions, symposia, and technical publications. Other examples include:
  • Files maintained by the submitter or employees in the submitter’s company, such as marketing studies, sales reports, or customer surveys;
  • Information contained in standard references, such as MSDSs, that contain use information or concentrations of chemical substances in mixtures; and
  • Identification numbers from the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) and from Dun & Bradstreet.

25. Part I – Company and Site Identification Information

25.1. Part I – Section A. Parent Company Information (Blocks 1.A.1-1.A.8)
 

25.2 Can EPA clarify how the responsibility will be assigned for reporting chemical substance manufacture and import activities for entities that were acquired or divested since the last submission period? For example, the current owner of a newly acquired facility may not have access to manufacture/import volume information for years before they acquired the facility. Would exemptions be provided for any company engaged in an acquisition or divestiture during the years since the last reporting cycle.
Reporting should be based on ownership of the manufacturing entity, as of the date that the report is submitted. EPA acknowledges that there will be submitters who have been involved in an acquisition or divestiture since the last submission period and for whom certain information is not known or reasonably ascertainable. If information is not known or reasonably ascertainable, it need not be reported under the CDR. See the 2012 CDR Instructions for Reporting for further information. (163 pp., 4.7 mb.) About PDF).


25.3 During the first six months of 2011, Company X manufactured 30,000 pounds of a chemical substance included on the TSCA Inventory and not otherwise excluded from the CDR at a particular site. On July 1, 2011, Company Y purchased Company X, acquiring all the assets of company X and assuming all of the liabilities of Company X. During the last six months of 2011, Company Y manufactured 40,000 pounds of the same chemical substance at the site. Who should report the amounts of the chemical substance manufactured during calendar year 2011?
Because all of the assets and liabilities of Company X were merged into Company Y during 2011, and Company Y continued as a going concern, Company Y is required to report the entire 70,000 pounds of the chemical substance manufactured at the site during calendar year 2011.


25.4. On January 1, 2012, Company A will sell the portion of its business that conducted manufacturing in 2011. Company B will purchase this portion of the business, acquiring all of its assets and assuming all of its liabilities. Whose company identification should be reported for the “U.S. parent company”? Company A’s because Company A was the owner when the manufacturing occurred? Or Company B’s because Company B was the owner of the submission?
By the time of the CDR submission in 2012, Company B owns the entity that conducted the manufacturing in 2011. Company B should report its own identity, not the identity of a previous owner.


25.5. On January 1, 2012, Company ABC will change its name to Company XYZ. What name should be used for CDR reporting, the new name, or the name of the company in 2011?
By the time of the CDR submission in 2012, Company XYZ is the current name of the business entity that conducted the manufacturing in 2011. Company XYZ should report its current name, not a prior name that it used when manufacturing in 2011.


25.6. A company has 3 small facilities (1 chemical substance to report) that closed in 2011 and the company cannot reasonably obtain the manufacturing data for the facilities. How should the company complete the form for these facilities?
Assuming the facilities manufactured 25,000 pounds or more of a subject chemical substance in 2011, the company should submit a Form U for each of the closed facilities and report the CDR information to the extent that it is known to or reasonably ascertainable by the company.


25.7. Which company should report if a chemical substance is being manufactured by a joint venture?
Participants in the joint venture may determine among themselves who will report. If no report is submitted when required, EPA may hold each party in the joint venture liable for the failure to report.


25.8. Company CDE owns CDE Texas. CDE Texas has a site which is also its headquarters. This site is partly owned as a joint venture between CDE Texas and Company CDE, and is partly owned solely by Company CDE. The joint venture part makes certain chemicals, and the solely owned part makes different chemicals. Company CDE has a D&B number for its headquarters at another location but not for the solely owned part of the Texas site. Does Company CDE need to get a site-specific D&B number for the part of the Texas site that it solely owns? Do the two entities need to do separate reporting for the site, one for the jointly owned part and one for the solely owned part?
In this description, Company CDE and CDE Texas are separate corporate entities. Therefore, the land on which these companies manufacture chemical substances is composed of two distinct sites, one owned solely by Company CDE and a second jointly owned by Company CDE and CDE Texas. Company CDE may use its corporate D&B number to report the chemical substances on the part of the site that it owns alone. Because CDE Texas is a distinct corporate entity, it seems appropriate that this entity should have a distinct D&B. For chemical substances manufactured by the joint venture on the jointly owned part of the site, it would seem appropriate to use the D&B number for CDE Texas, as the site is also its headquarters.


25.9. Part I – Section B. Site Information (Blocks 1.B.1-1.B.8)
 

25.10. A company’s headquarters is responsible for ordering and importing several chemical substances that are sent to warehouses in two other states once they have cleared U.S. Customs. The company does not know which site to report on Form U.
The company should list the site that controls the import transaction, which may or may not be the site that receives the material. The site where a chemical substance is imported is the site of the operating unit within the organization that is directly responsible for importing the substance and controls the import transaction. In some cases, the import site may be the organization’s headquarters in the United States. (See the definition of site in 40 CFR 711.3). If for a given substance that a company imports at a given site, more than one person meets the definition of importer at 40 CFR 704.3, only one person should report. See 40 CFR 711.22(b).


25.11. Form U requests the Dun & Bradstreet D-U-N-S® number for the Site. If a site is comprised of two facilities, each with its own D & B number, should one or both numbers be used?
A company should use the D&B number that most closely relates to the manufacture of the chemical substance listed on Form U.


25.12. If a company will be using the corporate D&B number for a site-specific CDR submission, should the corporate D&B number be placed in both the company Dun & Bradstreet block (1.A.2) and the site Dun && Bradstreet block (1.B.2) on Form U or should be 1.B.2. block be left blank?
The D&B number of the corporation that owns the site should be reported as the site D&B number (block 1.B.2). If the corporation owning a site is controlled by another entity, the D&B number of that entity should be entered as the company D&B number (block 1.A.2). If the owner of the site where the chemical substance reported in the CDR submission is manufactured is not owned or controlled by another firm, the D&B number of the site owner may be reported as both the company and the site D&B number. Neither the block for the company nor the site D&B number should be left blank.


25.13. A company that has a DB number for its company headquarters is not in the practice of obtaining D&B numbers for its various facilities. The company does not want to engage in such a practice for commercial reasons (e.g., this would create listings and ratings the company would prefer to be published by D&B solely on the basis of its headquarters entries). Must the company obtain separate site D&B numbers to comply with CDR?
The CDR regulation requires that the submitter include the appropriate D&B number for each site reported. A corporation may use its corporate D&B number for all sites owned by that firm.


25.14. Will the revision to the definition of site force different companies that are at the same site to report together?
No. The definition does not require different companies located at the same site to report together. However, if a single company operates multiple plants at a single site, those plants should report together for the site. See the definition of site at 40 CFR 711.3


25.15. A company transferred 30,000 pounds of a chemical substance from Site B to Site A within the company during 2011. This chemical substance was initially imported by Site B. Does Site A report it as an imported chemical substance?
No. Site A was not the site directly responsible for the import of this chemical substance. The import of the chemical should be reported with respect to Site B.


25.16. A company has portable tanks for slurrying lime at construction sites for customers. These sites include building construction sites and road and highway projects. The dry powder quick lime (CaO) is sent to the job site and mixed with water in the tank where it reacts to form a slurry of “hydrate” (calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)2), along with water), so the calcium hydroxide is reportable under CDR. The company wants to report these sales in CDR as calcium hydroxide produced in the terminals from which the portable tanks are run. Sales of the slurry are claimed by the terminals and the terminal is responsible for the operation of the portable tanks, as well as the maintenance and movement of the tanks. Is this approach, to account for the sale of calcium hydroxide as if the portable tank were located at the terminal producing the slurry, appropriate for CDR reporting?
Yes. In response to comments received during the 2006 IUR submission period, EPA has modified the definition of site to indicate that “for portable manufacturing units sent out to different locations from a single distribution center, the distribution center shall be considered the site.” See the definition of site at 40 CFR 711.3.


25.17 Part I – Section C. Technical Contact Information (Blocks 1.C.1-1.C.10)
 

25.18. What role does the technical contact play?
The technical contact is the person whom EPA may contact for clarification of the information in a CDR submission. The technical contact should be a person who can answer questions about the reported chemical substance(s). Typically, a person located at the manufacturing site is best able to answer such questions. However, companies may use their discretion in selecting a technical contact or multiple technical contacts, as provided by the new e-CDRweb reporting tool. Submitters should consider, in selecting the technical contact, that EPA may have follow-up questions about a CDR submission one or more years after the submission date. The technical contact need not be the person who signed the certification statement. The technical contact can be selected from the drop down list of registered support registrants


25.19 Are companies allowed to use their discretion in identifying the most appropriate technical contact to list on the Form U? Do technical contacts need to be physically located at the reporting site?
While companies are allowed to use their discretion in selecting a technical contact or multiple technical contacts, as permitted by the new e-CDRweb-based reporting tool, EPA expects a technical contact to be someone who can answer detailed follow-up questions that EPA may have regarding the Form U. EPA has found that technical contacts not at the reporting site generally are less knowledgeable about the chemical substance or the types of information needed for the Form U and therefore may not be able to discuss follow-up questions. Also, it has been EPA's general experience that short-term contractors have not been suitable technical contacts, because they may no longer be under contract with the submitting company when EPA contacts them a year or more after the Form U is submitted.


25.20 Can two different plant sites within the same company that are both reporting under CDR have different technical contacts?
Yes. A different technical contact may be reported for each site. A Form U would be completed for each plant site, and each Form U would list one technical contact able to answer questions about the information in the report.


25.21. Can companies have more than one technical contact for a site?
Yes. The e-CDRweb reporting tool allows the identification of a different technical contact for each chemical substance.

Top of page

 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.