TOXICS RELEASE INVENTORY

TRI FORM R TOXIC CHEMICAL RELEASE REPORTING

INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

OMB CONTROL NO. 2070-0093

EPA ICR #1363.15

July  05, 2007

IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 	3

Title of the Information Collection 	3

Short Characterization/Abstract 	3

NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 	6

Need/Authority for the Collection 	6

Practical Utility/Users of the Data 	6

NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA 	7

3(a) Nonduplication 	7

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB	10

3(c) Consultations 	10

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection 	11

3(e) General Guidelines 	12

3(f) Confidentiality 	12

3(g) Sensitive Questions 	12

THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 	13

4(a) Respondents/NAICS Codes 	13

4(b) Information Requested 	13

THE INFORMATION COLLECTED--AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION

METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 	15

5(a) Agency Activities 	15

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management 	20

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility 	21

5(d) Collection Schedule 	21

ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION 	22

Estimating Respondent Burden 	23

Estimating Respondent Costs 	32

Estimating Agency Burden and Cost 	36

Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs 	39

Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs Tables 	47

Reasons for Change in Burden 	48

Burden Statement 	50

APPENDICIES

Appendix A: Blank Form R

Appendix B: Reporting Form Instructions Associated with Form Changes

Appendix C: Examples of How TRI Data Are Used

Appendix D: Information Sources Containing Data Subsets, but not
Comprehensively Comparable Alternative to TRI

Appendix E: Lists of Organizations with which EPA has Consulted

Appendix F: Facilities Required to Report to TRI (NAICS)

IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

Title of the Information Collection

TITLE:	TRI Form R Toxic Chemical Release Reporting, Recordkeeping,
Supplier Notification and Petitions under Section 313 of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act

EPA ICR No.:	1363.15

OMB Control No.:	2070-0093

NOTE

In this draft of the document, proposed changes are marked by
highlighted text.

Short Characterization/Abstract

This Information Collection Request (ICR) is for the information
collection requirements for toxics chemical release reporting under §
313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)
(42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq.) and the information collection in § 6607 of
the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) (42 U.S.C. 11071 to 11079). In short,
EPCRA §313 requires certain owners or operators of certain facilities
in covered industries that manufacture, process, or otherwise use any of
over 650 listed toxic chemicals and chemical categories (hereafter
"toxic chemicals") in excess of the applicable threshold quantities to
report on their environmental releases and transfers of and waste
management activities for such chemicals annually. Under § 6607 of the
PPA, facilities must provide information on the quantities of the toxic
chemicals in waste streams and the efforts made to reduce or eliminate
those quantities. A complete listing of the North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) codes subject to TRI reporting can be
found in Appendix F of this ICR Supporting Statement.

Currently, facilities subject to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
reporting requirements may either use the EPA Toxics Release Inventory
Form R (EPA Form #9350-1), or, if they meet lower threshold
requirements, the EPA Toxics Release Inventory Form A Certification
Statement (EPA Form #9350-2), which is approved under OMB Number
2070-0143 (see the Form A ICR Supporting Statement for more information
on these reporting requirements). With Form Rs, one chemical is reported
per form; with Form As, multiple chemicals may be reported per form. Due
to the TRI Burden Reduction Rule promulgated December 18, 2006, Form A
eligibility is expanded to allow, for the first time, limited use of the
Form A for PBT chemicals. (71 FR 76932, December 22, 2006).

EPA is proposing changes to the Form R and Form A Certification
Statement to standardize responses and enhance the utility of the data.
More specifically, the changes to the forms and TRI Reporting Forms and
Instructions (RFI) described below will help the TRI Program better
determine its impact on small businesses, allow facilities to provide
more detailed information on how they estimate their data, facilitate
efficient contact with the appropriate facility personnel, and improve
understanding of the reasons behind form revisions or withdrawals. The
changes are presented below:

1) Collect small business information. EPA strives to achieve an
appropriate balance between collecting valuable TRI data and reducing
the reporting burden on regulated facilities, including small
businesses. To date, it has been a time-consuming process to assess the
impact of TRI regulatory changes on small businesses, and in some
instances, the data needed to determine whether a facility is a small
business have not been available to EPA.  By collecting small business
information about facilities directly on the TRI reporting forms, the
TRI Program will be better able to determine the impacts of potential
TRI regulatory changes on small businesses quickly and accurately.
Therefore, EPA will add a check box indicating whether the reporting
facility's parent company is a small business, as defined by the Small
Business Administration (SBA). Additionally, if the facility does not
have a parent company, the check box will indicate whether the facility,
considered together with all of its affiliates, is a small business.

2) Provide more specific "Basis of Estimate" codes (Form R only).
Facilities may currently select among four codes to indicate how they
calculate their release quantities:  the use of monitoring data (code
M), mass balance calculations (C), emission factors (E), and other
approaches (O). The addition of more specific codes in the RFI will
allow reporting facilities to provide more detailed information on the
"basis of estimate."  For example, with the proposed changes,
facilities could use a different code for continuous monitoring than for
periodic or random monitoring.  In addition, the new set of codes would
make the TRI "basis of estimate" codes comparable to the codes used by
the Canadian government, thereby making it easier to analyze and compare
data between the United States and Canada. Therefore, EPA will provide a
more extensive list of codes for "basis of estimate" in the RFI. Via
these codes, facilities will indicate the principal method used to
determine the quantities reported to the TRI Program.

3) Enhance the point of contact information (Form R and/or Form A, as
noted below). This group of changes provides efficiency gains for the
Agency and the reporting facilities. Currently, when questions arise
about a facility's data submission, the TRI Program staff may wish to
contact the facility staff to clarify the information.  In a number of
instances in the past, TRI Program staff have contacted the "Technical
Contact" listed on a facility's form and been asked to contact another
individual who prepared the form on the facility's behalf.  By adding a
field for "Form Preparer" to both Form R and Form A, the TRI Program
staff will be able to contact the appropriate individual depending on
the nature of the question or issue.  Similarly, adding a "Public
Contact" field to the Form A will provide the name of a person who can
respond to questions from the public about the Form A Certification
Statement in the same way that a person responds for Form R submissions
currently.  Finally providing an email address for the public contact on
both Form R and Form A will make it easier to contact and follow-up with
the "Public Contact" if necessary.

4) Add boxes for entering revision codes (Forms R and A).  The TRI
Program currently receives many form revisions each year, but does not
currently collect information on the reasons for the revisions.  The
new revision codes will allow both the public and the TRI Program staff
to better understand why a facility resubmitted a form.  In addition,
by analyzing the reasons for revisions, the TRI Program may be better
able to address recurring reporting issues or problems that facilities
may be facing, ultimately reducing errors and saving time for both the
Agency and the reporting facilities.  Therefore, facilities will now
report up to two codes (listed and defined in the RFIs) indicating the
main reason(s) that a form is being revised.

5) Provide a field for withdrawing a for; and add boxes for entering
withdrawal codes (Forms R and A). Currently, a facility that wishes to
withdraw a previously submitted form must submit its request, including
the rationale, as a hard copy memo to the TRI Data Processing Center via
regular mail, certified mail, or overnight delivery. Adding a
"Withdrawal" field and associated code boxes for reasons for withdrawal
to the Form R and Form A will 1) streamline the withdrawal process for
facilities, 2) make it easier for EPA to automate the withdrawal process
and 3) improve the Agency’s ability to analyze the reasons for
withdrawals.

Pursuant to EPCRA § 313 (and PPA § 6607 because of its linkage to
EPCRA), EPA's Office of Environmental Information (OEI) collects,
processes, and makes available to the public all of the information
collected. The information gathered under these authorities is stored in
a database maintained at EPA and is available through the Internet. EPA,
other federal, state and local government agencies, industry, and the
public use the TRI extensively. Program offices within EPA and other
government agencies have used the TRI, along with other sources of data,
to establish priorities, evaluate potential exposure scenarios, and
conduct enforcement activities. Industries use TRI data to identify
pollution prevention opportunities and set goals for emissions
reductions. Environmental and public interest groups use TRI data to
make the public more aware of releases of chemicals in their
communities, as well as to initiate direct negotiation and risk
reduction with facilities.

EPA has developed EPA Information Quality Guidelines to ensure the
utility, objectivity and integrity of information that is disseminated
by the Agency. The information supporting this ICR is consistent with
all appropriate EPA policies, including EPA's Information Quality
Guidelines. In particular, the EPA Agency-wide Quality System helps
ensure that EPA organizations maximize the quality of information
disseminated by the Agency. The Quality System is documented in EPA
Order 5360.1 A2, Policy and Program Requirements for the Mandatory
Agency-wide Quality System and the EPA Quality Manual for Environmental
Programs 5360 Al, May 2000. The information supporting this action is
also consistent with EPA 's Guide to Writing Information Collection
Requests Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, revised November
2005. It is EPA's intention that collection of information under this
ICR will result in information that will be collected, maintained, and
used in ways consistent with both EPA's Information Quality Guidelines
and the OMB Information Quality Guidelines.

With TRI, and the real gains in understanding it has produced,
communities and governments know the identities and quantities of listed
toxic chemicals many industrial facilities in their area release,
transfer, or otherwise manage as waste. In addition, TRI provides
industries with  an additional tool for evaluating efficiency and
progress on their pollution prevention goals.

OMB last approved this Information Collection request on March 3, 2006
with an expiration date of January 31, 2008.  The approved ICR reflected
a Form R respondent reporting burden of 3,746,590 hours and $170.5MM. In
this ICR Renewal, the effect of the TRI Burden Reduction Rule is
expected to continue to reduce overall burden due to increased From A
eligibility (i.e., number of Form Rs decreased; number of Form As
increased yielding a net burden decrease) with total respondent burden
and cost of Form R reporting projected at 3,215,715 hours and $160.73MM.
Further, the TRI program is proposing to add data elements and revise
instructions on the reporting forms.  The added data elements and
revised instructions are estimated to minimally increase the total
respondent burden and cost for Form R reporting to 3,219,564 hours and
$160.87MM.

The time required for calculations, form completion, and record keeping
for Form R is estimated to average 29.7 hours per form (29.6 without
changes) for a non-PBT chemical and 51.4 hours (51.3 without changes)
for a PBT chemical. By comparison, for a facility using Form A for a
single listed toxic chemical, the burden is estimated to average 20.6
hours (20.5 without changes) for facilities submitting a certification
statement for non-PBT chemicals and 36.0 hours (35.9 without changes)
for facilities submitting a certification statement for PBT chemicals
under EPCRA § 313.

2	NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

	2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

This information collection activity is a statutory requirement pursuant
to EPCRA § 313 (42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq.) and § 6607 of the PPA (42
U.S.C. 11071 to 11079). According to EPCRA § 313(h), the data submitted
in the forms are intended to "inform persons about releases of toxic
chemicals to the environment; to assist governmental agencies,
researchers, and other persons in the conduct of research and data
gathering; to aid in the development of appropriate regulations,
guidelines, and standards; and for other similar purposes."

Section 6602 of the PPA establishes a national policy that pollution
should be prevented or reduced at the source whenever feasible. To
further this goal, EPA is to establish a source reduction program that,
among other responsibilities, is to collect and disseminate information.
The information collected under § 6607 is intended to fulfill that
responsibility in part and to provide a basis for measuring progress in
pollution prevention in certain industrial groups.

Annual reporting under EPCRA § 313 of toxic chemical releases and other
waste management information on Form R provides citizens with an
extensive picture of the total disposition of chemicals in their
communities and helps focus industries' attention on pollution
prevention and source reduction opportunities. EPA believes that the
public has a right to know about the disposition of chemicals within
communities and the management of such chemicals by facilities in
covered industries subject to EPCRA § 313 reporting.

	2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

According to many, the TRI program is one of the most effective
environmental programs ever legislated by Congress and administered by
EPA. Its success is due, in large part, to the right-toknow provisions
contained in the legislation itself. By requiring that the resulting
data be made publicly available "by electronic and other means,"
Congress ensured that citizens, the media, environmental advocates,
researchers, the business community, and others could influence and
evaluate industry's efforts to manage toxic emissions. Consequently,
data collected under EPCRA § 313 and § 6607 of the PPA are made
available through EPA's Envirofacts and TRI Explorer databases. In
addition, the public may also obtain TRI information through other
sources such as OMB Watch's Right-to-Know Network (RTK NET) at
http://www.rtk.net.  RTK NET provide free public access to numerous
databases, text files and conferences on the environment, housing, and
sustainable development.

In addition to providing information to the public via electronic means,
EPA also conducts outreach activities to make key groups and the public
aware of TRI. Journalists, educators, public interest, labor, and
environmental groups, trade associations, and state governments continue
to be key targets in these outreach efforts. In addition, libraries in
communities all across the United States (in particular, members of the
Federal Depository Library Program) are committed to providing public
access to TRI data in a variety of formats. Educators are also using the
data to conduct studies and courses on the environment. Labor unions are
using the TRI data to improve conditions for workers. Businesses are
using the data in many ways -- as a basis for reducing emissions, to cut
costs, to improve operations, and for a variety of other reasons.
Concerned citizens are a growing user group. These individuals, on their
own and through organized groups, are using TRI to address concerns
about the management and release of chemicals in their communities.
Finally, states use the national data to compare chemical management and
releases within industries and to set environmental priorities at the
state level.

Because the value of TRI increases the more it is used, EPA encourages
current users to acquaint new users with TRI, help people who already
know about TRI to better use and understand the data, and, whenever
possible to provide feedback on how to improve TRI products and
services. Appendix C summarizes some examples of how the TRI data are
used, both by EPA and others. As examples, the information in the table
in Appendix C is not intended to be all-inclusive.

3	NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, OTHER COLLECTION CRITERIA

3(a) Nonduplication

The basic information requested on the Form R is required to be reported
by law. Other statutes, however, also necessitate the reporting of
information about releases of chemicals to the environment, creating the
possibility of overlap or duplication of reporting requirements. EPA
anticipates some overlap and acknowledges that respondents may use
readily available data collected pursuant to other provisions of law to
complete the EPCRA § 313 reports. However, information required by
these other statutes may not provide readily accessible multi-media
release and transfer, inventory, or pollution prevention data with the
scope, level of detail, chemical coverage, and frequency of collection
as data currently included in TRI.

The TRI contains information on releases, transfers, inventories, and
pollution prevention activities for approximately 650 toxic chemicals
and chemical categories. EPA is not aware of national databases that are
comparable to the whole of TRI, however, several data sources exist
which contain media-specific data on releases and transfers. In theory,
information from these databases could be combined to form an analog of
release and transfer data contained in TRI. However, in practice, given
the currently available data sources (see Table 1 and Appendix D), this
substitution is implausible. For example, there are differences in
chemical coverage, facility coverage, as well as differences in the
level of public access granted, reporting frequencies, and in the
integration of data from various sources at the facility level.

Chemical Release and Transfer Data

The 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act required EPA to monitor and
regulate the emissions of criteria air pollutants (CAPs) and hazardous
air pollutants (HAPs).   EPA is required to identify the sources of
these pollutants, quantify the sources by category, develop regulations,
and then assess public health and environmental impacts.  To facilitate
this process, two emissions inventories were created: the National
Toxics Inventory (NTI) for HAPs and the National Emission Trends (NET)
for CAPs.  These two databases were combined in 1999 to form the
National Emissions Inventory (NEI) database.

Table 1

Major Release and Transfer Databases

Data source	Media and chemical

coverage	Relevant release

statistics available	Ease of database substitution for TRI data

National Emissions Inventory (NEI)	Contains annual emissions of six
criteria air pollutants and 189 hazardous air pollutants for facilities
above reporting thresholds.  	Total annual releases.	Includes air
releases only. Data are updated only every 3 years.  Coverage of TRI
toxics is limited.

Permit Compliance System (PCS)	Contains monthly discharge monitoring
data for selected water pollutants and flow rates for major sources.
Contains concentration data; total annual releases can be calculated;
average daily releases, maximum “moment” if continuous monitoring.
Only includes chemicals for which a discharge limit has been set.
Difficult to link between PCS parameters and a Chemical Abstract Service
(CAS) number. Very limited monitoring data for minor dischargers.

Biennial Reporting System (BRS)	Contains waste volumes by RCRA waste
code reported biennially.	Total annual off-site transfers of hazardous
waste for land disposal; total annual releases to POTW.	Many RCRA waste
codes are not specific to an individual CAS number. Quantities of
chemicals in waste cannot be determined.  Portion of waste stream
matching each waste code cannot be determined.

The National Emissions Inventory (NEI) contains estimates of annual
emissions for stationary and mobile sources of CAPs and HAPs.  NEI is
currently maintained by the Emission Inventory and Analysis Group (EIAG)
in EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS). The NEI
is organized into four main groupings of categories: point sources
(stationary), non-point sources (stationary), on-road sources (mobile),
and non-road sources (mobile).

The Permit Compliance System (PCS) tracks permit compliance and
enforcement status of facilities that discharge to surface waters. (
HYPERLINK http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs)
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/pcs) . For entities that have received
permits to discharge wastewater into navigable waters, PCS contains
information on permit issuance and expiration dates, how much the
company is permitted to discharge, and the actual monitoring data
showing what the company has discharged. PCS data are not directly
comparable to TRI data because PCS is a permit tracking system and not a
loadings system. Thus, PCS typically contains monthly monitoring of
pollutant concentrations and flow, and not total releases. Since the
NPDES monitoring covers only selected chemicals in the wastewater, PCS
contains a very limited set of the TRI chemicals.

Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), large quantity
generators and treatment storage and disposal facilities are required to
submit information on the generation, management, and final disposition
of RCRA-defined hazardous wastes.  Every two years, filers must report
the following information about each waste generated or managed in the
preceding year: constituent waste codes; amounts generated; on- and
off-site treatment, storage, and management; wastes received; and,
off-site shipment recipients. These Biennial Hazardous Waste Reports are
submitted by facilities to the State or EPA Regional office.  The
Biennial Reports are stored centrally in EPA’s RCRAInfo system and are
available approximately two years after the covered year.    HYPERLINK
"(http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.htm"
(http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/biennialreport/index.htm ).
BRS data do not duplicate the information contained within TRI, as: 1)
hazardous waste codes do not necessarily map to unique chemicals; 2)
quantities of specific chemicals in the wastestream cannot be
determined; and 3) reporting occurs every other year, as opposed to
annually for TRI and 4)Data are not available to the public until two
years after reporting .

Chemical Inventory Data

TRI also contains inventory data, which makes up a small portion of the
total data. The most likely alternatives for TRI inventory data are the
Tier I/II data reported under EPCRA §312. Under EPCRA §312, regulated
facilities must submit annual inventory reports of hazardous chemicals
stored on site to the state. Tier I requires reporting on broad
categories of physical hazards, while Tier II requires chemical specific
information by CAS number. The information contained on the Tier I and
Tier II reports surpasses the chemical inventory data requested on TRI
Form R in terms of the chemicals covered and level of detail. However,
there are significant difficulties associated with public access of Tier
I and Tier II data, including the lack of a nationally integrated
database, and restrictions on public access due to security concerns.

Under § 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, facilities with processes that use
or store more than a specified amount of certain flammable and toxic
substances are required to develop and implement a risk management
program and submit to EPA a summary of their program—called a Risk
Management Plan (RMP).  These plans include the pounds of each substance
that are processed or used, hazard assessments of the potential effects
of hypothetical accident scenarios, a five-year history of accidental
releases involving regulated substances at the facility, and information
about the facility’s accident prevention and emergency response
programs.  Facilities with processes that use or store more than a
threshold amount (500–20,000 pounds) of a listed chemical must file an
RMP and update their filing at specified times, including following a
significant accidental release.

Pollution Prevention Data

In addition to release/transfer and inventory data, TRI also collects
pollution prevention data from reporting facilities. Pollution
prevention data somewhat analogous to data in TRI can be found in the
National Biennial Reports (described above) and databases administered
by two state environmental agencies. While BR data provides both
qualitative and quantitative pollution prevention information, it does
not have the facility or chemical coverage directly comparable to those
data specified in TRI pollution prevention reporting requirements. BR
contains data on generation, transfer, and management of hazardous
wastes, while pollution prevention data contained in TRI includes
information on wastes or process by-products in all production phases
and media. In addition, states have come to rely on the pollution
prevention data provided to them by TRI. As a result, no state program
collects all of the pollution prevention data currently available in
TRI.

In Appendix D, data elements available from several information sources
are compared to those reported to TRI. The analysis is broken down by
the specific types of data collected under TRI.  While the table
displays sources that might appear to be substitutes for TRI, even in
combination they do not, for various reasons, adequately address the
entire scope of TRI.  For example, a given source may:

Not include all toxic chemicals covered by TRI;

Be compiled less frequently than TRI;

Not be easily accessible (or accessible at all) to the general public.

3(b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB

EPA is planning to submit a request to renew existing approved
Information Collection Requests (ICRs) for both Forms R and A to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).  Both ICRs are scheduled to
expire on January 31, 2008. Before submitting the ICRs to OMB for review
and approval, EPA is soliciting comments on specific aspects of the
proposed information collections. A Federal Register Notice will be
published to announce this renewal request.

3(c) Consultations

EPA has consulted with a large number of individuals and organizations
throughout all segments of the public in the development and continued
implementation of the TRI program. Feedback through EPA's outreach
efforts has been received from various organizations, including
environmental and public interest groups, trade associations, and
individual representatives through venues such as:

Stakeholder meetings and on-line dialogues with trade associations,
environmental and public interest groups and individual representatives
to discuss issues such as options for reporting burden reduction, and

The annual TRI National Meeting held every year and open to the public
every other year.

This feedback is continually sought and incorporated in the ongoing
evolution of the TRI Program.  Lists of organizations with which EPA has
consulted in the past few years are presented in Appendix E.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Section 313 requires annual reporting on either Form R or Form A.
Section 313(i) permits EPA to modify the reporting frequency by
rulemaking; however, EPA must first notify Congress and then delay the
initiation of such a rulemaking for at least 12 months, but no more than
24 months, from the date of the notification. In addition, EPA must
find:

...that the modification is consistent with the provisions of subsection
(h) of [§ 313] based on -

	(i)	experience from previously submitted toxic chemical release forms,

	(ii)	determinations made under paragraph (3).

Paragraph (3), in turn, provides that EPA must determine

The extent to which information relating to the proposed modification
provided on the toxic chemical release forms has been used by the
Administrator or other agencies of the federal government, states, local
governments, health professionals and the public.

The extent to which information is (i) readily available to potential
users from other sources, such as state reporting programs, and (ii)
provided to the Administrator under another federal law or through a
state program.

The extent to which the modification would impose additional and
unreasonable burdens on facilities subject to the reporting requirements
under this section.

Since TRI represents the best available multi-media database for
tracking toxic chemical releases in the United States, a change in the
reporting frequency to less than once a year could have a significant
impact on the availability of timely toxic chemical data and affect data
users, particularly at the community level.  Additionally, public
access to the most current toxic chemical release data and other waste
management information would become more difficult.

3(e) General Guidelines

This ICR adheres to the guidelines stated in the 1980 Paperwork
Reduction Act, as amended, OMB's implementing regulations, and all
applicable OMB guidance.

Although reporting facilities are required to identify the chemical for
which reports are submitted, they can claim the chemical identity as a
trade secret. A generic name must be provided as part of the information
made available to the public. EPA securely stores and maintains the true
identity of the chemical.

EPA continues to encourage submission through the internet via EPA’s
Central Data Exchange (CDX) by using the TRI-ME reporting software.  In
preparing submissions within the TRI-ME reporting software and
submitting them via the Internet, both the cost and the time required to
enter and process the data are reduced.  Also, for facilities using the
TRI-ME reporting software, the data are of higher quality, allowing EPA
to release the data to the public sooner. All these benefits apply to
Reporters utilizing the technology, regardless of whether they submit
via Form R(s) or Form A.

Small facilities (less than 10 full-time employees or equivalent) are
exempt from reporting under EPCRA § 313. The optional range reporting
provision and an alternate threshold have been promulgated that afford
burden reduction to all facilities but are particularly beneficial to
smaller facilities with small releases and wastes.

3(f) Confidentiality

Respondents may designate the specific chemical identity of a substance
as a trade secret according to EPCRA § 322. Procedures for submission
and review of trade secret claims under EPCRA § 313 are set forth in 40
CFR 350. When a facility claims the chemical identity to be a trade
secret and properly substantiates the claim, EPA will not disclose the
identity of the chemical to the public. EPA securely stores forms with
trade secret information and allows access to those documents only to
persons with Trade Secret clearance. Data made available to the public
through any means does not include trade secret information.

	3(g) Sensitive Questions

This collection does not request any sensitive information.

4	THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 	4(a) Respondents/NAICS
Codes

The reporting requirements found in EPCRA § 313 apply to owners and
operators of facilities that have 10 or more full-time employees,
manufacture or process more than 25,000 pounds or otherwise use more
than 10,000 pounds of a listed chemical, and are in the manufacturing
sector or in any of seven additional industry sectors added to the TRI
Program by EPA in 1997.  Historically these sectors were identified by
their Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes.  Beginning with
the 2006 reporting year, the TRI Program has converted from SIC codes to
NAICS codes (71 FR 32464, June 6, 2006). The full list of NAICS codes
for facilities that must report to TRI (including exemptions and/or
limitations) if all other threshold determinations are met can be found
in Appendix F.

	4(b) Information Requested

Data Items, Including Recordkeeping Requirements

Facilities reporting to the TRI report releases and other waste
management of listed chemicals on Form R. 40 CFR § 372.85 lists, in
general, the required data items, which are summarized below. Required
data items, are specified in §372.85. Form R is divided into two
sections.  In Part I, respondents report facility identification
information such as facility name and address, NAICS code, Dun and
Bradstreet (D&B) number, name of parent company and parent company D&B
number, name and address of technical contact.  In Part II, respondents
report:

Toxic Chemical Identity,

Mixture Component Identity,

Activities and Uses of the Toxic Chemical at the Facility,

Maximum Amount of the Toxic Chemical On-Site at Any Time During the
Calendar Year,

Quantity of the Toxic Chemical Entering Each Environmental Medium
On-Site,

Transfers of the Toxic Chemical in Wastes to Off-Site Locations,

On-Site Waste Treatment Methods and Efficiency, and

Source Reduction and Recycling Activities.

As mentioned above, EPA is proposing changes to the Form R and Form A
Certification Statement to standardize responses and enhance the utility
of the data.  More specifically, the changes to the forms and TRI
Reporting Forms and Instructions (RFI) described below will help the TRI
Program better determine its impact on small businesses, allow
facilities to provide more detailed information on how they estimate
their data, facilitate efficient contact with the appropriate facility
personnel, and improve understanding of the reasons behind form
revisions or withdrawals. The changes are presented below:

1) Collect small business information. EPA strives to achieve an
appropriate balance between collecting valuable TRI data and reducing
the reporting burden on regulated facilities, including small
businesses. To date, it has been a time-consuming process to assess the
impact of TRI regulatory changes on small businesses, and in some
instances, the data needed to determine whether a facility is a small
business have not been available to EPA.  By collecting small business
information about facilities directly on the TRI reporting forms, the
TRI Program will be better able to determine the impacts of potential
TRI regulatory changes on small businesses quickly and accurately.
Therefore, EPA will add a check box indicating whether the reporting
facility's parent company is a small business, as defined by the Small
Business Administration (SBA). Additionally, if the facility does not
have a parent company, the check box will indicate whether the facility,
considered together with all of its affiliates, is a small business.

2) Provide more specific "Basis of Estimate" codes (Form R only).
Facilities may currently select among four codes to indicate how they
calculate their release quantities:  the use of monitoring data (code
M), mass balance calculations (C), emission factors (E), and other
approaches (O). The addition of more specific codes in the RFI will
allow reporting facilities to provide more detailed information on the
"basis of estimate."  For example, with the proposed changes,
facilities could use a different code for continuous monitoring than for
periodic or random monitoring.  In addition, the new set of codes would
make the TRI "basis of estimate" codes comparable to the codes used by
the Canadian government, thereby making it easier to analyze and compare
data between the United States and Canada. Therefore, EPA will provide a
more extensive list of codes for "basis of estimate" in the RFI. Via
these codes, facilities will indicate the principal method used to
determine the quantities reported to the TRI Program.

3) Enhance the point of contact information (Form R and/or Form A, as
noted below). This group of changes provides efficiency gains for the
Agency and the reporting facilities. Currently, when questions arise
about a facility's data submission, the TRI Program staff may wish to
contact the facility staff to clarify the information.  In a number of
instances in the past, TRI Program staff have contacted the "Technical
Contact" listed on a facility's form and been asked to contact another
individual who prepared the form on the facility's behalf.  By adding a
field for "Form Preparer" to both Form R and Form A, the TRI Program
staff will be able to contact the appropriate individual depending on
the nature of the question or issue.  Similarly, adding a "Public
Contact" field to the Form A will provide the name of a person who can
respond to questions from the public about the Form A Certification
Statement in the same way that a person responds for Form R submissions
currently.  Finally providing an email address for the public contact on
both Form R and Form A will make it easier to contact and follow-up with
the "Public Contact" if necessary.

4) Add boxes for entering revision codes (Forms R and A).  The TRI
Program currently receives many form revisions each year, but does not
currently collect information on the reasons for the revisions.  The
new revision codes will allow both the public and the TRI Program staff
to better understand why a facility resubmitted a form.  In addition,
by analyzing the reasons for revisions, the TRI Program may be better
able to address recurring reporting issues or problems that facilities
may be facing, ultimately reducing errors and saving time for both the
Agency and the reporting facilities.  Therefore, facilities will now
report up to two codes (listed and defined in the RFIs) indicating the
main reason(s) that a form is being revised.

5) Provide a field for withdrawing a for; add boxes for entering
withdrawal codes (Forms R and A). Currently, a facility that wishes to
withdraw a previously submitted form must submit its request, including
the rationale, as a hard copy memo to the TRI Data Processing Center via
regular mail, certified mail, or overnight delivery. Adding a
"Withdrawal" field and associated code boxes for reasons for withdrawal
to the Form R and Form A will 1) streamline the withdrawal process for
facilities, 2) make it easier for EPA to automate the withdrawal process
and 3) improve the Agency’s ability to analyze the reasons for
withdrawals.

Facilities must maintain records used to provide the information
required on the Form according to 40 CFR § 372.10. Those records may
include estimation methodology and calculations, engineering reports,
inventory, incident and operating logs, and other supporting materials.
Facilities must keep a copy of each report filed for at least three
years.

		(ii) Respondent Activities

To comply with the EPCRA § 313 reporting requirements, facility staff
must:

Determine whether they meet the criteria for EPCRA § 313 reporting.
Staff will spend time becoming familiar with the definitions,
exemptions, and threshold requirements under the TRI program, reviewing
the list of TRI chemicals, and conducting preliminary threshold
determinations to determine if the facility is required to report.

First time filers must read the reporting package and become familiar
with the reporting requirements. Staff will spend time reviewing
instructions and training personnel to be able to respond to a
collection of information.

Gather data and perform calculations to provide the information required
on the form. Staff will spend time searching data sources and completing
and reviewing the information.

Maintain recordkeeping systems and mail the report to EPA and the state
in which the facility is located. Staff will spend time transmitting or
otherwise disclosing the information.

Certain suppliers of mixtures or trade name products containing
reportable substances must annually notify their customers of the
product's composition, if the customer is subject to EPCRA § 313
reporting. Staff will spend time informing customers, either by letter
or through the materials safety data sheet (MSDS) for the product.

EPA makes instructions and guidance documents available to respondents;
in addition, a toll-free hotline is available to handle general and
technical inquiries from the regulated community.

5	THE INFORMATION COLLECTED--AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION METHODOLOGY,
AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a) Agency Activities

EPA engages in many activities to fulfill the requirements of EPCRA.
These activities can be grouped in the following categories that cover
what the Agency does to assist the regulated community with compliance,
to process the data, to maintain the database, and to make the data
available.

Assistance to Reporters

Data Processing and Quality Control

Database Organization

Links to State Reporting

Making Data Available

List Revisions and Petition Reviews

Trade Secrecy Reviews

Assistance to Reporters. The Agency has operated a successful outreach
program to assist businesses in obtaining and completing both the Form R
and Form A Certification Statement. A CD-ROM containing an annually
updated reporting package is distributed directly to all TRI respondents
who reported in the prior year. This package is also made available to
potential reporters through EPA's TRI Web site and TRI Regional office
coordinators. The package contains an electronic copy of the reporting
forms with detailed instructions along with a reporting software
application that allows reporters to submit their data over the internet
or on computer diskettes. General guidance has been prepared for
estimating releases, including fourteen industry-specific guidance
documents.

EPA has established a training program designed to familiarize EPA
Regional personnel with the reporting requirements and to train them in
providing technical assistance to respondents. Using that training, the
EPA Regions have conducted and continue to conduct numerous workshops
each year to explain the reporting requirements to the regulated
community. EPA also has established a training program to teach EPCRA §
313 reporting requirements to private businesses and consultants that
wish to provide counsel on EPCRA § 313 compliance. Also, EPA operates a
toll-free hotline to answer general questions and direct potential
respondents to proper EPA personnel. A second hotline is available to
answer questions about the electronic reporting software and the
procedure for submitting and certifying data to EPA over the internet.
In addition, the Agency maintains a Web site with current
program-specific information and guidance (  HYPERLINK
http://www.epa.gov/tri).  www.epa.gov/tri).

EPA has also provided guidance for persons or organizations interested
in petitioning the agency to add or delete chemicals from the TRI list.
In addition to this guidance, EPA also convenes pre-petition meetings to
assist petitioners if they request such assistance.

Data Processing and Quality Control. Ninety-seven percent of all TRI
Form Rs and As are prepared and submitted using the Toxics Release
Inventory Made Easy (TRI-ME) reporting software.   TRI-ME is a software
application that is made available to TRI facilities for the purpose of
entering and validating their data.  This software is posted on the TRI
web-site as well as sent directly to Facilities via CD-ROM each year.
This software is installed on local desktop computers.  Facilities can
key or upload their data into TRI-ME.  TRI-ME provides reporting
guidance to help facilities determine if they need to report for
specific chemicals and to assist them in the actual reporting.   TRI-ME
also provides facilities with extensive data validation checking through
point of entry edit checks as well as a cumulative and mandatory batch
test prior to submission.  The cumulative batch test provides users with
descriptive messages and links back to the form where potential errors
exist.

After facilities have entered and validated their data in the TRI-ME
application, they have two options for submitting their data to EPA.
First, facilities can send and certify their TRI data to EPA
electronically via EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX).  Second, they
can save the data to a floppy diskette, print and sign a certification
letter and mail both items to TRI’s EPCRA Data Processing Center.

Data submitted to TRI via the Central Data Exchange (CDX) is
automatically forwarded to the TRI EPCRA Data Processing Center (DPC)
and loaded into the TRI Processing System (TRIPS) database. The TRIPS
database is located at EPA’s National Computer Center in Research
Triangle Park, NC.  For diskette submissions, the data are received at
the DPC, cataloged, scanned for viruses and loaded into the TRIPS
database.

Through the TRI State Data Exchange Network, facilities are able to
submit their data via CDX once to both EPA and the participating state
government. Upon submission to CDX a copy is simultaneously sent to
EPA’s TRIPS database and to the appropriate state via the TRI State
Data Exchange Network.  This reporting option allows facilities to
fulfill their legal obligation to report to the federal and state
entities through the sole submission of data through CDX.

TRI also allows facilities to submit data on paper forms.   When TRI
reports are submitted on paper, the information is keyed into the TRIPS
database on a PC-based wide area network (WAN). Automated data quality
checks begin at data entry; including various edit checks and the start
of standardization of some of the data fields. At this point, emphasis
is placed on identifying forms that are not completed correctly. If the
problem(s) identified prevent further processing of the form, EPA sends
a Notice of Significant Error (NOSE) to the respondent.

Unlike in the situations with paper submissions, the mandatory data
validation routines in the TRI-ME reporting application will not allow
forms to be submitted that are not completed correctly. This protection
applies to the data entry fields in the form, but cannot, of course
apply to the signature field in cases when the report submitter does not
sign the certification statement for forms submitted on diskette.

Once the reported data has entered the TRIPS database all the validation
checks that were initially run via the TRI-ME application are repeated.
However, for paper submissions, these checks will be performed for the
first time.  Forms that fail these tests are issued errors known as
Notices of Technical Error (NOTE).  These errors point out possible data
validity errors that are not technical in nature but are also not
egregious enough to prevent the form from being disseminated (see NOSE
above).  In addition, a set of data quality checks that compare the
incoming data with prior years data and various data thresholds are
performed on the data for the first time.   Further standardization of
facility identification information continues.

Upon the completion of the data validation and quality checks, Facility
Data Profile (FDP) reports are generated and made available for facility
review on the FTP website.  The reports contain an echoing back of the
data and all validation (NOTE errors) and data quality messages that
were generated after the data were loaded in the database.  Facilities
are sent an email alerting them when a report is made available, asked
to access the password-protected site and review the report.  After
review, facilities can revise their data by submitting a certified
replacement form via the TRI-ME software or by paper form submission.

In 2007 (Reporting Year 2006), TRI is introducing a web version of the
TRI-ME software which will increase the original functionality of the
TRI-ME desktop application in several areas.  First, the TRI-MEweb
application will allow users to preload their forms with prior year data
stored in an EPA-maintained database.  In addition, the application will
store work in progress data via the same on-line database, so that users
will no longer have to manage the data themselves (i.e., not have to
save the information on their hard drive).  Second, the TRI-MEweb
application will contain enhancements, including a redesigned
questionnaire, and “quick lists” that streamline reporting tasks.
Similar to tax reporting software, from which TRI-MEweb was modeled,
“quick lists” allow users to narrow down their data entry to only
the pertinent areas.  Third, new semantic data quality checks are
introduced that compare a facility’s data to prior year submissions,
EPA registry data, and ultimately, industry and similarly sized
facilities.  These comparisons will occur on-line in real time allowing
the user to review all data for possible quality concerns and make
corrections at the same time.  Fourth, similar to the existing desktop
version, the web application will allow on-line submission and
certification of the data.   And finally, among other advancements, the
application will allow true on-line revision of data by facilities.
Through this feature, facilities will be able to access previously
submitted forms, revise and recertify them in one quick and easy step.

The TRI-MEweb application will be available to a limited group,
approximately 6,000 of the 23,000 TRI facilities in calendar year 2007.
In the following year the application will be released to all
facilities.  TRI-MEweb is slated to become the sole reporting software
for TRI electronic reporting in 2009 or 2010 when the desktop version of
TRI-ME will be sunset.

Database Organization EPCRA § 313(j) requires EPA to make TRI data
available to the public through computer telecommunications and other
means. EPA has found it beneficial to undertake a variety of activities
to make the data more usable. This is due to the fact that computer
searches only retrieve data in exactly the format requested. Because
facilities report their data in a wide variety of ways, EPA has taken
steps to use consistent names for counties, use a variety of
nomenclature standards for names within the database, and to assist in
the standardization of the response data.

EPA generates a facility identification number for newly reporting
facilities at the time of data entry. This allows linkage to all years
of reports for a particular facility or location. The identification
number also allows easy retrieval of cross-year data, even when a
facility is sold or changes its name. This number has been sent to all
facilities and they are required to use it on all future submissions
submitted to the Agency. Use of the facility identification number also
facilitates data quality reviews and cross-year analysis.

Links to State Reporting Under EPCRA § 313, facilities are required to
submit forms both to EPA and the state in which they operate. For
additional quality assurance and tracking purposes, EPA provides all
states with a listing of facilities that reported to the Federal Data
Processing Center for each reporting year. This reconciliation activity
typically results in the identification of several cases where
facilities had not reported to one or the other government. Many states
then provide lists of forms to the EPA where EPA has not received
copies, and vice-versa. Both the State and EPA then contact the
facilities from which they are missing forms and request submission.
This activity has provided a critical step to assist EPA in coordinating
the data collection with the states and completing both data
repositories.

In 2003, EPA implemented the TRI State Data Exchange Network that
enabled facilities to simultaneously submit their data to EPA and their
respective state governments.   This new reporting option allowed
facilities to fulfill their legal obligation to report to the federal
and state entities through the sole submission of data through CDX.  To
utilize the TRI State Data Exchange Network, facilities have to 1) use
the TRI-ME desktop application and 2) submit their data over the
Internet to EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) and 3) be located in a
participating state.  At the same time a transmission is sent to EPA’s
TRIPS database, CDX sends the data on to participating states via the
TRI State Data Exchange Network.  The TRI State Data Exchange Network is
standards-based data network that allows the transfer of data between
states and EPA.  This capability will be sustainted in the new TRI-MEweb
application.

In 2006, EPA introduced a new flow to the TRI State Data Exchange
Network by which data submitted via diskette and paper to the TRI Data
Processing Center are also forwarded to participating states.  This
second stage of the network flow does not remove the obligation to
report to both EPA and their state government because of necessary
intervening steps such as data entry.  However, it eliminates the need
for dual data entry systems, allowing participating states to
discontinue their data entry systems.  In addition, these states no
longer need to perform the annual form reconciliation with EPA, since
they are obtaining the exact same flow of data that EPA receives from
facilities.

Making TRI Data Available. Many options are available for accessing TRI
data. For example, the annual TRI Public Data Release (PDR) includes an
overview of the most recently reported TRI data, information on trends,
and downloadable data files of all TRI reports submitted for the
reporting year.  The TRI data for Reporting Year (RY) 2005 were released
on March 22, 2007, which was earlier than ever before.  The RY 2005 PDR
includes key findings, links to the data, and a link to TRI Explorer,
one of EPA's electronic tools for TRI data analysis.

The TRI Program has also developed the electronic Facility Data Release,
e-FDR, in response to public requests to make the TRI data available as
soon as possible after the data are received by EPA.  The e-FDR is a
facility-level, form-by-form release of the TRI data, which provides an
early look at individual facility data, but which does not include the
in-depth analyses (e.g., national trend analyses) that are provided in
the PDR several months later.  The first e-FDR, for RY 2003, was
released in November 2004; the second e-FDR, for RY 2004, was released
in November 2005; and the latest e-FDR, for RY 2005, was released in
September 2006.

EPA has also developed data base tools that can be used to access the
data. One such tool, TRI Explorer, allows users to search the TRI data
by zip code, county, and state, as well as view data at the national
level.  Combined with hazard and exposure information, it serves as a
valuable tool for identifying potential chemical hazards in communities.

Using EPA’s Envirofacts, users can determine which facilities
in designated areas have reported toxic releases, including air
emissions, surface water discharges, releases to land, underground
injections, and transfers to off-site locations.  Envirofacts allows the
user to query and view data for each TRI Form R submitted by a facility.

Finally, the TRI Data Mart is a new tool that is to be released in 2007
to provide a single point of enhanced access to TRI data and analytical
tools, just some of which are currently available through TRI Explorer
or Envirofacts.  The TRI Data Mart will provide greater analytical
capabilities and be able to respond to a variety of customized data
queries.

List Revisions and Petition Reviews. The list of toxic chemicals subject
to reporting under EPCRA § 313 is subject to change. The list can be
modified by Agency-initiated reviews of chemicals or by public petition.
 EPCRA § 313(e) requires the Agency to respond to petitions within 180
days by either initiating a rulemaking to add or delete the chemical(s)
or by publishing an explanation of why the petition is denied.  In the
case of a petition submitted by a State Governor to add a chemical, if
EPA does not respond within 180 days the chemical(s) are automatically
added to the toxic chemical list.  Once a petition is received, EPA
begins an intensive review that includes chemistry and toxicity analyses
of the chemical or chemicals. Depending on the toxicity of the chemical
or chemicals, EPA's review also may include exposure and engineering
analyses. The review produces a hazard assessment that may be subjected
to an external peer review process before being used to determine if the
chemical or chemicals meet the listing criteria. If the chemical meets
the criteria for addition to the list, it is added or maintained on the
list. For petitions to delist a chemical, if the Agency determines that
there is not sufficient evidence to establish any of the criteria, then
the chemical is removed from the list.

The criteria for inclusion on the list are stated in EPCRA § 313(d)(2):
the chemical is known to or can reasonably be anticipated to cause
significant adverse acute human health effects at concentration levels
that are reasonably likely to exist beyond facility site boundaries as a
result of continuous, or frequently recurring, releases; the chemical is
known to cause or can reasonably be anticipated to cause in humans
cancer or teratogenic effects, or serious or irreversible reproductive
dysfunctions, neurological disorders, heritable genetic mutations or
other chronic health effects; or the chemical is known to cause or can
reasonably be anticipated to cause a significant adverse effect on the
environment because of its toxicity, its toxicity and persistence in the
environment, or its toxicity and tendency to bioaccumulate in the
environment. EPA may list chemicals as a category or add individual
chemicals that meet the EPCRA § 313(d)(2) criteria.

Trade Secrecy Reviews. Respondents claiming a chemical identity as a
trade secret must include substantiation. Each year TRI receives
reporting forms with the trade secret box checked but no accompanying
substantiation form. In those cases, EPA treats the trade secret claim
as a mistake, and notifies the submitter. In many of these cases, the
trade secret claim was not intended and no substantiation is necessary.
In other cases, however, EPA receives completed trade secret claims.
For more information on Trade Secrecy reviews, including the costs to
EPA, see the ICR for the Trade Secrecy Rule for EPCRA (EPA #1428, OMB
#2050-0078).

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

EPA continues to encourage Form R and A submissions through the Internet
via EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) and the interactive,
intelligent, user-friendly software, "Toxics Release Inventory Made Easy
Software (TRI-ME)" This software asks the user simple, straightforward
questions to help the user determine if the facility is subject to TRI
reporting. TRI-ME has greatly reduced data quality errors and therefore,
reduced the likelihood of a facility being in violation of the reporting
requirements, or having to subsequently submit revisions. In the last
five years TRI-ME usage has increased. Note that 97 percent (66 percent
CDX and 31 percent diskette) of submissions were received electronically
for the 2005 reporting year.

A potentially even more helpful development is the program’s efforts
to create an innovative on-line application called TRI-MEweb.  This
online tool will have significant new features to further help reduce
reporting burden, improve data quality, and reduce errors in the same
way that TRI-ME has done historically.  Facilities will be able to go
on-line and have their forms pre-populated with prior year data from the
actual EPA database.  Work is continuing on the TRI-MEweb application
and the TRI Program releases the software in Reporting Year 2007.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

EPCRA § 313 (b)(1)(A) provides that facilities with less than 10
full-time employees (or equivalent) are not required to report. In
addition, EPA has taken several steps to minimize the burden for covered
small businesses. A range reporting option was added to the February 16,
1988 final rule (53 FR 4500) that codified the EPCRA § 313 reporting
requirements. Range reporting was the preferred option from the
Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis to provide burden reduction for
small businesses. Range reporting provides an option for releases of
less than 1,000 pounds to be recorded as a code representing one of
three ranges, 1 to 10 pounds, 11 to 499 pounds, or 500 to 999 pounds,
rather than as a specific estimate of the release amount. The benefit is
not, however, limited to small businesses. Range reporting is not
permitted on Form Rs for PBT chemicals.

In addition, in response to a petition from the Small Business
Administration, EPA has promulgated the alternate threshold (November
30, 1994, 59 FR 61488), manifested in Form A reporting, as discussed in
Section 1(b). Although any reporting facility meeting the criteria may
use the alternate threshold, it is thought that this alternate threshold
will be most advantageous to small entities. See the Form A ICR
Supporting Statement for more details.

5(d) Collection Schedule

Facilities must report their information on a calendar-year basis, and
submit the Form R or Form A to EPA by July 1 each year. On average, EPA
has released the national TRI data set to the public approximately ten
months after the annual reporting deadline. In response to public
concerns about shortening the time frame for release of TRI information,
EPA is encouraging facilities to submit revised reports sooner, and
combining a series of automated data quality operations. The Agency
expects these measures will help it to meet the ultimate goal of
releasing data in the year of submission. Also, it is important to note
that EPA's national database is just one avenue of access to the TRI
information. Each state also makes its data available to the public, and
most states are able to make their data available prior to EPA's release
of the national database. For example, nearly half of the states release
their state's TRI database within four months of the TRI reporting
deadline.

ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

This information collection activity imposes burden and cost on certain
facilities affected by EPCRA § 313 reporting requirements.  It also
imposes costs on EPA to process and make available the data collected
and stored in the Toxics Release Inventory.  The following sections
present the derivation of Form R respondent burden and cost as well as
Agency burden and cost. For TRI reporters, estimates of average Form R
reporting burden per respondent are presented.  These unit burden
estimates are then combined with appropriate wage rates to develop unit
costs. Total Form R respondent burden and costs are estimated by
combining the universe of reporting forms and facilities with estimates
of unit burden and cost. This universe of reporting forms and facilities
is based on reporting in RY2005, adjusted to account for the predicted
impacts of the TRI Burden Reduction Rule and proposed changes. When
estimating Reporter Burden, the submission media is assumed to be 100%
paper, reflecting the most conservative case The combined total number
of forms and facilities (i.e., respondents) is hereafter referred to as
the ICR Universe.  The Form R burden and cost associated with the new
data elements and revised instructions are presented separately in
alternate tables and then accounted for in the bottom-line burden and
cost estimates (highlighted).

OMB last approved this Information Collection request on March 3, 2006
with an expiration date of January 31, 2008.  The approved ICR reflected
a Form R respondent reporting burden of 3,746,590 hours and $170.5MM. In
this ICR Renewal, the effect of the TRI Burden Reduction Rule is
expected to continue to reduce overall burden due to increased From A
eligibility (i.e., number of Form Rs decreased; number of Form As
increased) with total respondent burden and cost of Form R reporting
projected at 3,215,715 hours and $160.73MM. Further, the TRI program is
proposing to add data elements and revise instructions on both reporting
forms.  The added data elements and revised instructions are estimated
to increase the total Form R respondent burden and cost for Form R
reporting to 3,219,564 hours and $160.87MM, respectively.

For Agency burden, estimates of fixed costs associated with rent for the
EPCRA reporting center, development costs for data access tools,
compliance assistance measures, and other activities and expenses are
presented. Variable costs, dependent on the number of Form Rs processed,
are also calculated.  In Agency burden estimates, the FY2005
distribution of submission media (paper, diskette, CDX on-line) is
assumed to be the same over the course of the ICR period.

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

This section presents the burden of this information collection activity
to Form R respondents in terms of the time required for facility
personnel to perform the activities outlined in section 3 of this
document. These burden estimates are based on previous ICRs and economic
analyses, respondent experience as reflected in comments to EPA and
other parties, best professional judgment and information acquired
through site visits and telephone interviews.

The burden to respondents is estimated for Form R requirements
(including compliance determination and supplier notification) and
petitions. Average respondent burden estimates are developed and then
multiplied by the number of facilities or reports (as appropriate) to
estimate the total burden to respondents. Therefore, the resultant
burden estimates used by EPA are national average values. As with any
average, some facilities will be above the average, and others will be
below it. Large, complex facilities may require more than the average
time to comply. However, there are many other facilities subject to the
rule that are not large or complex. Overall, EPA considers these burden
estimates reasonably representative of national averages.

One factor to note is that reporter burden has been impacted over time
by technology advances.  For example, in 2003, EPA implemented the TRI
State Data Exchange Network that enabled facilities in participating
states to submit their data simultaneously via CDX to EPA and to their
state government. This new reporting option allowed facilities to
fulfill their legal obligation to report to the federal and state
entities through the sole submission of data to EPA via CDX. In
addition, EPA has developed interactive, intelligent, user-friendly
software called "Toxics Release Inventory Made Easy Software (TRI-ME),"
that asks the user simple, straightforward questions to help the user
determine if the facility is subject to TRI reporting. TRI-ME has
greatly reduced data quality errors and therefore, reduced the
likelihood of a facility being in violation of the reporting
requirements, or having to subsequently submit corrections.
Additionally,   SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 EPA expects that TRI-ME has resulted
in a burden reduction in the activities of Form R Completion and
Recordkeeping/Submission.  As a conservative estimate of reporting
burden, however, reporter burden savings associated with TRI-ME are not
reflected in this ICR.

Form R Respondent Requirements

The tasks associated with TRI reporting during the period of this ICR
include the following:

Compliance Determination: Facility staff must determine whether they
meet the criteria for EPCTA § 313 reporting. This task includes the
time required to become familiar with the definitions, exemptions, and
threshold requirements under the TRI program, to review the list of TRI
chemicals, and to conduct preliminary threshold determinations to
determine if the facility is required to report.

Rule Familiarization: Facility staff that is reporting under EPCRA §
313 for the first time must read the reporting package and become
familiar with the reporting requirements. This includes the time needed
to review instructions, and the time needed to train personnel to be
able to respond to a collection of information.

Calculations and Report Completion: Facility staff must gather data and
perform calculations to provide the information required on the form.
This task includes the time required to search data sources and the time
to complete and review the information.

Recordkeeping and Submission: Facility staff must maintain recordkeeping
systems and submit the report to EPA and the state in which the facility
is located. This task includes the time required to transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.

Supplier Notification: Certain suppliers of mixtures or trade name
products containing reportable substances must annually notify their
customers of the product's composition, if the customer is subject to
EPCRA § 313 reporting. This task includes the time required to inform
customers, either by letter or through the materials safety data sheet
(MSDS) for the product.

This ICR reflects two types of changes from the last TRI Form R ICR.
First, due to the TRI Burden Reduction Rule promulgated December 18,
2006, the total number of Form Rs filed by facilities is expected to be
reduced. With expanded Form A eligibility, overall burden as well as
total Form R reporting burden is expected to be reduced.  The unit
burden associated with filling out Form R, however, remains unchanged.
The change in the number of Form Rs filed is discussed in section 6(d).
Second, EPA is proposing to add data elements and revise instructions
for Form R and A that would that improve the consistency and granularity
of TRI data via details of standardized responses.  The addition of data
elements will increase the unit burden associated with filling out Form
R but will not affect the number of Form Rs submitted. Note that tables
below are often presented in (a) and (b) versions to reflect the base
case (incorporating the Burden Reduction Rule) and then the proposed
changes.

The remainder of this section discusses the unit burden hour estimates
for each specific industry activity. Activities are organized into two
categories: those performed at the facility level and those that must be
performed for each Form R submitted. The estimated hours required to
complete each activity are summarized in Table 2a by labor category. The
estimated hours required to respond to the new data elements and
instructions are presented in Table 2b.  Tables 3a and 3b present the
annual estimated burden hours according to type of facility for
facilities that submit 3 Form Rs each before and after the addition of
the new data elements and instructions, respectively. These estimates
represent the burden on a "typical" facility, although many facilities
file fewer Form Rs and some file more. The total annual burden to all
facilities is discussed in section 6(d). Note that the total annual
burden estimate is based on unit reporting burdens multiplied by the
total number of facilities or forms (as appropriate); it is not based on
the "typical" facility burdens shown in Table 3a and 3b.

Table 2a

Reporter Average Annual Burden Hour Estimate by Activity

Category	Activity	Management	Technical	Clerical	Total Hours

Facility

Level	Compliance Determination - all facilities	1	3	0	4

	Rule Familiarization - first-time filers	12	22.5	0	34.5

	Supplier Notification	0	7	17	24

Per

Form R	Calculations and Report Completion - first-time filers - PBTs
20.3	43.9	2.7	66.8

	Calculations and Report Completion - first-time filers - Non-PBTs	20.5
44.4	2.8	67.6

	Calculations and Report Completion - subsequent year filers - PBTs	14.1
30.4	1.9	46.3

	Calculations and Report Completion - subsequent year filers - Non-PBTs
7.5	16.1	1.0	24.6

	Recordkeeping/Submission -all filers	0	4	1	5

Table 2b

Incremental Annual Burden Increase by Activity

Activity	Management	Technical	Clerical	Total

Minutes	Total Hours

Per Form R

	Calculations and Report Completion - first-time filers - PBTs and
Non-PBTs	5.0	10.8	2.6	18.4	0.3

Check box on form to indicate if parent company or facility and all of
its affiliates is a small business	4.7	10.0	0.7	15.4	0.3

Enhance “basis of estimate” codes	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Include field for “form preparer” 	0.4	0.8	2.0	3.1	0.1

Include code boxes on form to indicate reason(s)s for revision or
withdrawal, if a form is being resubmitted	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0

Calculations and Report Completion - subsequent year filers - PBTs and
Non-PBTs	0.5	1.0	1.8	3.3	0.1

Check box on form to indicate if parent company or facility and all of
its affiliates is a small business	0.1	0.3	0.4	0.8	0.0

Enhance “basis of estimate” codes	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Include field for “form preparer” 	0.4	0.8	1.3	2.4	0.0

Include code boxes on form to indicate reason(s)s for revision or
withdrawal, if a form is being resubmitted	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0

Notes

1) The derivation of reporting burden estimates associated with the new
data elements and revised reporting instructions follows the methodology
used in the Economic Analysis for the TRI Reporting Forms Modification
Rule, July 2005.

2) N/A designates a change that does not apply to form completion
activities

Table 3a

Reporter Typical Annual Burden Hour Estimate

per Facility in Each Subsequent Year

Type of Facility	Average Annual Hours Burden

	Management	Technical	Clerical	Total Hours

Compliance Determination Only	1	3	0	4

Compliance Determination and 3 PBT Form Rs	43.3	106.1	8.6	157.9

Compliance Determination and 3 Non-PBT Form Rs	23.6	63.2	6.1	92.9

Compliance Determination, 3 PBT Form Rs, and Supplier Notification	43.3
113.1	25.6	181.9

Compliance Determination, 3 Non-PBT Form Rs, and Supplier Notification
23.6	70.2	23.1	116.9

Note: Components do not add across due to rounding for display purposes

Table 3b

Reporter Typical Annual Burden Hour Estimate

per Facility in Each Subsequent Year,

Including New Data Elements

Type of Facility	Average Annual Hours Burden

	Management	Technical	Clerical	Total Hours

Compliance Determination Only	1.0	3.0	0.0	4.0

Compliance Determination and 3 PBT Form Rs	43.3	106.1	8.6	158.1

Compliance Determination and 3 Non-PBT Form Rs	23.7	63.3	6.1	93.1

Compliance Determination, 3 PBT Form Rs, and Supplier Notification	43.3
113.1	25.6	182.1

Compliance Determination, 3 Non-PBT Form Rs, and Supplier Notification
23.7	70.3	23.1	117.1

Notes

1) The derivation of reporting burden estimates associated with the new
data elements and revised reporting instructions follows the methodology
used in the Economic Analysis for the TRI Reporting Forms Modification
Rule, July 2005.

2) Components do not add across due to rounding for display purposes

	Activities Performed at the Facility Level

Compliance Determination - A facility must report under EPCRA § 313 if
it: (1) is within a NAICS code or industry group corresponding to the
statutory requirement covered by the TRI program; (2) has ten or more
full-time equivalent (FTE) employees; and (3) manufactures, processes or
otherwise uses any of the listed chemicals above the threshold
quantities. All facilities must determine if they meet these criteria.
Most facilities incur little burden to make determinations regarding the
first two criteria. Many facilities require time for the management and
technical staff to determine the types of chemicals used at the facility
and whether these chemicals are manufactured, processed, or otherwise
used above threshold levels, in order to make the determination under
the third criterion.

To make the determination, a facility will typically (1) review whether
it manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses any of the chemicals in
any quantity, and then (2) determine whether it exceeds a threshold
quantity. In many cases, particularly at facilities that do not
manufacture, process or otherwise use any listed chemicals, this first
activity should be completed within a relatively short period of time.
The second activity may involve a more detailed set of calculations.

The average burden for compliance determination is estimated to be 4
hours per facility per year. This reflects the overall average time
requirements of facilities ranging from those that do not have listed
chemicals on-site, to those that have very large or small quantities of
listed chemicals (i.e., are significantly above or below the thresholds
and thus do not require a significant amount of time to make the
determination), or have not had significant changes from the prior year,
to facilities that have more complex and time-consuming compliance
determination requirements.

Rule Familiarization - If a facility will be reporting under the EPCRA
§ 313 requirements for the first time, facility staff must review and
comprehend the reporting requirements, as well as EPA procedures for
submitting, revising, and withdrawing forms. At a minimum, this effort
will involve reading the instructions to the Toxics Chemical Release
Inventory Reporting Form R, however, it may also involve consulting EPA
guidance documents, attending a training course, and/or calling the
EPCRA technical hotline. The cost associated with rule familiarization
occurs only in the first year that a facility becomes subject to
reporting. In subsequent years, staff are assumed to be familiar with
the requirements that apply to their facility. Thus, the facility would
no longer bear this cost. Similarly, facilities that already report on
one or more existing TRI chemicals will not incur a rule familiarization
cost for each additional chemical.

It is estimated that facilities reporting under EPCRA § 313 for the
first time will need to make a one-time expenditure of 34.5 hours for
rule familiarization. This burden estimate is comprised of 12 hours of
management time and 22.5 hours of technical time.

Supplier Notification - Certain suppliers of mixtures or trade name
products containing reportable substances must annually notify their
customers of the product's composition if the customer is subject to
EPCRA § 313 reporting or sells the product to another company that is
subject to reporting. Facilities may be subject to the supplier
notification requirements even if they are not covered by the EPCRA §
313 reporting requirements. For example, a facility with less than ten
full-time employees or that does not meet reporting thresholds may still
be required to notify certain customers. Supplier notification is
required so that customers can make threshold determinations and
complete reports for their own facilities. A letter identifying the
chemical by name and CAS number and indicating its percentage by weight
in the formulation can provide the notification. It can also be provided
on the materials safety data sheet (MSDS) for the product. On average,
approximately 24 hours per TRI reporting facility are estimated for
compliance with this requirement.

Activities Specific to Completing the Form R

Calculations and Report Completion (Existing Data Elements) - Facilities
that determine they must report under EPCRA § 313 will incur additional
burden to retrieve, process, review, and transcribe information to
complete each report. Most of the time required for form completion is
to calculate releases, transfers, and other waste management practices;
relatively little time is required to copy information to the form. The
facility must complete one Form R for each listed chemical it is
reporting to TRI.

The burden is estimated to average 46.4 hours (46.3 without changes) per
PBT Form R and 24.7 hours (24.6 without changes) per Non-PBT Form R for
on-going, annual reporting. This estimate is based on the most recent
inventory approved by OMB on March 3, 2006, which includes a downward
adjustment of approximately 2% to reflect burden savings associated with
the TRI Reporting Forms Modification Rule. To complete the Form R,
facilities will need to verify and update data, review previous
calculations, and modify the information reported on the previous year's
Form R. For a facility completing 3 forms in subsequent years, this
results in an average estimated burden of 158.1 hours (157.9 without
changes) per PBT Form R and 93.1 hours (92.9 without changes) per
Non-PBT Form R. The estimate for first year calculations and report
completion is 67.1 hours (66.8 without changes) per Form R for a PBT
chemical and 67.9 hours (67.6 without changes) per Form R for a Non-PBT
chemical.

Calculations and Report Completion (New Data Elements and Revised
Instructions) - the new data elements proposed by EPA will add minimal
burden to the form as follows:

Check box indicating whether the parent company or the facility, when
considered together with all of its affiliates, is a small business –
The facility will answer "yes" or "no" to whether the parent company (or
the facility when considered together with all of its affiliates)
identified in response to Part I, Section 5.1 is a small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA).  The form preparer
may need to consult with the treasurer or financial officer of the
company. In the first year, this data element is estimated to take 4.7
minutes of management time, 10 minutes of technical time and 0.7 minutes
of clerical time to complete.  In subsequent years, it is estimated to
take 0.1 minutes of management time, 0.3 minutes of technical time and
0.4 minutes of clerical time to complete.

More specific “basis of estimate” codes – Facilities are currently
required to enter a basis of estimate code for each release and
otherwise managed waste estimate (Sections 5 and 6).  Given that
becoming familiar with these codes is considered to be part of Rule
Familiarization, this minor change in the list of codes, requiring
facilities to verify that the code is unchanged or look up a new code,
is negligible, and assumed to be zero.

Field for “form preparer”- The facility will enter the name,
telephone number (including area code), and e-mail address of the person
filling out the Form R if this information is different from that in the
section on Technical Contact.  In the first year, this data element is
estimated to take 0.4 minutes of management time, 0.8 minutes of
technical time and 2.0 minutes of clerical time to complete.  In
subsequent years, it is estimated to take 0.4 minutes of management
time, 0.8 minutes of technical time and 1.3 minutes of clerical time to
complete.

Code boxes indicating that the form is a revision or withdrawal as well
as the reason for revision or withdrawal. For a revision or withdrawal,
the facility will indicate with up to two codes, the reason(s) for
revision or withdrawal in the code box. Given that revision and
withdrawal procedures are considered to be part of Rule Familiarization,
these procedural changes, which apply to a subset of the ICR Universe,
are negligible, and assumed to be zero.

Recordkeeping and Submission - After a facility has completed the form,
it incurs additional burden for recordkeeping and submission associated
with filing a Form R report. Recordkeeping allows a facility to use the
information in making calculations in subsequent years and as
documentation in the event it receives a compliance audit. Facilities
must maintain records used to provide the information required on the
Form R; those records may include estimation methodology and
calculations, engineering reports, inventory, incident and operating
logs, and other supporting materials. Recordkeeping and submission are
estimated to take an average of 5 hours per Form R, which works out to
15 hours for a facility filing 3 Form Rs.

Average Burden per Respondent

The estimated burden per respondent depends on the type of respondent
and the number of reports submitted. For example, the burden for
facilities that only perform compliance determination is estimated to
average 4 hours per facility. For facilities required to file 3 Form Rs,
but not required to comply with supplier notification, the burden is
estimated to be 158.1 hours (157.9 without changes) if all 3 reports are
for PBT chemicals and 93.1 hours (92.9 without changes) if all 3 reports
are for Non-PBT chemicals. For facilities submitting 3 Form Rs that are
also required to comply with supplier notification, the average burden
is estimated at 182.1 hours (181.9 without changes) and 117.1 hours
(116.9 without changes) per facility for PBT chemicals and Non-PBT
chemicals, respectively.

Petitions

The activities required to prepare and file a petition are listed below.
Included is a discussion of the burden associated with each activity.
The time needed to complete these activities is presented in Table 4.
The total annual burden for all petitions is estimated in section 6(d).

Table 4

Reporter Average Burden Hour Estimate per Petition

Activity	Average Annual Hours Burden	Total Hours Burden

	Management	Technical	Clerical

	1. Read EPA Policy and Guidance	4	0	0	4

2. Plan Activities	2	1	0	3

3. Prepare Literature Search	2	7	0	9

4. Conduct Literature Search	0	48	0	48

5. Process, Review, and Focus Information	12	74	0	86

6. Write Petition	4	8	6	18

7. Review and Edit petition	4	8	2	14

8. Submit to EPA and File	0	0	3	3

Total Hours per Petition	28	146	11	185

These estimates assume prior knowledge by the respondent of the issues
prompting the listing of specific chemicals. An additional assumption
was made that the petitioners had no in-house library facilities and,
consequently, that they would have to use a university library or
similar facility. Based upon the experience of the previous reporting
years, fewer than 5 petitions per year are expected. Following are
specific descriptions of the activities associated with preparing and
filing a petition for chemical listing or de-listing.

Read EPA guidance document and consult with EPA. The reading and
interpretation of EPA policy and guidance notice is conducted by
management and involves four hours per petition.

Plan activities. Management and technical personnel conduct the planning
activities jointly. Three hours per petition are required to complete
these activities.

Prepare literature search. Both management and technical personnel,
involving about nine hours, would conduct this activity.

Conduct literature search. The technical staff member conducts this
activity, which requires about 48 hours per petition.

Process, review, and focus information. Both technical and management
personnel, involving a total of 86 hours per petition, would complete
this activity.

Write petition. A combination of technical, management, and clerical
personnel would complete this activity. About 18 hours are required per
petition to complete the writing.

Review and edit petition. A combination of management, technical, and
clerical personnel would be involved in this activity, requiring a total
of 14 hours per petition.

Submit petition to EPA and file. The clerical personnel, requiring
approximately three hours per petition, would do these activities.

Total respondent burden. The total burden of submitting a petition is
estimated to average 185 hours.

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs

The cost to respondents is based on the time needed to complete the
tasks listed in section 6(a) and the hourly cost of labor at appropriate
levels (loaded labor rates). There are no specific capital and operation
and maintenance costs associated directly with this information
collection activity. There may be some small additional costs for
mailing and supplies. Total annual costs for all facilities are
discussed in section 6(d).

	(i) Estimating Labor Costs

Form R Requirements

To determine the per-facility costs for typical respondents, the unit
burden hour estimates for compliance activities are multiplied by fully
loaded hourly rates for the appropriate categories of labor conducting
these activities. Loaded hourly rates are the product of wages,
benefits, and overhead. Hourly wage rates are divided into three
categories: managerial, technical, and clerical. Average wage and salary
data for these categories are obtained from the Employer

Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) report from the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) for all goods-producing, private industries. The
additional cost of benefits, such as paid leave and insurance, is also
derived from information provided in the ECEC report. Loading factors
for benefits are calculated separately for managerial, technical, and
clerical labor by dividing the benefits percentage of total compensation
by the wage percentage of total compensation. Based on information
provided by the chemical industry and chemical industry trade
associations, an additional loading factor of 17 percent is applied for
general overhead. This loading factor is added to the benefits loading
factor, then applied to the base wage. The new wage rates are calculated
using current data on salaries and benefits for these three labor
categories. The fully loaded 2006 hourly wage rates are shown in Table
5.

Table 5

Loaded Hourly Wage Rates by Labor Category

2006

Labor Category	Average Hourly Wage	Benefits

(% wages)	Overhead

(% wages)	Loaded Hourly Rate

Managerial	$35.54 	43.88%	17%	$57.18

Technical	$31.51 	40.85%	17%	$49.74

Clerical	$15.39 	44.51%	17%	$24.86

Average respondent costs are summarized by activity in Table 6a for the
current Form R and in Table 6b for the new data elements and
instructions only. Average costs per facility are summarized before and
after the addition of the new data elements and instructions,
respectively, in Table 7a and 7b. The average cost per facility for
those completing only compliance determination is $206. Based on the
burden hour estimates in Tables 3a and 3b and the loaded hourly rates in
Table 5, the average subsequent year cost for a facility performing
compliance determination and submitting 3 PBT forms, is $7,972 ($7,966
without changes). The average subsequent year cost for a facility
performing compliance determination and submitting 3 Non-PBT forms, is
$4,653 ($4,647 without changes). For facilities that must also comply
with supplier notification, the average subsequent year cost increases
to $8,742 ($8,736 without changes) for PBT reports and $5,424 ($5,418
without changes) for Non-PBT reports.Table 6a

Reporter Average Annual Cost Estimate by Activity

Category	Activity	Management	Technical	Clerical	Total Cost

Facility

Level	Compliance Determination - all facilities	$57	$149	$0	$206

	Rule Familiarization - first-time filers	$686	$1,119	$0	$1,805

	Supplier Notification	$0	$348	$423	$771

Per

Form R	Calculations and Report Completion - first-time filers – PBTs
$1,160	$2,182	$67	$3,409

	Calculations and Report Completion - first-time filers- Non-PBTs	$1,172
$2,206	$69	$3,447

	Calculations and Report Completion - subsequent year filers – PBTs
$806	$1,510	$46	$2,362

	Calculations and Report Completion - subsequent year filers - Non-PBTs
$432	$799	$25	$1,256

	Recordkeeping/Submission - all filers	$0	$199	$25	$224

Table 6b

Reporter Average Incremental Annual Cost Increase by Activity

Activity	Management	Technical	Clerical	Total Cost

Per Form R

Calculations and Report Completion - first-time filers - PBTs and
Non-PBTs	$4.81	$8.91	$1.09	$14.81

Check box on form to indicate if parent company or facility and all of
its affiliates is a small business	$4.47	$8.29	$0.27	$13.04

Enhance “basis of estimate” codes	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Include field for “form preparer” 	$0.34	$0.62	$0.81	$1.77

Include code boxes on form to indicate reason(s)s for revision or
withdrawal, if a form is being resubmitted	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00

Calculations and Report Completion - subsequent year filers - PBTs and
Non-PBTs	$0.45	$0.83	$0.74	$2.02

Check box on form to indicate if parent company or facility and all of
its affiliates is a small business	$0.11	$0.21	$0.18	$0.50

Enhance “basis of estimate” codes	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A

Include field for “form preparer” 	$0.34	$0.62	$0.55	$1.51

Include code boxes on form to indicate reason(s)s for revision or
withdrawal, if a form is being resubmitted	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00	$0.00

Table 7a

Typical Reporter Average Annual Cost Estimate per Facility in Each
Subsequent Year

Type of Facility	Management	Technical	Clerical	Total Cost

Compliance Determination Only	$57	$149	$0	$206

Compliance Determination and 3 Form Rs - PBTs	$2,476	$5,277	$213	$7,966

Compliance Determination and 3 Form Rs - Non-PBTs	$1,352	$3,144	$151
$4,647

Compliance Determination, 3 Form Rs and Supplier Notification - PBTs
$2,476	$5,625	$635	$8,736

Compliance Determination, 3 Form Rs and Supplier Notification - Non-PBTs
$1,352	$3,493	$573	$5,418

Table 7b

Typical Reporter Average Annual Cost Estimate per Facility in Each
Subsequent Year, Including New Data Elements

Type of Facility	Management	Technical	Clerical	Total Cost

Compliance Determination Only	$57	$149	$0	$206

Compliance Determination and 3 Form Rs - PBTs	$2,477	$5,280	$215	$7,972

Compliance Determination and 3 Form Rs - Non-PBTs	$1,353	$3,147	$153
$4,653

Compliance Determination, 3 Form Rs and Supplier Notification - PBTs
$2,477	$5,628	$637	$8,742

Compliance Determination, 3 Form Rs and Supplier Notification - Non-PBTs
$1,353	$3,495	$575	$5,423

Petitions

The primary cost to respondents for developing and submitting petitions
under EPCRA § 313 (e) will be the labor costs associated with the
activities outlined in section 6(a) of this document. These costs are
the product of the labor hours expended to prepare the average petition,
the wage rates for the employees involved in preparing the petitions,
and the average number of petitions submitted annually. Based on the
burden hour estimates in Table 4 and the loaded hourly rates in Table 5,
the cost estimate for the preparation of a petition is presented in
Table 8.

Table 8

Reporter Average Cost per Petition

Activity	Management	Technical	Clerical	Total Cost

1. Read EPA Policy and Guidance	$229	$0	$0	$229

2. Plan Activities	$114	$50	$0	$164

3. Prepare Literature Search	$114	$348	$0	$463

4. Conduct Literature Search	$0	$2,388	$0	$2,388

5. Process, Review, and Focus Information	$686	$3,681	$0	$4,367

6. Write Petition	$229	$398	$149	$776

7. Review and Edit petition	$229	$398	$50	$676

8. Submit to EPA and File	$0	$0	$75	$75

Total Cost per Petition	$1,601	$7,263	$274	$9,138

Based upon prior years of implementation of EPCRA § 313, it is assumed
that fewer than 5 petitions will continue to be submitted annually (in
recent years, only 1 or 2 petitions have been submitted each year). The
total average unit cost to prepare a petition is estimated to be $9,138.

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

This section estimates the burden and costs to EPA to process Form R
reports based on information characterizing the resources used in
previous years. EPA incurs burden and costs for five categories of
activities: data processing, outreach and training, information
dissemination, policy and petitions, and compliance and enforcement.
These activities are described in detail in Table 9.

Table 9

EPA Activities for TRI Reporting Forms

Category	Description

Data Processing	Data entry – entering the information into the
database, microfilming or microfiching the reports, and filing all
reports;

Data quality – reviewing reports for completeness, errors, and
inconsistencies; making inquiries to resolve discrepancies; and
reentering corrected data;

Magnetic media support – distributing computer program for electronic
submissions; creation and updating of intelligent reporting software;

Programming and operating the EPA mainframe and local area network;

Data analysis – developing tools to use TRI data, analyzing data to
support EPA needs, and preparing data for use by others; and

EPCRA Reporting Center fixed costs – rent and form storage.

Outreach and Training	Providing EPCRA technical hotline, technical
guidance, industry outreach, and regional, state, and public training;
and

Responding to requests for information through TRI User Support.

Information Dissemination	Public data release, Internet, data access
tools.

Policy and Petitions	Analysis to support petitions, list revisions,
trade secret claims, and rulemakings.

Compliance and Enforcement	Technical assistance, compliance outreach,
facility inspections, issuance of cases and creation of Supplemental
Environmental Projects (SEPs).

The estimate of EPA burden and costs are separated into a fixed
component and a variable component; EPA staff commitments (as measured
by full time equivalents, or FTEs) are reported in total. Activities and
expenses that are not greatly affected by marginal changes in report
quantities are reported as fixed costs. These activities and expenses
include rent for the EPCRA reporting center, development costs for data
access tools, compliance assistance measures, and other activities and
expenses listed above. The variable component is the amount that varies
depending on the number of forms. The variable unit costs are estimated
as total data processing costs divided by the total number of reports
processed in the 2005 reporting year. Table 10 details the costs
associated with the activities of Table 9 in total and for each Form R
and Form A.

Table 10

Agency Burden and Cost*

Category	Annual Cost	Form R	Form A

Data Processing (Fixed Cost)

Forms Processing (Variable Cost)	$ 4.25 MM

$ 0.45 MM	$ 3.70 MM

$ 0.39 MM	$ 0.55 MM

$ 0.06 MM

Outreach and Training	$ 1.10 MM	$ 0.96 MM	$ 0.14 MM

Information Dissemination 	$ 0.81 MM	$ 0.70 MM	$ 0.11 MM

Policy and Petitions	$ 1.08 MM	$ 0.94 MM	$ 0.14 MM

Compliance and Enforcement	$ 0.37 MM	$ 0.32 MM	$ 0.05 MM

 Totals	$8.06 MM	$ 7.01 MM	$ 1.05 MM

*This estimate includes all Agency activities related to all TRI work,
reflecting a 50 FTE effort with 13 FTE from Region Office Support. The
portion of FTE attributed to Form A activities is approximately 87% of
the total, or 44 FTE.

Note that total costs are allocated to Form R and A in same proportion
as the number of Form Rs and Form As in the ICR Universe (66,751 Form
Rs; 10,255 Form A. See explanation of these counts in Section 6(d)).

Table 11 summarizes the fixed and variable costs associated with
reporting under the EPCRA § 313 requirements by Form type and by
submission media.

Table 11

Agency Data Processing Costs

	Form R	Form A

	Paper 	CDX 	Disk 	Paper 	CDX 	Disk

Variable

Cost Per Form	$24.79	$6.26	$3.01	$18.42	$6.26	$3.01

Fixed Costs	$3.7MM	$.55MM

Average Cost per Form	$61.25	$59.63

As discussed in the following section, approximately 67,000 Form R
reports are expected to be filed per year following the implementation
of the TRI Burden Reduction Rule. Thus, the total annual burden to EPA
associated with Form Rs is estimated to be $6.62MM in fixed costs,
$.39MM in variable costs, and 44 FTEs (or 91,520 hours at $5.1 million
in loaded labor costs).  These costs reflect the burden to conduct the
EPA activities described above plus an additional (variable) cost for
each form processed depending on the submission media. The analysis
assumes that, on average, the fixed FTE requirement is met by EPA
employees at the general pay scale grade GS-12, step 8 (at a loaded
salary of $115,289) using a loading factor of 1.4 that includes wages
and benefits but not overhead which is included in the fixed costs
portion of the Agency burden estimate.

	6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs

Estimated Total Annual Burden for All Respondents

This section presents the total annual burden hours for all respondents
including both those complying with EPCRA § 313 and submitting
petitions. The total burden hours for all respondents to comply with
EPCRA § 313 are estimated by multiplying the unit burden estimate for
each compliance activity by the relevant units: facilities or reports.
As a result of the TRI Burden Reduction Rule, facilities reporting on
chemicals that were previously ineligible for Form A (PBTs or above the
non-PBT eligibility threshold) may now be able to file a Form A instead
of a Form R for one of more of their chemicals. Table 16 shows the
assumed universe of TRI reporters and forms for both the Form R and Form
A ICRs and the effect of changes in Form A eligibility. This universe is
based on reporting in RY2005, adjusted to account for the impact that
TRI Burden Reduction rule is expected to have on Form R reporting.

It is estimated that approximately 11,780 Form Rs will be replaced by
Form As, assuming all who are eligible for the simplified Form A take
advantage of it. Additionally, a very small number of Form
As—47—will no longer be eligible to be filed as a Form A and will be
replaced by Form R(s) due to the new definition of the Annual Reportable
Amount.  The estimates of newly eligible Form As, though based on FY2005
results, are still only projections, as the TRI Burden Reduction Rule
was not in effect that year. See Table 12 for additional details.

Table 12

ICR Universe of TRI Facilities and Forms

	Form R	Form A

	Number of Chemicals (Same as Number of Forms)	Number of Chemicals
(Note: Average of 2.2 Chemicals per Form)

RY2005 TRI Universe

  Number of Facilities	21,154	4,713

  Number of PBT Chemicals	15,645	221

Number of Non-PBT     Chemicals	62,891	10,754

Newly Eligible for Form A

Number of Facilities	6,620

Number of PBT Chemicals	2,375

Number of Non-PBT Chemicals	9,457

Newly In-Eligible for Form A

Number of Facilities	35

Number of Non-PBT Chemicals	47

RY 2008 ICR Universe

Number of Facilities	19,441	10,235

Number of PBT Chemicals	13,270	2,397

Number of Non-PBT Chemicals	53,481	20,164

RY 2008 ICR Universe of Forms

Form R = 78,536-11,832 +47 = 66,751

Form A4 = [(10776+11,832)/2.2]-[47/1.1]=10,235

Notes:

1. In RY2005 the TRI Burden Reduction Rule was not in place (i.e., no
eligibility for reporting PBT’s on Form A) but Form As were
incorrectly filed for 22 PBT chemicals.

2. The number of facilities cannot simply be added or subtracted across
columns or down rows due to the fact that any given facility may be
filing both Form Rs and a Form A; also note that the categories of
chemicals reported on each form are not mutually exclusive, with overlap
of those switching (by chemical) from Form R to A and visa versa. 3)
These projections assume that the number of facilities filing Form A is
an adequate proxy for the number of Form A Certifications.

4.  To count number of Form As the number of chemicals has to be divided
by number of chemicals per form. For the main group of Form R chemicals
being moved to reports on a Form A, the average count of chemicals per
Form A is 2.2; for the small group of chemicals that are no longer
eligible for Form A and moved to a Form R, the average count of
chemicals per form is 1.1.

While the number of facilities estimated to perform compliance
determination (201,785) each year remains the same, the number of
facilities performing report completion and recordkeeping activities is
reduced to approximately 20,000 facilities for approximately 67,000 Form
Rs. As a result, 181,785 facilities are estimated to complete only the

compliance determination procedure. An additional 20,000 facilities are
expected to complete compliance determination, form completion and
recordkeeping, and of these, 3,734 facilities are expected to also
conduct supplier notification. Of the 20,000 facilities that file Form
Rs, it is expected that 535 facilities will be reporting to TRI for the
first-time as they exceed applicable thresholds, and that these
facilities will file 912 of the Form Rs. Tables 13a and 13b present the
total annual burden hours based on these estimates for the current Form
R and for the new data elements and instructions, respectively.

Table 13a

Reporter Total Annual Burden Hour Estimate For Form R

Activity	Hours

Per Form/

Per Facility	Number of Facilities	Number of Reports	Total Burden

Compliance Determination - all facilities subject to EPCRA § 313	4
201,785	N/A	807,140

Rule Familiarization - first-time filers only	34.5	535	N/A	18,458

Form R Completion - reports from first-time filers - PBTs	66.8	N/A	250
16,706

Form R Completion - reports from first-time filers - Non-PBTs	67.6	N/A
662	44,773

Form R Completion - reports from subsequent year filers - PBTs	46.3	N/A
13,020	603,025

Form R Completion - reports from subsequent year filers - Non-PBTs	24.6
N/A	52,819	1,301,319

Recordkeeping/Submission - all reports	5	N/A	66,751	333,753

Supplier Notification	24	3,734	N/A	89,616

Total	 	 	 	3,214,790

Table 13b

Reporter Incremental Annual Burden Hour Increase

For Form R

Activity	Hours

Per Form/

Per Facility	Number of Reports	Total Burden

Form R Completion - reports from first-time filers - PBT and Non-PBT

	Check box on form to indicate if parent company or facility and all of
its affiliates is a small business	0.256	912	233.3

Enhance “basis of estimate” codes	NA	912	NA

Include field for “form preparer” 	0.051	912	46.6

Include code boxes on form to indicate reason(s)s for revision or
withdrawal, if a form is being resubmitted	0.000	912	0.0

Form R Completion - reports from subsequent year filers - PBT and
Non-PBT

	Check box on form to indicate if parent company or facility and all of
its affiliates is a small business	0.014	65,839	892.5

Enhance “basis of estimate” codes	NA	65,839	NA

Include field for “form preparer” 	0.041	65,839	2677.4

Include code boxes on form to indicate reason(s)s for revision or
withdrawal, if a form is being resubmitted	0.000	65,839	0

Total

	3,849.8

Note that the derivation of reporting burden estimates associated with
the new data elements and revised reporting instructions follows the
methodology used in the Economic Analysis for the TRI Reporting Forms
Modification Rule, July 2005.

The annual hours burden for all petitions is calculated by multiplying
the per-petition burden estimate for each activity by the expected
number of petitions per year. A total of 5 petitions are estimated to be
filed annually. Table 14 presents the total annual hours burden for all

petitions. The total annual hours burden for all petitions submitted is
expected to be 925 hours.

Table 14

Reporter Total Annual Burden Hour Estimate For All Petitions (5
petitions per year)

Activity	Annual Hours Burden

	Management	Technical	Clerical	Total Hours

1. Read EPA Policy and Guidance	20	0	0	20

2. Plan Activities	10	5	0	15

3. Prepare Literature Search	10	35	0	45

4. Conduct Literature Search	0	240	0	240

5. Process, Review, and Focus Information	60	370	0	430

6. Write Petition	20	40	30	90

7. Review and Edit petition	20	40	10	70

8. Submit to EPA and File	0	0	15	15

Total Annual Hours Burden	140	730	55	925

Estimated Total Annual Cost for All Respondents

The total annual reporting cost for all respondent facilities is
determined by multiplying the unit cost estimates by the relevant units
(facilities or reports) for each compliance activity. Table 15a and 15b
present the total annual reporting cost for the current Form R and for
the new data elements and instructions, respectively.

Table 15a

Reporter Total Annual Cost Estimate For Form R

(2006 dollars)

Activity	Cost	Number of Facilities	Number of Reports	Total Cost

Compliance Determination - all facilities subject to EPCRA § 313
$206.40	201,785	N/A	$41,648,424

Rule Familiarization - first-time filers	$1,805.31	535	N/A	$965,841

Form R Completion - reports from first-time filers - PBTs	$3,408.02	N/A
250	$852,005

Form R Completion - reports from first-time filers - Non-PBTs	$3,447.41
N/A	662	$2,282,189

Form R Completion - reports from subsequent year filers - PBTs	$2,362.55
N/A	13,020	$30,760,430

Form R Completion - reports from subsequent year filers - Non-PBTs
$1,256.28	N/A	52,819	$66,355,021

Recordkeeping/Submission - all reports	$223.82	N/A	66,751	$14,940,112

Supplier Notification	$770.80	3,734	N/A	$2,878,167

Annual Total	 	 	 	$160,682,189

Table 15b

Reporter Incremental Annual Cost Increase For Form R

 (2006 dollars)

Activity	Incremental Cost	Number of Reports	Total Burden

Form R Completion - reports from first-time filers - PBT and Non-PBT

	Check box on form to indicate if parent company or facility and all of
its affiliates is a small business	$13.04	912	$11,889

Enhance “basis of estimate” codes	NA	912	NA

Include field for “form preparer” 	$1.77	912	$1,616

Include check boxes on form to indicate reason(s)s for revision or
withdrawal, if a form is being resubmitted	$0.00	912	$0

Form R Completion - reports from subsequent year filers - PBT and
Non-PBT

	Check box on form to indicate if parent company or facility and all of
its affiliates is a small business	$0.50	65,839	$33,175

Enhance “basis of estimate” codes	NA	65,839	NA

Include field for “form preparer” 	$1.51	65,839	$99,525

Include code boxes on form to indicate reason(s)s for revision or
withdrawal, if a form is being resubmitted	$0.00	65,839	$0

Total

	$146,205

The annual cost for all petitions is calculated by multiplying the
per-petition cost for each activity by the expected number of petitions
per year. A total of 5 petitions are assumed to be filed annually. The
total annual cost for all petitions submitted is shown in Table 16.

Table 16

Reporter Total Annual Cost Estimate for All Petitions

(2006 dollars)

Activity	Management	Technical	Clerical	Total Cost

1. Read EPA Policy and Guidance	$1,144	$0	$0	$1,144

2. Plan Activities	$572	$249	$0	$821

3. Prepare Literature Search	$572	$1,741	$0	$2,313

4. Conduct Literature Search	$0	$11,938	$0	$11,938

5. Process, Review, and Focus Information	$3,431	$18,404	$0	$21,835

6. Write Petition	$1,144	$1,990	$746	$3,879

7. Review and Edit petition	$1,144	$1,990	$249	$3,382

8. Submit to EPA and File	$0	$0	$373	$373

Total Cost per Petition	$8,005	$36,310	$1,367	$45,685

	6(e) Bottom-Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

This section presents the total burden and cost to the regulated
industry to comply with the information collection requirements under
EPCRA § 313 and under § 6607 of the PPA, as well as the cost to EPA to
process Form Rs annually.

		(i) Respondent Tally

The previous tables have detailed the total burden and cost for
complying with EPCRA § 313 and for submitting a petition independently.
Table 17 presents the total burden and cost for both activities.

Table 17

Total Annual Respondent Burden and Cost

Activity	Annual Burden Hours	Annual Costs

(millions of 2006 dollars)

Current Form Rs	3,214,790	$160.68

Petitions	925 	$0.05

SubTotal	3,215,715 	$160.73

New Data Elements and Instructions	3,850 	$0.15

Grand Total	3,219,564 	$160.88

The Agency Tally

The total annual burden to EPA associated with Form Rs is estimated to
be $6.62 MM in fixed costs, $.39 MM in variable costs, and 44 FTEs (or
91,520 hours at $5.1 million in loaded labor costs).  These costs
reflect the burden to conduct the EPA activities described above plus an
additional (variable) cost for each form processed depending on the
submission media.

Variations in the Annual Bottom Line

Significant variation in the annual respondent reporting/recordkeeping
burden and cost is not expected over the course of the clearance period.

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden

As a result of OMB's March 3, 2006 approval of the last ICR renewal,
OMB's inventory reflects 82,000 responses, 3,746,590 hours and $170.5MM
for this information collection. In this ICR Renewal, the effect of the
TRI Burden Reduction Rule is expected to continue to reduce overall
burden due to increased From A eligibility (i.e., number of Form Rs
decreased; number of Form As increased) with total respondent burden and
cost of Form R reporting projected at 3,215,715 hours and $160.73MM
Further, the TRI program is proposing to add data elements and revise
instructions on both reporting forms.  The added data elements and
revised instructions are estimated to increase the total respondent
burden and cost for Form R reporting to 3,219,564 hours and $160.87MM.

Table 18

Recent Changes in TRI Form R Burden

Activity – Explanation	TRI Form R ICR ( EPA # 1363, OMB #2070-0093)

	Change	Total

	# Responses	Burden Hours	Total Responses	Total Burden Hours

1997 Baseline	—	—	90,362	5,538,727

RY1997 Program Change - Industry Expansion: This rule added 7 new
industries to the list of industries subject to TRI reporting beginning
in RY98.	39,033	2,467,463	129,395	8,006,190

1999 Adjustment - Form R Correction Worksheet: This adjustment revised
the number of responses to be more consistent with actual reporting
levels. However, it did not correct for overestimation of expected
reporting from the Industry Expansion rule.	(13,226)	(665,666)	116,169
7,340,524

RY1999 Program Change - PBT Rule: This rule lowered reporting thresholds
for certain PBT chemicals, and added other PBT chemicals at lower
thresholds beginning in RY00.	19,990	1,485,411	136,159	8,825,935

RY2000 Program Change - Lead Rule: This rule lowered reporting
thresholds for lead and lead compounds beginning in RY01.	9,813	786,169
145,972	9,612,104

January 2003 Form R ICR Renewal: This request incorporated accounting
adjustments to reflect actual number of responses.	(57,855)	(4,045,540)
88,117	5,566,564

October 2003 Form R ICR Renewal: This request reflects actual number of
responses and accounts for a lower subsequent year reporting burden for
non-PBT chemicals.	(4,117)	(1,677,812)	84,000	3,888,752

May 2005 Form R ICR Renewal: This request reflects actual number of
responses.	(2,000)	(91,413)	82,000	3,797,339

RY2005 Program Change - TRI Reporting Forms Modification Rule: This rule
eliminates certain data elements and simplifies others beginning in
RY2005.	—	(50,749)	82,000	3,746,590

RY2006 Program Change – TRI Burden Reduction Rule: This rule expands
non-PBT chemical eligibility for Form A and, for the first time, allows
limited use of Form A for PBT chemicals. (As an interim revision to ICR
inventory)	(15,000) 	(402,298)	67,000	3,344,292

RY2006 Program Change – TRI Burden Reduction Rule: This rule expands
non-PBT chemical eligibility for Form A and, for the first time, allows
limited use of Form A for PBT chemicals. (As implemented by this ICR)
---	 (128,577)1	67,000	3,215,715

New Data Elements and Revised Instructions:  The proposed additions and
revisions improve and enhance the data as well as standardize the
information collected	---	3,850	67,000	3,219,564

CURRENT ICR UNIVERSE PROJECTION	—	—	67,000	3,219,564

Note

1 This difference calculated from the last revision based on Burden
Reduction Rule adjustments in December 2006. The difference in burden
between this ICR and the last ICR is (530,875) hours.

6(g) Burden Statement (To appear on Collection Instrument)

The annual public burden related to the Form R for form completion and
recordkeeping, which is approved under OMB Control No. 2070-0093, is
estimated to average 51.4 hours per response (51.3 without changes) for
PBT chemicals and 29.7 hours (29.6 without changes) for Non PBT
chemicals. There is additional burden associated with rule
familiarization, compliance determination and supplier notification as
described in Table 2a. Burden is defined as the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain,
or disclose or provide information to or for a federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information. 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 are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of
the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques,
EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-TRI-2007-0355, which is available for online viewing at
www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Office of Environmental
Information Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West, Room
3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C.  The EPA Docket
Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal holidays.  The telephone number for the
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Office
of Environmental Information Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. An electronic
version of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov.  This
site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index
listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When
in the system, select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number
identified above.  Also, you can send comments to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for
EPA. Please include the EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-TRI-2007-0355 and OMB
control number 2070-0093 in any correspondence.

The completed forms should be submitted in accordance with the
instructions accompanying the form, or as specified in the corresponding
regulation.

REFERENCES

Certain references cited are available in EPA docket # OPPTS-400104;
other references are readily available.

Arbuckle, J. Gordon, et al., 1993. Environmental Law Handbook, Twelfth
Edition. Government Institutes, Inc., Rockland MD.

Memorandum from J. Karnes to Brian Muehling (EPA/OTS) on Updating of
Unit Labor Costs to Reflect Inflation and Industry Comments for CAIR,
Centaur Associates Inc. May 28, 1987.

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. County Business
Patterns - 1997. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1999.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employer Costs for
Employee Compensation – September 2006. U.S. Department of Labor,
Washington, D.C. 2006.

U.S. EPA, 1999. "Economic Analysis of the Final Rule to Modify Reporting
of Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxic Chemicals Under EPCRA § 313".
Economics, Exposure and Technology Division, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics. October 1999.

U.S. EPA, 1986. Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of
1986, § 313 (42 U.S.C.A. § 1023.   HYPERLINK
http://www.epa.gov/tri/lawsandregs/index.htm.
http://www.epa.gov/tri/lawsandregs/index.htm.

U.S. EPA, 1990. Pollution Prevention Act (42 U.S.C.A. § 13101-13109.
U.S. EPA   HYPERLINK http://www.epa.gov/tri/lawsandregs/index.htm.
http://www.epa.gov/tri/lawsandregs/index.htm.

U.S. EPA, . 40 CFR Part 372 Toxic Chemical Release Reporting: Community
Right-to-Know.   HYPERLINK http://www.epa.gov/tri/lawsandregs/index.htm.
 http://www.epa.gov/tri/lawsandregs/index.htm.

APPENDIX A

BLANK FORM R

APPENDIX B

REPORTING FORM INSTRUCTIONS

ASSOCIATED WITH FORM CHANGES

Appendix B: Reporting Form Instructions Associated with Form Changes

This appendix presents the instructions that will accompany the proposed
Form revisions and additions by data element.

PART 1 FACILITY IDENTIFICATION INFORMATION

4.4 Public Contact

Enter the name and telephone number (including area code) of a person
who can respond to questions from the public about the report.  You
should also enter an email address for this person.  If you choose to
designate the same person as both the technical and the public contact,
you may enter “Same as Section 4.3” in this space.   This contact
person does not have to be the same person who prepares the report or
signs the certification statement and does not necessarily need to be
someone at the location of the reporting facility.  If your facility
does not have a public contact, provide the technical contact name,
telephone number, and email address in the appropriate public contact
fields.

4.5 Form Preparer

Enter the name, telephone number (including area code), and email
address of the person filling out the Form R.   EPA encourages
facilities to provide an email address for the Form Preparer since this
individual will then be able to receive important program updates and
email notifications when a facility's Facility Data Profile (FDP) is
available for review.  The form preparer does not have to be the same
person as the Technical Contact or as the person who signs the
certification statement and does not necessarily need to be someone at
the location of the reporting facility.  If you choose to designate the
same person as both the Technical Contact and the Form Preparer, you may
enter "Same as Section 4.3" in this space.

5.3  Is the parent company or if no parent company, is the facility and
all of its affiliates considered together a small business as defined by
the Small Business Administration (SBA)?

Answer "yes" or "no" to whether the parent company or in those instances
where there is no parent company (and NA has been entered in 5.1), the
facility and all of its affiliates considered together would qualify as
a small business as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA).
In other words, even when there is no parent, the answer to this
question should reflect the small business status of the entire company
in those circumstances where the facility does not comprise the entire
company.  Assistance with this question may be obtained from the
treasurer or financial officer of the company.  You may also want to
refer to the SBA website at: www.sba.gov.

PART II CHEMICAL SPECIFIC INFORMATION

Basis of Estimate Instructions (Applies to Form R only)

 tc \l3 "Section 5 Column B: Basis of Estimate

For each release and otherwise managed waste estimate (sections 5 & 6),
you are required to indicate the principal method used to determine the
amount of release and otherwise managed waste reported.  You should
enter a letter code that identifies the method that applies to the
largest portion of the total estimated release and otherwise managed
waste quantity.

The codes are as follows:

M1-	Estimate is based on chemical-specific continuous emission
monitoring data or measurements for the EPCRA  XE "EPCRA"   § 313
chemical.

M2-Estimate is based on chemical-specific periodic and/or random
monitoring, including source testing data or measurements for the EPCRA
XE "EPCRA"   § 313 chemical.

C-	Estimate is based on mass balance calculations, such as calculation
of the amount of the EPCRA  XE "EPCRA"   § 313 chemical in wastes
entering and leaving process equipment.

E1-	Estimate is based on chemical-specific published emission factors,
such as those relating release quantity to through-put (e.g., air
emission factors) for the EPCRA  XE "EPCRA"   § 313 chemical.

E2-	Estimate is based on chemical-specific site-specific emission
factors, such as those relating release quantity to through-put (e.g.,
air emission factors) for the EPCRA  XE "EPCRA"   § 313 chemical.

O1-	Estimate is based on non-chemical specific published emission
factors, such as that relating release quantity of fluids per equipment
type (e.g., synthetic organic chemical industry emission factors).  XE
"EPCRA"

O2-	Estimate is based on non-chemical specific site-specific emission
factors, such as that relating release quantity of fluids per equipment
type.   XE "EPCRA"

O3-	Estimate is based on parametric emissions monitoring of surrogate
parameters.  Parameters that are followed up for operation control
purposes (like temperature, conductivity, pressure and pH) can also have
good correlation to the actual emission levels. A combination of
surrogates may result in a strong relationship to the parameter to be
monitored.

O4-	Estimate is based on published emission models that are generally
based on physico-chemical principles and empirical relationships.  The
most familiar model is USEPA’s TANKS 4.09D developed for estimating
organic emissions from storage tanks.

O5-	Estimate is based on other approaches such as engineering
calculations (e.g., estimating volatilization using published
mathematical formulas) or best engineering judgment.  This would include
applying estimated removal efficiency to a treatment, even if the
composition of the waste before treatment was fully identified through
monitoring data.

For example, if 40% of stack emissions of the reported EPCRA  XE "EPCRA"
  § 313 chemical were derived using source testing  data, 30% by mass
balance, and 30% by chemical-specific emission factors, you should enter
the code letter “M2” for periodic and/or random monitoring.

If the monitoring data, mass balance, or emission factor used to
estimate the release is not specific to the EPCRA  XE "EPCRA"   § 313
chemical being reported, the form should identify the estimate as based
on appropriate basis of estimation codes (O1 – O5).

If a mass balance calculation yields the flow rate of a waste, but the
quantity of reported EPCRA  XE "EPCRA"   § 313 chemical in the waste is
based on solubility data, you should report “O5” because
“engineering calculations” were used as the basis of estimate of the
quantity of the EPCRA  XE "EPCRA"   § 313  chemical in the waste.

If the concentration of the EPCRA  XE "EPCRA"   § 313 chemical in the
waste was measured by continuous emissions monitoring equipment and the
flow rate of the waste was determined by mass balance, then the primary
basis of the estimate should be “monitoring” (M1). Even though a
mass balance calculation also contributed to the estimate,
“monitoring” should be indicated because monitoring data were used
to estimate the concentration of the waste.

Mass balance (C) should only be indicated if it is directly used to
calculate the mass (weight) of EPCRA  XE "EPCRA"   § 313 chemical
released.  Monitoring data should be indicated as the basis of estimate
only if the EPCRA  XE "EPCRA"   § 313 chemical concentration is
measured in the waste being released into the environment.  Monitoring
data should not be indicated, for example, if the monitoring data relate
to a concentration of the EPCRA  XE "EPCRA"   § 313 chemical in other
process streams within the facility.

It is important to realize that the accuracy and proficiency of release