Skip to content

Comment Policy

We encourage you to share your thoughts as they relate to the topic being discussed.  We  review and post comments according to the policy below.  The views expressed in comments reflect those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or the Federal government.  We want to publish your comments, but we expect comments generally to be courteous.  To that end, we have established the following policy. 

We reserve the discretion not to post any comments that:

  • contain obscene, indecent, or profane language;
  • contain threats or defamatory statements;
  • contain hate speech directed at race, color, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, ethnicity, age, religion, or disability;  
  • are far off-topic;
  • make unsupported accusations; or
  • promote or endorse services or products. (Note that non-commercial links that are relevant to the topic or another comment are acceptable.)

We do not edit comments to remove objectionable content, so please ensure that your comments contain none of the above.  We will not post comments containing objectionable content.  Additionally, we will not post comments from EPA employees acting in their official capacity.  Any such comments should be submitted through internal channels.  This forum is intended solely to provide a discussion forum for external stakeholders.  Subject to EPA discretion, identical comments may not be posted to the discussion forum.

Do not submit copyrighted or other proprietary material in any form unless you clearly indicate that you have permission to do so.  By posting your comments or other work, you grant EPA and anyone viewing the EPA Web site irrevocable permission to copy, distribute, make derivatives, display or perform the commenter’s work publicly and free-of-charge.

If you are a reporter, please send questions to the EPA Newsroom through normal channels rather than by submitting questions here as comments.  It is our policy not to post reporter questions.

We recognize that the Internet is a 24/7 medium and your comments are welcome at any time.  However, given the need to manage Federal resources, we intend to review and post comments from 8:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday except for on Federal holidays.  We intend to review and post comments submitted at other times as soon as possible on the next business day.

This site will be open for comments until 5:00 p.m. on July 1, 2011.  EPA will not respond directly to any comments received in this forum.  However, EPA will place the entire discussion forum, with comments included and attached to their associated post, into the docket, which is accessible via regulations.gov.  We will post a link to the docket once the discussion forum is closed to further comment.

Comments may also be submitted by mail and must arrive prior to the closing of this discussion forum at 5:00 p.m. on July 1, 2011.  Please mail written comments to David Turk, Toxics Release Inventory Program Division, Mailcode 2844T, OEI, Environmental Protection Agency, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20460.  All comments received by mail that adhere to the requirements described on this page will be transcribed and posted as soon as possible.

In some cases we ask you to provide your name, organization, and e-mail address, although providing this information is optional.  We request your name and organization to make it easier to carry on a conversation.  For this reason, we publish your name along with your comment.  We ask for your e-mail address so that we can contact you if necessary.  It is our policy not to publish your e-mail address.

To protect your privacy, please do not include information (e.g., an e-mail address or phone number) in the text of your comment that identifies you.  Please read the privacy discussion in Frequent Questions.  You can find additional guidance as to how EPA regards privacy issues within the privacy policy provided on EPA’s main Web site.

Thank you for taking the time to read this comment policy.  We encourage your participation in this discussion and look forward to an active exchange of ideas.

6 Responses
  1. Charles Wurm permalink
    May 26, 2011

    I think this is a good idea. It will save time and money and make it easier to review chemical storage activities; track increases, decreases, etc. Please require the states to accept this type of reporting. Thanks, cw

  2. John Bilski permalink
    May 27, 2011

    Pennsylvania made a similar mistake. They sent out new rules for land application of materials by email. All of the amish and many of the menonite farmers were left in the dark since they do not use computers. I am not sure how their businesses would/could comply with an electronic reporting requirement.

  3. Robin Wood permalink
    May 31, 2011

    In general, I am not opposed to “requiring” electronic reporting. However, in some cases, there are computer malfunctions, power outages, and/or if a facilitiy is a first time submitter electronically, it requires more time to get responsible official passwords approved, etc., all that could result in the report being late.

    There should be provisions for submitting paper copies in the event one of the above has or is happening, without penalty.

    • Robin Wood permalink
      May 31, 2011

      Although it is difficult to think of some companies without having computers and/or internet access, I think this should be thoroughly investigated prior to making this requirement.

  4. Dorothea E. Graddy permalink
    June 30, 2011

    I currently use the TRI Me Web for my reporting requirements and it works well for my facility. I think it is a good idea to have electronic reporting available. However, I agree with the comment made on May 31, 2011 at 2:42pm that there should be provisions for submitting paper copies in the event there are computer malfuntions without penalty.

Comments are closed.