1884-12_ss_2020-03-20

This final rule Information Collection Request (ICR), which explains the revised information collection activities and related burden and cost estimates associated with the final rule (RIN 2070-AK33) that amends the information collection activities of the CDR program, is available in the rulemaking docket (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0321). The currently approved ICR, to which this ICR is an addendum, is available in the docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0721. The dockets can be viewed online at http://www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The telephone number for the Docket Center is (202) 566-1744. For additional information about EPA’s public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

ICR Status

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., 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 control number issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The OMB control numbers are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.

This is an addendum to an existing ICR for EPA ICR No. 1884.10; OMB Control No. 2070-0162; entitled “[Information Collection Request for] Chemical Data Reporting under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA section 8(a)) Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act”; approved through April 30, 2022.

Abstract

This ICR addendum addresses the paperwork requirements in a final rule (RIN 2070-AK33) that amends the information collection activities of the CDR program (40 CFR Part 711). An economic analysis (EA) provides estimations of the burden and costs associated with the final changes to CDR reporting requirements.

The TSCA Inventory is a listing of chemical substances manufactured, imported, and processed for commercial purposes in the United States. The CDR data collection provides chemical manufacture, processing, and use information that helps EPA identify what chemicals the public may be exposed to as consumers or in commercial and industrial settings. The data also help EPA assess routes of potential exposure to those chemicals.

EPA has used the CDR rule to collect basic manufacturing information for selected chemical substances on the TSCA Inventory eight times beginning in 1986. More recent collections, beginning in 2006, included additional information relating to the manufacture, processing, and use of those chemical substances. The CDR data collection is on a four-year reporting cycle and contains detailed manufacturing and processing information drawn from the principal reporting year; the rule also contains basic information on production volume, by year, for the three years prior to the principal reporting year. For example, for the 2020 reporting cycle, the principal reporting year is 2019; the three years prior are 2016, 2017 and 2018.

As finalized, the 2020 and future CDR submissions include the following new or revised data elements: a foreign parent company if one exists; NAICS code(s) for the manufacturing site; whether the chemical is recycled; the percent of the chemical’s production volume that is a byproduct; and industrial, consumer, and commercial function and use codes based on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) codes, which are being phased in to replace the current codes. Future CDR submitters in a co-manufacturing situation may report using an improved process. Additionally, changes are finalized to support alignment of CDR reporting with the amended TSCA requirements for claiming confidentiality. EPA also finalized two exemptions for certain byproduct chemicals: (1) for specific site-limited recycled byproducts and (2) for byproducts generated by specific non-integral processes.

Legal authority: Under TSCA section 8(a) (15 USC 2607), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized to collect certain information on chemical substances manufactured (including imported) or processed in the United States. In addition, under TSCA section 8(b), the Agency is required to compile and keep current, via periodic inquiry, the Inventory of Chemical Substances in Commerce (TSCA Inventory). More details are provided in Unit 2(a) of this Supporting Statement.

Respondents/affected entities: Entities potentially affected by this ICR include companies manufacturing (including importing) chemical substances listed on the TSCA Inventory and regulated under the TSCA section 8(a) CDR Regulation.

Respondent’s obligation to respond: Respondents are obligated to report to EPA.

Confidentiality of responses: Confidentiality claims limit access to the CDR data, especially by the public. EPA recognizes that some information submitted to the Agency is legitimately confidential. Because of this, EPA’s review of confidential data is an inherently governmental function that EPA must perform to protect human health and the environment.

Estimated total number of potential respondents: 5,660.

Frequency of response: The collection occurs every four years. The next CDR collection will occur in 2020.

Estimated total annual burden: 26,469 hours. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

Estimated total annual costs: $2,053,700, includes no annualized capital investment or operational and maintenance costs.

Changes in the estimates: There is an overall annual increase of 26,469 hours in the total respondent burden that is currently approved by OMB for this ICR. This increase reflects changes and revisions to the reportable data elements as well as two byproduct reporting exemptions. Further details about these changes are included in this ICR supporting statement.

NECESSITY OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION
1. Related Legal and/or Administrative Requirements

TSCA section 8(a) (15 USC 2607) authorizes EPA to collect certain information on chemical substances manufactured (including imported) or processed in the United States. In addition, under TSCA section 8(b), the Agency is required to compile and keep current, via periodic inquiry, the Inventory of Chemical Substances in Commerce (TSCA Inventory). In addition, changes to the CDR were put in place following enactment of the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, which amended TSCA on June 22, 2016. Claims of confidentiality are covered under TSCA section 14 (See 82 FR 6522, January 19, 2017).

Necessity of the Information Collection

Under amended TSCA, EPA is charged with protecting human health and the environment from potential chemical risks. Through the CDR regulation, EPA collects basic exposure-related manufacturing, processing, and use information used by the Agency and others in a wide range of activities.

Some of the finalized revisions to the CDR will improve the exposure-related data collected on manufacturing, processing, and use of chemicals in commerce, enabling EPA to conduct a more effective and efficient screening-level review of chemical substances to identify candidates for further evaluation or action. This improvement is particularly important in light of EPA’s requirement under amended TSCA to identify chemicals in commerce as high priority or low priority for risk evaluation (TSCA section 6(b)). Other revisions, such as changes to byproducts reporting and an improved mechanism for co-manufacturing reporting, will reduce burden for reporters while continuing to allow EPA to access needed information.

Additionally, under TSCA section 14, claims of confidentiality (other than for selected data elements such as production volume) must be substantiated at the time information is submitted to EPA, including as part of CDR (See 82 FR 6522, January 19, 2017). To ensure that EPA can use CDR data most effectively, including sharing it with the public, TSCA requires substantiation to enable EPA to review the legitimacy of confidentiality claims. EPA is finalizing new and updated questions for reporters to answer in order to substantiate confidentiality claims at the time the information is submitted to the Agency. EPA is also finalizing which data elements do not require upfront substantiation and which data elements are ineligible for confidentiality claims.

Uses, Users, and Purpose of the Information Collection

EPA’s OPPT, other EPA Offices and/or other Federal agencies will generally be the primary groups for which information will be collected. However, to the extent that reported information is not considered to be CBI, environmental groups, environmental justice advocates, state and local government entities and other members of the public may access this information for their own use.

The revisions associated with reporting methods, including the reporting tool and electronic registration, help to ensure that the information reported to EPA is accurate and in compliance with the CDR requirements. In addition, the revised data elements have practical utility for users of the data within EPA and for the public.

e-CDRweb Reporting Tool

For the 2020 submission period, EPA will continue to require electronic reporting for all CDR submissions, including joint submissions and amendments. Persons submitting information under the CDR rule are required to use e-CDRweb, the Agency-provided, web-based tool to complete Form U (the CDR reporting form). EPA will make updates to this required reporting tool to address the final changes. Mockups of e-CDRweb reporting tool screen shots illustrating the changed reporting requirements and draft printouts from the reporting tool are included as Attachment A and the Instructions are included as Attachment B. As a result of changes to the e-CDRweb reporting tool, section designations on the printed version of the Form U have changed. Attachment A includes a crosswalk table between the section designations for the 2016 CDR Form U and the 2020 CDR Form U reporting tool printouts. Within this document, references to a Form U section designation are to the 2016 CDR Form U designations, with a footnote identifying the related 2020 CDR Form U designation.

Table 1. 2016 – 2020 CDR Form U Crosswalk

Section	2016 Form U reporting tool printout	2020 Form U reporting tool printout
PRIMARY FORM
Parent Company Information	Part I, Section A	Part I, Section A
Site Information	Part I Section B	Part I Section B
Technical Contact information	Part I, Section C	Part II, Section B
Chemical Identification	Part II, Section A	Part II, Section A
Manufacturing Information	Part II, Section B	Part II, Section C Section C.1 Manufacturing Company Section C.2 Contracting Company Section C.3 Producing Company
Process and Use Information	Part III, Processing and Use	Part II, Section D Section D.1 Industrial Processing and Use Section D.2 Consumer and Commercial Use
Confidential Business Information Substantiation	Parts II, and III, All Sections	Part III
SECONDARY FORM
Joint Submission	Part IV, Joint Submission, Secondary Submission	Secondary Form
Secondary Company Information	Part IV, Section A	Secondary Form, Part I
Secondary Technical Contact Information	Part IV, Section B	Secondary Form, Part II
Trade Product Identification Information	Part IV, Section D	Secondary Form, Part II
Secondary Confidential Business Information Substantiation	Not Applicable	Secondary Form, Part III

Data Elements for CDR Submissions

The CDR information collection is the only mechanism through which EPA routinely collects basic information on commercial chemical substances listed on the TSCA Inventory, including production volume and other manufacturing (including importing), processing, and use exposure-related data. With the final changes, EPA will collect information on new or revised data elements. EPA will use the information for these new or revised data elements in the following ways:

Parent company information: (revised) Information about the U.S. parent company (and foreign parent company, when applicable) associated with the reporting site is used to protect information claimed as confidential when there are multiple sites for the same parent company and to compare data from various sources, such as is done for EPA’s Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The revised parent company definition will reduce uncertainty for submitters regarding how to report parent company information. The addition of the foreign parent company increases EPA’s ability to use and release the CDR data while protecting confidentiality claims. Consistent use of parent company names makes for more meaningful comparisons of data and will reduce after-reporting quality control efforts for both EPA and submitters.

NAICS codes: (new) The reporting site’s NAICS code(s) help EPA to more accurately understand the chemical industry, including identifying sector-specific trends.

Percent production volume that is a byproduct: (new) EPA added a voluntary data element about byproducts to identify important submitter subpopulations and their representation in CDR with respect to production volume within four ranges: 0 percent, greater than 0 but less than 50 percent, greater than or equal to 50 percent but less than 100 percent, or 100 percent. With this change, EPA will be able to better understand the reporting impacts on this subpopulation, including to identify those manufacturers who only report to CDR due to their byproduct production. EPA will consequently be better able to understand and connect manufacturing and downstream activities for the purposes of substance life cycle assessments and risk evaluation.

Whether a manufactured (including imported) chemical substance is being recycled: (revised) This data element provides information relevant to the exposure profile of a chemical substance and indicates efficiencies within the chemical manufacturing industry. EPA is modifying this data element to focus on recycling and to reduce potential confusion related to the removed terms “remanufactured, reprocessed, and reused,” which may be interpreted and applied too broadly to obtain the information of interest for this collection.

Function of a chemical for consumer and commercial use: (new) The function of a chemical combined with the type of product that the chemical is used in provides EPA with information about an exposure scenario with unique characteristics. Information about exposure scenarios is necessary for implementation of TSCA for prioritization and for further consideration for the development of exposure scenarios and risk evaluations.

Function and use codes: (revised) Harmonizing CDR use codes with the OECD codes will expand the utilization of applicable use and exposure-related information from international sources to support EPA risk assessment activities for new and existing chemicals. Additionally, this harmonization provides industry with international uniformity in use and exposure information reporting, enabling industry to better streamline their different country-specific reporting requirements. The use of these codes will be phased in such that only reports of the 20 High Priority Chemical Substances^¹ will be required to use the OECD-based codes in the 2020 reporting cycle. Reports of all other chemicals will be required to use the OECD-based codes starting in the 2024 reporting cycle but may voluntarily use them in the 2020 reporting cycle if they so choose.

Confidential claim substantiation: (revised) Changes to the substantiation requirements are finalized primarily to align with new statutory requirements. These changes will help EPA to improve transparency and public availability of the data while protecting CDR submitters’ confidential information.

NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA
1. Non-Duplication

The data included in this information collection addendum (i.e., production volume, chemical manufacture, exposure, and processing and use data) are not collected comprehensively or systematically at the national level by any other entities.

Consultations and Public Comments

During the public comment period for the proposed rule from April 24, 2019 to June 24, 2019, EPA received 9 comments on the reporting and recordkeeping burden associated with reporting to CDR.

Commenters noted that replacing the current CDR codes with a higher number of OECD-harmonized codes will increase burden for reporters; one commenter noted that EPA was “replacing the broad and limited CDR function and use codes … [with] an expanded and more detailed coding system…” Commenters identified the need to update company systems designed to capture information using the old codes, noting that for the 2020 CDR, companies will have only a few months to update their internal tools in order to capture and submit information under these new requirements and suggesting that using the new codes will “likely double or triple the amount of pre-work needed to accurately classify substances.” In response, EPA recognizes that any time the reporting requirements change, there may be a need for a submitter to adjust its internal systems used to collect such information. This burden is captured in the higher reporting burden estimated for new reporters. Reporting burden associated with new and changed form completion activities are applied to reporters (new and experienced) in the first or second cycle as applicable and described in the Economic Analysis. The same unit burdens are also applied to new reporters only in subsequent cycles.

With regards to the exemptions to the reporting of inorganic byproducts, one commenter suggested that, instead of listing substances, the exemption should be self-executing, where the site documents in its own records that it meets the exemption conditions. However, EPA disagrees that it is appropriate for this exemption to be self-executing. EPA believes this is a nuanced exemption with requirements that may not be correctly applied.

For a more detailed discussion of the response to comments associated with paperwork burden please see the Response to Public Comments on the Final TSCA Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Revisions Rule, located in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0321.
1. Effects of Less Frequent Collection

If data were collected less frequently, there would be a significant loss of data to the agency and general public, as there are no alternative data sets as comprehensive as CDR for the chemical manufacturing industry. Requiring this data collection every four years will help to increase the agency’s ability to understand the chemical industry and monitor the production levels of chemical substances manufactured (including imported) in the United States. As chemical industry product lines and manufacturing in the United States change substantially from one submission period to the next, more current information enhances the agency’s ability to make more accurate chemical substance risk assessment and management decisions in a timely and effective manner.

Small Entity Flexibility

The CDR regulation provides flexibility to small entities, which includes small businesses, governmental jurisdictions, and not-for-profit organizations. While there is some reporting to CDR by small government jurisdictions, there is a very low likelihood of requiring reporting by small governmental jurisdictions or small not-for-profit organizations. Instead, affected small entities are generally small businesses. Small manufacturers (including importers), in accordance with TSCA section 8(a) and 40 CFR Sections 711.9, are generally exempt and therefore are generally not subject to any of the reporting or recordkeeping requirements. A manufacturer (including importer) is considered a small business if (1) the firm’s total annual sales when combined with those of its parent company (if any) are less than $40 million for the principal reporting year and (2) its total production and/or importation of the chemical substances for the principal reporting year, does not exceed 100,000 pounds (45,000 kilograms) at an individual site owned and controlled by the firm. If the firm’s total annual sales when combined with those of its parent company (if any) are less than $4 million for the principal reporting year, the firm is considered small regardless of the production volume. The Economic Analysis for the Final Inventory Update Reporting Modifications Rule determined that the impact on these companies is, on average, significantly less than one percent of revenues (EPA, 2011).

EPA is currently proposing a revision to the small manufacturer definition under the TSCA Section 8(a) Small Manufacturer Definition Update Rule. See the ICR Addendum accompanying that rule for details.

General PRA Related Guidelines

This collection does not exceed any of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) guidelines at 5 CFR 1320.6, with the exceptions listed below.

The record retention period of this collection is five years, as specified in 40 CFR 711.25, exceeding the PRA maximum of three years. EPA is not finalizing changes to the record retention period.

Confidentiality

Confidentiality claims limit access to the CDR data, especially by the public. EPA recognizes that some information submitted to the Agency is legitimately confidential. Therefore, EPA’s review of confidential data is an inherently governmental function that EPA must perform to protect human health and the environment. As finalized, EPA is changing requirements for making confidentiality claims, including to identify when upfront substantiation is required, update the substantiation questions, and identify data elements that cannot be claimed as confidential.

Submitters may claim most information reported to EPA under this rule as confidential if such information would reveal the submitter’s trade secrets or proprietary information as defined by TSCA section 14 and existing regulations promulgated by EPA under TSCA.

EPA has long-established procedures for properly handling, storing, processing, and disposing of TSCA confidential information. Transfers of this information to others as allowed under TSCA section 14(d) can be made only if the other entity agrees to adhere to all TSCA confidentiality provisions. EPA will maintain standard confidentiality procedures to protect any confidential, trade secret, or proprietary information from disclosure in accordance with EPA’s confidentiality regulation, 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B.

Sensitive Questions

No information of a sensitive or private nature is requested in conjunction with this information collection activity, and this information collection activity complies with the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular A-108.

AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

4(a). Agency Activities

The Agency develops and maintains the electronic tool used to collect and verify data and routinely conducts other activities related to the processing, analysis and storage of the information collected under this rule. In this ICR Addendum, only the Agency activities related to the changes created by the final rule are considered including:

Submission receipt and tracking
Data Review
Quality Control^²

4(b). Estimated Agency Costs

The Agency engages in several activities related to CDR reporting, including: document receipt and tracking; quality control of data, including protection of CBI; backup systems operation; data processing; systems development; contract oversight and management; publication of materials and creating PDFs of forms; and operation of the TSCA Hotline to handle CDR-related calls. For the CDR Revisions, EPA estimates over the four-year reporting cycle incremental Agency burden reduction and cost savings at 10 hours and $1,317 due to a reduction in the number of sites and chemical reports resulting from the byproduct exemptions. Note that modifications and additions to reportable data elements do not affect Agency burden and cost estimates, as these estimates are based on counts of full and partial Form Us submitted. See Appendix A for a detailed derivation of Agency costs.

4(b)(i). Collection Schedule

EPA is not making any changes to the collection schedule. The submission period/schedule follows the requirements of 40 CFR 711.20. The submission period for the next collection in 2020 will be from June 1, 2020 to September 30, 2020.

Activity	Timeline
Public outreach efforts: articles in industry press, meetings with regulated community, and information on the CDR website	2018-2020
Email to 2020 CDR e-mailing list and other stakeholders with instructions for obtaining the reporting form and initiating reporting	Early 2020
Open period for submitting 2020 CDR Forms	June 1, 2020 to September 30, 2020

Use of Technology to Facilitate Collection Activities

Submitters are required to submit information associated with this data collection electronically via the Internet using e-CDRweb and CDX.

EPA notifies potential submitters of the need to report in three ways: (1) makes available guidance describing CDR reporting requirements at chemical industry conferences and meetings, and through web and listserv announcements, (2) sends email notices to previous CDR submitters, and (3) publishes articles in the trade press. The requirement to report is based on the CDR regulations; potential submitters that do not receive a notification as listed above or who do not read published articles are still required to report. Reporting materials, including a non-submission version of the Form U and a variety of instructions documents (Instruction Manual, Q&As, Case Studies, Fact Sheets), are available on EPA’s CDR website. Submitters can also obtain these materials from the TSCA Hotline. Submitters obtain the e-CDRweb reporting tool (which enables the completion of the Form U for submission) as part of the CDX electronic web-based registration process. The e-CDRweb reporting tool enables the user to complete Form U for submission to EPA.

EPA receives all CDR submissions electronically. The CDX registration process, required for all submitters, provides a user ID, which the submitter uses to access e-CDRweb.

Information quality control and validation begins with the e-CDRweb reporting tool, which is programmed to help the submitter provide the information required, in the correct format, as required by the CDR rule.

To aid persons subject to this information collection, the Agency’s TSCA and CDX Hotlines are available to answer questions regarding the CDR requirements or submission process. When Hotline staff is unable to answer questions, the submitter is referred to OPPT’s Information Management Division (IMD) or Chemical Control Division (CCD), as appropriate. Submitters can also email their questions to the e-CDRweb mail site at eCDRweb@epa.gov. Other Divisions within OPPT or the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) may respond as necessary.

THE RESPONDENTS AND INFORMATION COLLECTION (IC) ACTIVITIES

For each respondent category, this section of the ICR describes the respondents, the information collection activities and related estimates of burden and costs associated with those activities.

For the 2020 reporting cycle (as previously in the 2016 reporting cycle), manufacturers (including importers), must submit a Form U for each site at which 25,000 pounds or more (or 2,500 pounds or more, if applicable^³) was manufactured (including imported) for a chemical substance in any calendar year in the principal reporting year and the previous three years. Estimates are presented according to the full reporting cycle first (Table 2 through Table 7) and then converted to a basis used for the ICR period (Table 8).^⁴ Burden estimates are derived consistent with estimates described in the ICR renewal (EPA, 2018b) and the Economic Analysis for the CDR Revisions Rule (EPA, 2019).^⁵

The CDR Revisions Rule includes three types of changes: (1) changes to content in the CDR Reporting Form U which affect all reporters who will file a Form U in the 2020 CDR and future CDRs, (2) changes that involve removal of reporting requirements for a portion of chemicals at a site, and (3) changes that involve removal of reporting requirements for an entire site. See section 4.1.2 of EPA (2019) for more details.

Methodology for Estimating Respondent Burden and Costs

The regulated community consists of companies manufacturing (including importing) chemical substances listed on the TSCA Inventory and regulated under TSCA section 8(a). In general, the industry segments that compose the regulated community for the rule are those that produce or import chemical substances. Most respondents expected to be subject to this ICR have previously reported CDR information. The Agency’s previous experience with CDR collections has shown that the majority of the respondents affected by this collection activity are from the following NAICS code categories:

325 - Chemical Manufacturing

324 - Petroleum and Coal Product Manufacturing

In addition to the anticipated respondents from the NAICS listed above, the regulated community consists of manufacturers of byproducts that are required to report under certain TSCA section 8(a) rules, including CDR. Byproduct manufacturers may be listed under a different primary activity for a site, such as NAICS codes 22, 322, 327310, 331, and 3344 (namely utilities, paper manufacturing, cement manufacturing, primary metal manufacturing, and semiconductor and other electronic component manufacturing, respectively). The subsectors identified above represent the designation of sites that likely would be subject to CDR reporting. However, this list does not include all potentially affected entities. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be subject to reporting.

Generally, TSCA section 8(a) excludes small manufacturers (including importers) from reporting. EPA defines small manufacturers (including importers) for purposes of CDR and certain other reporting in 40 CFR 704.3. In November 2017 EPA published a determination that the small manufacturer definition needs to be updated (82 FR 56824 November 30, 2017). The proposed CDR rule included two portions (1) CDR Revisions and (2) 8(a) Small Manufacturer Definition Update, but EPA will finalize the definition for small manufacturers and government entities as a separate action.

EPA is finalizing two burden reducing exemptions for byproducts. New reporting exemptions are being finalized, including (1) exemptions for specific site-limited recycled byproducts, and (2) exemptions for byproducts generated by specific non-integral processes. Because of these exemptions, some sites may not report under CDR while others would report fewer chemical substances. These exemptions were designed to reduce submitter burden while still providing EPA with information needed to understand the byproduct universe.

5(a)(i) Respondent Activities

For the analysis in this section, the respondent is defined as a manufacturing site, which could include a government site. There is one response per respondent, as one Form U per site accommodates multiple chemical reports in the same submission. Incremental activities associated with preparing and submitting a Form U in response to the rule include rule familiarization, compliance determination, and form completion. The rule does not change any recordkeeping requirements, and therefore no associated burden and cost estimates for this activity are included in this analysis. Last, for reporters not already registered in CDX, individuals must complete CDX registration, including e-signature. The rule does not change any requirements for CDX activities, and therefore no associated burden/cost estimates for this activity are included in this analysis. General descriptions of changes to activities are as follows (see previous section for detailed data element information):

Rule Familiarization increase due to increased regulatory complexity: The final rule includes modifications and additions to reportable data elements, changes to CBI substantiation requirements, and byproduct reporting exemptions. For several of these changes, reporters must familiarize themselves with the new requirements. This activity entails reading the rule, understanding the reporting and administrative requirements, and determining what tasks are required in order to meet reporting requirements. In subsequent cycles, only new reporters will incur incremental increases to rule familiarization.

Compliance Determination increase due to increased regulatory complexity: The final rule adds additional requirements related to compliance determination for reporters. Specifically, for CBI substantiation, reporters will need to determine which questions they must answer. For byproduct manufacturing, reporters must determine whether or not they will be able to take advantage of the exemptions. Note that, by convention, new reporters and experienced reporters are assumed to incur the same levels of compliance determination burden. See section 4.1.4 of EPA (2019) for more detail.
Form Completion: The final rule modifies the reportable data elements on Form U and changes CBI substantiation requirements for data elements claimed as confidential. Note that due to the phasing in of the requirement to use OECD codes for three Part III^⁶ data elements, a second reporting cycle exists for changes to reportable data elements only.^⁷ Specifically, in the first cycle (in 2020), only sites reporting on the 20 High Priority Chemical Substances will be required to start using the OECD codes. Therefore, there is a second reporting cycle where the remaining sites are then required to start using the OECD codes for three Part III data elements. In this second cycle, new reporter burden for these three data elements is only incurred by the sites reporting on chemicals other than the 20 High Priority Chemical Substances. See Table 1.

Certain provisions in the final rule do not alter the activities required of reporters. Rather, they affect whether, and for which chemicals, these sites are required to report. Specifically, the byproduct exemptions will result in decreases in sites and chemical reports.

Certain changes are not estimated in this analysis including:

Changes to co-manufacturing and joint submission reporting: EPA assumes that the effort for a multi-reporter submission can be approximated as similar to the effort for an equivalent single-reporter submission. Therefore, burden and cost estimates for changes to implement a new reporting mechanism for co-manufactured chemicals and changes to joint reporting in the rule are not developed in this analysis.
Recycled data element: Currently, CDR submitters identify whether their reportable chemical substance is recycled, remanufactured, reprocessed, reused, or otherwise used for a commercial purpose instead of being disposed of as a waste or included in a waste stream. EPA is modifying this data element by removing the terms “remanufactured, reprocessed, reused.” EPA does not anticipate a change in burden associated with this change. Therefore, burden and cost estimates for this change are not developed in this analysis.

Estimating Respondent Burden and Costs

This section presents the relevant unit burdens and costs of the information collection activities to respondents in terms of the time required by reporters to perform the activities as outlined in the introductory section of this document.

5(b)(i) IC#1 CDR Reporting

Incremental experienced reporter unit burden for respondent activities associated with the rule is presented in Table 2. Unit burdens in this table reflect changes in activities that are applied universally to all reporters. The activity-level unit burden estimates for changes in Table 2 are based on estimates for similar activities and best professional judgment (for more detail, see EPA (2019)).

Table 2: Incremental Activity-Level Experienced Reporter Unit Burden per Four-Year Reporting Cycle
Activity	Unit of Analysis	Managerial Burden (hours)	Technical Burden (hours)	Clerical Burden (hours)	Activity-Level Unit Burden (hours)	Proportion of Sites/Chemical Reports Affected	Adjusted Unit Burden per Site/Chemical Report (hours)
Reportable Data Elements
1. Rule Familiarization increase due to increased regulatory complexity¹	Site	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	1.000	0.000
2. Compliance Determination increase due to increased regulatory complexity²	Site	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	1.000	0.000
Form Completion
3. Site’s Foreign Parent Company (if applicable)³	Site	0.002	0.000	0.000	0.002	1.000	0.002
4. Site NAICS³	Site	0.002	0.000	0.000	0.002	1.000	0.002
5. % PV that is byproduct⁴	Chemical	0.200	0.410	0.000	0.610	1.000	0.610
6. Sector⁵	Chemical	0.000	-0.075	0.000	-0.075	0.7808	-0.059
7.1. First Cycle IIIA.c Function Category (Industrial) - without OECD codes^5,6,7	Chemical	0.000	-0.353	0.000	-0.353	0.7027	-0.248
7.2. First Cycle IIIA.c Function Category (Industrial) - with OECD codes and no intelligent sorting^5,6,7	Chemical	0.000	0.153	0.000	0.153	0.0781	0.012
7.3. Second and Future Cycle IIIA.c Function Category (Industrial)^5,6,7	Chemical	0.000	-0.319	0.000	-0.319	0.7808	-0.249
8. Product Category⁵	Chemical	0.000	-0.067	0.000	-0.067	0.7808	-0.052
9.1. First Cycle IIIB.g Function Category (Consumer and Commercial) - without OECD codes⁵	Chemical	1.650	3.177	0.000	4.827	0.7027	3.392
9.2. First Cycle IIIB.g Function Category (Consumer and Commercial) - with OECD codes⁵	Chemical	1.650	3.477	0.000	5.127	0.0781	0.400
9.3. Second and Future Cycle IIIB.g Function Category (Consumer and Commercial)⁵	Chemical	1.650	3.477	0.000	5.127	0.7808	4.003
CBI Substantiation
1. Rule Familiarization increase due to increased regulatory complexity¹	Site	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	1.000	0.000
2. Compliance Determination increase due to increased regulatory complexity⁸	Site	0.154	0.346	0.000	0.500	1.000	0.500
Form Completion
3. Part II Chem ID CBI Substantiation⁹	Chemical	0.087	0.175	0.000	0.262	0.01582	0.004
4. Part II Connection CBI Substantiation and Part II Other CBI Substantiation^9,10	Chemical	0.000	-0.786	0.000	-0.786	0.45310	-0.356
5. Part III CBI Substantiation^9,11	Chemical	0.000	-0.744	0.000	-0.744	0.09800	-0.073
Byproduct Exemptions
1. Rule Familiarization increase due to increased regulatory complexity¹	Site	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	1.000	0.000
2. Compliance Determination increase due to increased regulatory complexity¹²	Site	0.308	0.692	0.000	1.000	0.4037	N/A
General Note: For additional details on development and assumptions associated with items in this table, see the source EA (EPA, 2019). This table uses the 2016 CDR Form U designations. See the appropriate footnote for the 2020 CDR Form U designation. Footnotes: ¹ No incremental rule familiarization associated with reportable data elements is assumed for experienced reporters in the second and future cycles as baseline rule familiarization provides familiarity with the requirement that they must submit information on Form U. ² No incremental compliance determination is assumed for experienced reporters (or new reporters) as baseline compliance determination covers all required compliance activities (i.e., reporters have already surmised that they need to complete a Form U). ³The source of this estimate is the TRI estimate per EPA (2011) Appendix A list of standardized time estimates, with proportions of Managerial, Technical, and Clerical as presented in Appendix G of that document. ⁴Best professional judgment finds that it is appropriate to assume that the burden of determining the percentage of production volume that is a byproduct is equal to the estimate for Part II "Volume Exported," because other percent production volume data elements are similarly based on mass balance considerations. Since this data element will be reported as one of four ranges (0%, >0% but <50%, at least 50% but <100%, 100%), technical staff at most sites would likely no longer have to perform a full mass balance calculation. EPA estimates that the technical burden is reduced by 50%, from 0.82 hours to 0.41 hours. For the 2020 CDR Form U, “Volume Exported” is in Part II Section C. ⁵See Appendix C of the source EA (EPA, 2019) for the derivation of these burden estimates. For the 2020 CDR Form U, the function category data elements are in Part II Section D.1 (for industrial) and Section D.2 (for consumer and commercial). ⁶This data element is referred to as “Industrial Function Category” in the baseline and “Function Category” under the final rule. For the 2020 CDR Form U, the “Function Category” associated with industrial process and use is in Part II Section D.1. ⁷While intelligent sorting is not available in the first cycle, it can be used in the second and future cycles. ⁸Incremental compliance determination for experienced reporters (and new reporters) is assumed to be similar to the incremental compliance determination burden estimated in the economic analysis supporting Inventory Notification Rule (EPA, 2017). This source estimate is considered reasonable, given the extent to which CBI substantiation is part of that rule. ⁹For CBI substantiation estimates, the unadjusted unit burden estimate (experienced reporter) is developed using the number of substantive questions by type of CBI claim (e.g., chemical identification) and the average number of CBI claims of that type made in the 2016 CDR (EPA, 2018a). In contrast, the adjusted unit burden estimate for each type of CBI claim (consistent with other adjusted unit burden estimates) applies pro-rating using the average occurrence rates of CBI claims among all chemical reports as identified in 2016 CDR. See also Appendix B of the source EA (EPA, 2019) for the presentation of CBI substantiation unit burden under the final rule and the derivation of the incremental burden values. ¹⁰The baseline has one estimate for Part II non-chem ID CBI substantiation burden, which applies to both connection variables and other Part II data elements. In this table, the final rule Part II Connection CBI Substantiation and Part II Other CBI Substantiation are combined in order to compare Part II non-chem ID CBI substantiation burden change between the baseline and final rule conditions. See Appendix B of the source EA (EPA, 2019) for more details. ¹¹ The “Proportion of Chemical Reports Affected” for Part III CBI substantiation is a combination prorating factor which is the product of the percent full reports (78.08%) and the incidence rate for CBI claims among full reports (11.87%). For the 2020 CDR Form U, these substantiations are associated with data reported in Part II Section D. ¹²Incremental compliance determination for experienced reporters (and new reporters) is based on EPA’s best professional judgment. For byproduct exemptions, reporters have to do extra work to determine whether the exact exemption conditions apply. Approximately 40% of all sites are assumed to incur this burden, estimated as the percentage of sites that domestically manufactured inorganic chemicals in the 2016 CDR (EPA, 2018a). As with the form completion burden of the byproduct exemptions, the unadjusted unit burden is applied to the respective affected number of sites, instead of all CDR sites.

Incremental new reporter unit burden for form completion activities associated with CDR Revisions is based on estimates of experienced reporter burden for the modifications and additions to form completion activities finalized by the rule; new reporters are estimated to take 1.26 times longer than experienced reporters (EPA, 2018b). In the second cycle, new reporter burden is applied to the 90% of reporters using OECD codes for the first time. This new reporter burden only applies to the data elements for which OECD codes are used. These unit burdens are applied to new reporters in the second and future cycles.

Table 3 presents the derivation of incremental unit burdens for new reporters and the overall average reporter for activities relating to reportable data elements and CBI substantiation. For subsequent cycles, EPA estimates conditions at about 15% new reporters, 78% full reports,^⁸ and 7.5 chemical reports per site (as in the analyses presented in EPA (2019)).

Table 3: Reportable Data Elements and CBI Substantiation Incremental Burden, Experienced and New Reporters, Four-Year Cycle, Industry and Government
Activity		Experienced Reporters	New Reporters¹	Overall²
Activity		Unit Burden per Average Site (hours)	Unit Burden per Average Site (hours)	Unit Burden per Average Site (hours)
Reportable Data Elements
Rule Familiarization³		0.000	0.167	0.025
Compliance Determination		0.000	0.000	0.000
Recordkeeping		0.000	0.000	0.000
Average Multi-Chemical Form Completion (7.5 chemicals)		31.902	40.197	33.131
CBI Substantiation
Rule Familiarization⁴		0.000	2.000	0.296
Compliance Determination		0.500	0.500	0.500
Recordkeeping		0.000	0.000	0.000
Average Multi-Chemical Form Completion (7.5 chemicals)		-3.188	-4.017	-3.311
Total		29.214	38.847	30.641
General Note:
Estimates of incremental until burden in Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5 differ slightly from results that would be obtained using information in the EA (EPA, 2019) due to rounding.
There may be entities that incur burden from rule familiarization (if new to CDR) and compliance determination but that are not required to send a CDR submission. For purposes of this analysis, such effects are neglected per the convention used in EPA (2018b).
Footnotes:
¹	The estimate for new reporter form completion is derived using the experienced reporter estimate and a First Time Filer Factor of 1.26 (see Section 6(g) of EPA (2018b)).
²	As in the analysis in Tables 4-13 and 4-14 of EPA (2019), overall unit burden is based on 14.82% new reporting sites.
³	The estimate for new reporter incremental Rule Familiarization burden consists of 0.049 hours of Managerial labor and 0.118 hours of Technical labor. Compliance Determination for new reporters is estimated at the same levels as for experienced reporters.
⁴	The estimate for new reporter incremental Rule Familiarization burden consists of 0.583 hours of Managerial labor and 1.417 hours of Technical labor. Compliance Determination for new reporters is estimated at the same levels as for experienced reporters.

Table 4 presents the derivation of unit burdens for new reporters and the overall average reporter for incremental increases to rule familiarization and compliance determination associated with the byproduct exemptions included in the rule. These exemptions primarily result in a reduction in number of chemical reports submitted and number of sites reporting.

Table 4: Byproduct Exemptions Incremental Burden, Experienced and New Reporters, Four-Year Cycle, Industry and Government
Activity		Experienced Reporters	New Reporters	Overall¹
Activity		Unit Burden per Average Site (hours)	Unit Burden per Average Site (hours)	Unit Burden per Average Site (hours)
Byproduct Exemptions
Rule Familiarization²		0.000	0.500	0.074
Compliance Determination		0.404	0.404	0.404
Recordkeeping		0.000	0.000	0.000
Average Multi-Chemical Form Completion (7.5 chemicals)		N/A	N/A	N/A
Total		0.404	0.904	0.478
General Note:
Estimates of incremental until burden in Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5 differ slightly from results that would be obtained using information in the EA (EPA, 2019) due to rounding.
There may be entities that incur burden from rule familiarization (if new to CDR) and compliance determination but that are not required to send a CDR submission. For purposes of this analysis, such effects are neglected per the convention used in EPA (2018b).
Footnotes:
¹	As in the analysis in Table 4-15 of EPA (2019), overall unit burden is based on 14.82% new reporting sites.
²	The estimate for new reporter incremental Rule Familiarization burden consists of 0.146 hours of Managerial labor and 0.354 hours of Technical labor. Compliance Determination for new reporters is estimated at the same levels as for experienced reporters.

Unit costs are derived by combining relevant wage information with unit burden estimates. See Appendix B for information on the industry wage rates used in this analysis. Unit reporter burden and reporter cost per site are derived for reportable data elements, CBI substantiation, and the incremental increases in rule familiarization and compliance determination associated with byproduct exemptions in Table 5. EPA estimates incremental reporter burden and cost at approximately 31 hours and $2,401 per industry or government site per four-year reporting cycle.

Table 5: Incremental Unit Burden and Cost per Site, Four-Year Cycle, Experienced and New Reporters, Industry and Government
Activity	Overall average burden per site (hours)	Overall average cost per site (2018$)
Reportable Data Elements and CBI Substantiation, including incremental rule familiarization and compliance determination	30.641	$2,364.69
Byproduct Exemptions incremental rule familiarization and compliance determination	0.478	$36.68
Total	31.119	$2,401.37
General Note:
Estimates of incremental until burden in Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5 differ slightly from results that would be obtained using information in the EA (EPA, 2019) due to rounding.

5.(c). Respondent Universe, Total, and Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

5(c)(i). IC#1 CDR Reporting

Table 6 presents the change in numbers of sites and chemical reports due to the rule (EPA, 2019). Note that in the following calculation, all sites in the baseline are also additionally affected by the revisions to CDR reporting requirements and some combination of incremental rule familiarization and compliance determination for the rule.

Table 6: Change in Sites and Chemical Reports
Regulatory Provision Description		Change in Number of Sites	Change in Number of Chemical Reports	Change in Number of Full Chemical Reports¹
CDR Revisions²		-70	-925	-849
Footnotes:
¹	Full chemical report counts are used later in this analysis to calculate incremental Agency burden.
²	Includes modifications and additions to reportable data elements, changes to CBI substantiation requirements, and specific inorganic byproduct reporting exemptions. Of these provisions in the rule, the byproduct exemptions will result in sites with some or all of their chemical reports exempted.

Total Reporter Burden/Cost. Estimates of the reporting burden and cost per four-year reporting cycle are shown in Table 7. Total burden and cost are calculated for changes to reporting activities by multiplying the unit burdens and costs in Table 5 by the respective number of reporting sites. Total burden and cost attributable to reporting universe changes (reductions) are calculated for relevant sites and chemical reports using baseline information (for more detail, see EPA (2019)).

Table 7: CDR Revisions Incremental Reporting Burden and Cost for Four Year-Reporting Cycle, New and Experienced Reporters
		Baseline Number of Sites	Number of Sites under Final Rule	Future Cycles
		Baseline Number of Sites	Number of Sites under Final Rule	Unit burden (hours)¹	Unit cost (2018$)¹	Burden (hours)	Cost (2018$)
Changes to Reporting Activities²
Reportable Data Elements + CBI Substantiation, including incremental rule familiarization and compliance determination		5,660	5,660	30.644	$2,364.69	173,444	$13,384,144
Byproduct Exemptions incremental rule familiarization and compliance determination		5,660	5,660	0.478	$36.68	2,704	$207,614
Subtotal, Changes to Reporting Activities						176,148	$13,591,758
Changes to Reporting Universe
Byproduct Exemptions		601	531	N/A	N/A	-70,271	-$5,376,960
Net Incremental Change						105,877	$8,214,798
Footnotes:
¹	Estimates of incremental until burden and unit cost are back-calculated to ensure table presentation consistency, and therefore differ slightly from corresponding estimates in Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5 in this document.
²	Note that the calculations in the top half of this table apply the unit burdens to the entire baseline reporting universe. This “calculation in parallel” is necessary to separately present the distinct provisions of the final rule and to reconcile estimates across the EA and this ICR Addendum. See Section 6 for more information on different calculation methodologies.

Table 8 presents the bottom-line reporter burden and cost, including average annual and ICR Renewal Period totals under the final rule.

Table 8: Annual Average and Overall Incremental Burden and Cost for the ICR Renewal Period
Burden Category	CDR Reporting Cycle Burden (hours)				Both CDR Cycle and ICR Renewal Period		ICR Renewal Period (Nov '18 - Nov '21)
Burden Category	2016	2017	2018	2019	Annual Average Burden (hours)	Annual Average Cost (2018$)	Total Burden (hours)	Total Cost (2018$)
Reporter Burden, Total	105,877				26,469	$2,053,700	79,407	$6,161,100

PRA BURDEN STATEMENT

Under the final rule, the incremental reporter burden increase for this collection of information is estimated to average 4.68 hours per year for the average site.^⁹,¹⁰ This estimate includes the combined effects of increases to certain reporting activities (incremental rule familiarization and compliance determination, data elements on Form U) as well as the elimination of reporting for newly exempted chemical reports and/or sites. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 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’s regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when approved, are listed in 40 CFR Part 9, and are displayed either by publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable.

EPA estimates that reporters will experience a net increase in reporting burden due to the final rule. Annual reporting burden is increased by 26,469 hours per year. Table 9 details the reasons for change in annual burden. EPA first accounts for burden reduction associated with the change in number of sites and chemical reports due to the byproduct exemptions. The unit burdens associated with new reporting activities under CDR Revisions are then applied to the final rule counts of sites and chemical reports. As such, in this sequential calculation, incremental rule familiarization, incremental compliance determination, and changes to Form U content associated with counts of exempted sites are not included in the estimate. For further explanation see Appendix C.

Table 9: Reasons for Change in Burden (Annual)
		Changes				Overall¹
		CDR Revisions Changes to Numbers of Sites/Chemical Reports, Byproduct Exemptions		CDR Revisions New and Modified Reporting Activities
		Unit	Total	Unit²	Total
Net Incremental Burden			-17,568	7.780	43,490	25,922
General Notes:
All unit and total burden estimates are reported in hours and are on an annual basis.
This calculation assumes that the exemptions resulting from the rule are mutually exclusive.
Footnotes:
¹	The overall net incremental burden in this table does not match the overall net incremental burden presented in Table 8 or the net incremental burden calculated in the CDR Revisions EA. This calculation is performed in sequence and applies the changes due to the rule in total. It is therefore more accurate than an approach that calculates burden associated with changes in parallel and sums them. This ICR Addendum and the CDR Revisions EA (EPA, 2019) use the latter approach, which is why the total values do not match. Calculation in sequence yields an annual burden increase that is 547 hours (2.07%) smaller than annual burden increase calculated in parallel.
²	Represents the net change from CDR Revisions, excluding byproduct exemptions.

References

BLS (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics). 2019a. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables: December 2006 – June 2019. Retrieved October 24, 2019 from https//www/bls.gov/ncs/ect/.

BLS. 2019b. Employment Cost Index (ECI) Historical Listing – Volume III National Compensation Survey October 2019. Available at https://www.bls.gov/web/eci/echistrynaics.pdf (Accessed January 28, 2020).

EPA. 2002. Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2002-0054-0260). Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. August 2002.

EPA. 2009. ICR Handbook: EPA’s Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Retrieved from https://www.pdffiller.com/10247637--ICR-Handbook---Environmental-Protection-Agency-.

EPA. 2011. Revising TRI Burden to Ratio-Based Methodology. U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Office of Information Analysis and Access, TRI Regulatory Development Branch, TRI Program Division. February 1, 2011.

EPA. 2015. ICR No. 1884.08. [Information Collection Request for] Partial Update of the TSCA Section 8(b) Inventory Data Base, Production and Site Report Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. October 14, 2015. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0721-0008.

EPA. 2017. Burden and Cost Report for the Final Rule: TSCA Inventory Notification Requirements (RIN 2070-AK24) EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0426-0072.

EPA. 2018a. 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR). CBI Dataset pulled on October 7, 2017 and developed in the EPAB CDR Database, internal EPA release. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. June 13, 2018.

EPA. 2018b. ICR No. 1884.10. [Information Collection Request for] Chemical Data Reporting under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA section 8(a)) Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. October 29, 2018. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2017-0648.

EPA. 2019. Economic Analysis for the Final Rule on TSCA Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Revisions (RIN 2070-AK33). Economic and Policy Analysis Branch, Chemistry, Economics, and Sustainable Strategies Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (included in same docket as this report, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2018-0321).

OPM (Office of Personnel Management). 2018. Salary Table 2018-DCB. Retrieved October 18, 2019 from Pay & Leave: Salaries & Wages: https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/salaries-wages/salary-tables/18Tables/html/DCB_h.aspx.

Rice. 2002. Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program. June 10, 2002.

Detailed Derivation of Agency Burden and Cost

EPA Staff Activities

EPA activities affected by the rule involve submission receipt and tracking, data review, and quality control. Agency burden is reduced given that these activities are related to the quantity of sites, chemical reports, and CDX registrations, all of which decrease under the rule. The following analysis of Agency burden is limited to incremental change in these variable costs, since fixed costs do not change. Additionally, costs related to EPA activities that involve data use are not included.

Agency personnel are responsible for quality control of data, while contractors perform data processing tasks. Additionally, change in number of CDX registrations is considered to be negligible, and therefore for ease of presentation is not included in estimate of associated Agency cost.

EPA labor costs are based on annual federal wage rates, as presented in Table A- 1. As in the ICR renewal (EPA, 2018b), a GS-12 Step 3 is assumed for program staff hours and a GS-13 Step 3 is assumed for information technology (IT) staff hours.

Table A- 1: Agency Wage Rate (2018$)
Labor Category	Data Source for Wage Information	Wage ($/hour)¹	Fringe Benefit	Fringes as % Wage	Overhead as % Wage²	Fringe + Overhead Factor	Loaded Wage ($/hour)
Labor Category	Data Source for Wage Information	(a)	(b)	(c)=(b)/(a)	(d)	(e)=(c)+(d)+1	*(f)=(a)(e)**
EPA program staff	Annual federal staff cost: OPM Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-PA-VA-WV area, GS-12 Step 3 pay rates	$41.68	Included in 60% overhead	N/A	60%	1.6	$66.69
EPA IT staff	Annual federal staff cost: OPM Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-PA-VA-WV area, GS-13 Step 3 pay rates	$49.56	Included in 60% overhead	N/A	60%	1.6	$79.30
Footnotes: ¹ Source: Salary Table 2018-DCB. (OPM, 2018). ² The 60% fringes-and-overhead rate is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Preparing ICRs (EPA, 2009).

Unit burden and cost associated with EPA staff activities per four-year reporting cycle are the same as in the ICR Renewal (EPA, 2018b) and are presented in Table A- 2. The cost associated with quality control of data is performed by program staff and is dependent on the number of chemical reports received.

Table A- 2: EPA Staff Burden and Cost of Processing Reports per Four-Year Reporting Cycle:
Activity	Unit of Analysis	Agency Burden per Activity (hours)	Agency Cost per Activity (2018$)¹
Quality Control of Data for Part I	Per Site	0.0019	$0.13
Quality Control of Data for Part II	Per Chemical Report	0.0054	$0.36
Quality Control of Data for Part III	Per Chemical Report	0.0063	$0.42
General Notes: Sources include EPA (2015) and EPA (2018b). This table uses the 2016 CDR Form U designations. See Table 1 for crosswalk to the new Form U printout to be used for the 2020 CDR. Footnote: ¹ Based on labor rates (see Table A- 1) for quality control activities and review of e-signatures by program staff GS12 Step 3.

Contractor Activities

Agency costs also include payment for extramural tasks completed by contractors (this category includes costs to EPA, but not burden hours). Contractor activities affected by the final rule include document receipt, tracking, and data review as presented in Table A- 3. These costs are taken from the ICR renewal (EPA, 2018b) and are inflated from 2012 to 2018 dollars with an inflation factor calculated using the Employment Cost Index (ECI), seasonally adjusted, for management, professional, and related occupations in private industry (BLS, 2019b).

Table A- 3: Unit Cost of Contractor Activities for Four-Year Reporting Cycle
Activity	Cost 2012$	Cost¹ 2018$
Variable Costs (cost per chemical report)
Document receipt, tracking, and data review for Part I	$0.10	$0.12
Document receipt, tracking, and data review for Part II	$0.28	$0.32
Document receipt, tracking, and data review for Part III	$0.32	$0.37
Total Cost of Document receipt, tracking, and data review, per single chemical full report	$0.70	$0.81
Sources include EPA (2015), EPA (2018b), and BLS (2019b). This table uses the 2016 CDR Form U designations. See Table 1 for crosswalk to the new Form U printout to be used for the 2020 CDR. Footnote: ¹ The inflation rate of 1.15 is calculated as the total compensation Employment Cost Index (ECI) for 2018 divided by the ECI for 2012.

The final rule will result in net reduction in the reporting universe, which will result in lower Agency burden and cost associated with quality control. Table A-4 presents the estimated incremental Agency burden and cost associated with the rule.

Table A- 4: Incremental Agency Burden and Cost of CDR Revisions, Four-Year Cycle
Activity		Staff	Form U Section	Burden per Activity (hours)	Cost per Activity (2018$)	Unit of Analysis	Incremental Change
Activity		Staff	Form U Section	Burden per Activity (hours)	Cost per Activity (2018$)	Unit of Analysis	Affected Universe	Total Burden (hours)	Total Cost (2018$)¹
Variable Burden and Cost
Submission Receipt and Tracking: Data Review		Contractor	Part I	N/A	$0.12	Sites	-70	N/A	-$8
			Part II	N/A	$0.32	Full and Partial Chemical Reports	-925	N/A	-$296
			Part III	N/A	$0.37	Full Chemical Reports	-849	N/A	-$314
Quality Control		EPA Program Staff	Part I	0.0019	$0.13	Sites	-70	0	-$9
			Part II	0.0054	$0.36	Full and Partial Chemical Reports	-925	-5	-$333
			Part III	0.0063	$0.42	Full Chemical Reports	-849	-5	-$357
Total Variable Burden and Cost								-10	-$1,317
General Note: This table uses the 2016 CDR Form U designations. See Table 1 for crosswalk to the new Form U printout to be used for the 2020 CDR.
For ease of presentation, change in number of CDX registrations is assumed to be negligible.
Footnote:
¹	Based on Labor rates (see Table A- 1) for Program Staff GS12 Step 3; for IT Staff GS13, Step 3.

Estimating Respondent Cost

Wage rates for managerial, technical, and clerical labor are derived and presented in Table B‑1. As a simplification and for purposes of ease of presentation, personnel at government-owned reporting sites are assumed to have the same wage rate as the equivalent industry personnel. This section describes the industry wage data used to develop reporting burden estimates.

Standard wage rates for managerial, technical, and clerical levels are developed from information published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and a method outlined in the document Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (Rice, 2002). Average wage data for the three major occupational groups are published quarterly by the BLS in the Employer Costs for Employer Compensation (ECEC) reports (per Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables: December 2006 – June 2019 (BLS, 2019a)).

Fringe benefits costs, such as health insurance and vacation for each labor category are taken from the same ECEC series. Following the methodology outlined in Rice (2002), fringe benefits are calculated as a percentage of total wages for each category. An additional 17% is added to the wages in each category to account for overhead, based on information provided by the chemical industry and chemical industry trade associations in the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPA, 2002). The wages for each of the three categories are then multiplied by benefits and overhead factors to estimate loaded, annual salaries in 2018 dollars. Table B‑1 contains the loaded wage rates for the managerial, technical and clerical occupation categories.

Table B‑1: Reporter Wage Rates (2018$)
Labor Category	Data Series¹	Date	Wage ($/hour)	Fringe Benefit	Fringes as % Wage	Over-head % Wage ²	Fringe + Overhead Factor ³	Loaded Wage ($/hour)⁴
Labor Category	Data Series¹	Date	(a)	(b)	(c) =(b)/(a)	(d)	(e)=(c)+(d)+1	(f)=(a)×(e)
Managerial	BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing industries, “Mgt, Business, and Financial”	Dec-18	$48.73	$23.08	47%	17%	1.64	$79.92
Professional / Technical	BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing industries, “Professional and related“	Dec-18	$44.35	$23.43	55%	17%	1.72	$75.40
Clerical	BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing industries, “Office and Administrative Support”	Dec-18	$20.77	$10.20	49%	17%	1.66	$34.48
Footnotes: ¹ Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables: December 2006 – June 2019 (BLS, 2019a). ² An overhead rate of 17% is used based on assumptions in Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (Rice, 2002), and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPA, 2002). ³ The inflation factor of “1” in the formula for calculating the fringe + overhead factor means wage data are not escalated to reflect inflation. ⁴ Wage data are rounded to the closest cent in this analysis.

Explanation of Sequential vs Parallel Calculation

This Appendix provides further explanation of the calculations in Section 6. Table C‑1 presents the calculation of incremental reporting burden in sequence (as opposed to being conducted as parallel calculations, as done in the CDR Revisions EA (EPA, 2019), using the following steps:

Calculate the burden associated with exempting sites and chemical reports under CDR Revisions, specifically the byproducts exemptions. Remove these sites and chemical reports from the reporting universe.
Calculate a per-site and per-chemical report unit burden for the new CDR activities under the final rule and apply them to the remaining sites (post-exemptions in step 1).
Sum total burden in steps 1-2 to estimate incremental burden under the final rule.

This approach differs from the calculation in the CDR Revisions EA and in the main body of the ICR Addendum, as it applies unit burden associated with new and modified reporting activities from step 2 to a post-exemption count of sites. This approach is a “calculation in sequence.” As noted in Section 6, in this sequential calculation, incremental rule familiarization, incremental compliance determination, and changes to Form U content associated with exempted sites are not included in the estimate. The approach used in the ICR Addendum and in the EA for the final rule applies these unit burdens to the entire baseline reporting universe. This “calculation in parallel” is necessary to separately present the distinct provisions of the rule. Note that when managing changes to the universe counts for sites and chemical reports, calculation in sequence yields lower values for burden and cost increases due to the final rule than the values reported in the EA.

Table C‑1 demonstrates how the provisions in the final rule affect baseline counts of sites and chemical reports according to provisions of the rule.

Table C‑1: Final Rule Changes to Number of Sites and Chemical Reports
	Changes
	CDR Revisions Changes to Numbers of Reporters/Chemical Reports, Byproduct Exemptions		CDR Revisions New and Modified Reporting Activities
	Before	After	Before	After
Sites	5,660	5,590	5,590	5,590
Chemical Reports	42,464	41,539	41,539	41,539

Table C‑2 calculates total burden and cost under each option using the same approach as in Table 6; however, unit burdens are multiplied by the post-exemption count of sites instead of the baseline count of sites. These total burden values closely resemble the results in Table 6, with slight differences due to rounding.

Table C‑2: CDR Revisions Reporting Burden and Cost for Four-Year Reporting Cycle, Calculation in Sequence
		Baseline Number of Sites	Number of Sites under Final Rule	Future Cycles
		Baseline Number of Sites	Number of Sites under Final Rule	Unit Burden (hours)¹	Unit Cost (2018$)¹	Burden (hours)	Cost (2018$)
Changes to Reporting Activities
Reportable Data Elements + CBI Substantiation, including incremental rule familiarization and compliance determination		5,660	5,590	30.644	$2,364.69	171,299	$13,218,616
Byproduct Exemptions incremental rule familiarization and compliance determination		5,660	5,590	0.478	$36.68	2,671	$205,046
Changes to Reporting Universe
Byproducts Exemptions		601	531	N/A	N/A	-70,271	-$5,376,960
Total						103,699	$8,046,702
Footnote:
¹	Estimates of incremental until burden and unit cost are back-calculated to ensure table presentation consistency and therefore differ slightly from corresponding estimates in Table 2, Table 3, and Table 4 in this document.

Attachment A. e-CDRweb Form U reporting tool

A.1 Mock ups of e-CDRweb screen shots illustrating the changed reporting requirements

This attachment includes mock-ups of screen shots from the e-CDRweb reporting tool that implements changes from the CDR Revisions Final Rule. The selected screen shots illustrated the changed reporting requirements and are not final.

A.2 Example Draft Print-out from e-CDRweb: Primary Form, Manufacturer Submission

A.3 Example Draft Print-out from e-CDRweb: Primary Form, Importer Submission

A.4 Example Draft Print-out from e-CDRweb: Primary Form, Co-Manufacturer – Contracting Company Submission

A.5 Example Draft Print-out from e-CDRweb: Primary Form, Co-Manufacturer – Producing Company Submission

A.6 Example Draft Print-out from e-CDRweb: Secondary Form, Secondary or Tertiary Submission

A.7 Example Draft Print-out from e-CDRweb: Secondary Form, Secondary Notification to a Tertiary

Attachment B. Instructions for Reporting

This attachment is the draft 2020 CDR Instructions for Reporting. Based on the 2016 CDR Instructions for Reporting, this attachment has been updated to incorporate changes from the CDR Revisions Final Rule.

1 The 20 High Priority Chemical Substances are: 1,3-Butadiene, Butyl benzyl phthalate (BBP) (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1-butyl 2-(phenylmethyl) ester), Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,2-dibutyl ester), o-Dichlorobenzene (Benzene, 1,2-dichloro-), p-Dichlorobenzene (Benzene, 1,4-dichloro-), 1,1-Dichloroethane, 1,2-Dichloroethane, trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene (Ethene, 1,2-dichloro-, (1E)-), 1,2-Dichloropropane, Dicyclohexyl phthalate (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,2-dicyclohexyl ester), Di-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,2-bis(2-ethylhexyl) ester), Di-isobutyl phthalate (DIBP) (1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, 1,2-bis(2-methylpropyl) ester), Ethylene dibromide (Ethane, 1,2-dibromo-), Formaldehyde, 1,3,4,6,7,8-Hexahydro-4,6,6,7,8,8-hexamethylcyclopenta [g]-2-benzopyran (HHCB), 4,4′-(1-Methylethylidene)bis[2, 6-dibromophenol] (TBBPA), Phosphoric acid, triphenyl ester (TPP), Phthalic anhydride (1,3-Isobenzofurandione), 1,1,2-Trichloroethane, Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) (Ethanol, 2-chloro-, 1,1′,1″-phosphate).

2 Quality control activities performed by program staff involve comparative analysis of the data received to identify if there are any unexpected anomalies or inconsistencies of the data, such as between sites with the same parent companies, followed by outreach to the reporting companies to obtain corrections or confirmation that reported information is correct.

3The reporting threshold is lower (2,500 lb) for chemical substances that are the subject of certain TSCA actions (see 40 CFR 711.8(b)), including:

A rule proposed or promulgated under TSCA sections 5(a)(2), 5(b)(4), or 6;
An order issued under TSCA sections 5(e) or 5(f); or
Relief that has been granted under a civil action under TSCA sections 5 or 7.

4 Note that some results in this analysis are presented on a one-year basis. The annual estimates are simply the four-year estimates divided by four. EPA acknowledges that activities may be spread unevenly across the four years. However, for purposes of burden and cost tracking, a constant annual burden and cost is a useful standardized metric for this and other analyses.

5The economic analysis defines its baseline as the predicted 2020 CDR conditions using the 2016 CDR (EPA, 2018a). The 2016 CDR is considered an appropriate baseline data source without adjustment for two reasons: (1) in the history of CDR development, the information from the 2016 CDR is the most complete, covering a comparable four-year period; and (2) upon review of year-to-year counts for chemicals, sites, and chemical reports there is high variance from year to year without a noteworthy trend upward or downward in counts.

6Beginning with the 2020 CDR Form U, the section of the form containing the processing and use information will be Part II Section D

7 The three affected data elements are Function Category (Industrial) in Part IIIA and Product Category and Function Category (Consumer and Commercial) in Part IIIB. Beginning with the 2020 CDR Form U, these data elements will be in Part II.D.1 and II.D.2, respectively.

8A full chemical report refers to a Form U with Part III (chemical-specific processing and use) information. For the 2020 CDR, processing and use information is in Part II Section D of the revised Form U printout.

9The number of chemicals per site changes by about -0.07 chemicals per site. The % partial reports changes by +0.3%. The estimate for % of sites as new reporters does not change.

10 Under the final rule, overall burden for the CDR collection of information is estimated to average 132.82 hours per year for the average multi-chemical submission of 7.43 chemicals per site with 22.22% of reports consisting of partial reports and 15% of sites as new reporters.

Page 47 of 51

File Type	application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Author	Angela Hofmann
File Modified	0000-00-00
File Created	2021-01-14

1884-12_ss_2020-03-20