­
1­
Note
From:
Cody
Rice,
EETD/
EPAB
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics
DATE:
January
20,
2004
TO:
Amy
Newman,
OEI/
OIAA/
EAD/
ASB
RE:
Terms
of
Clearance
for
TRI
ICR
Renewal
This
memo
provides
additional
information
on
the
origins
of
the
revised
burden
hour
estimates
for
subsequent
year
Form
R
Calculations/
Form
Completion
and
Form
A
Calculations/
Certification
that
were
negotiated
by
OIAA
management
and
OMB.
Since
the
unit
burden
hour
estimates
used
in
the
final
clearance
for
the
2004
TRI
ICRs
bear
little
resemblance
to
the
estimates
in
the
supporting
statements
based
on
the
full
set
of
respondent
data,
this
memo
attempts
to
explain
the
discrepancies.

In
brief,
OIAA
management
agreed
to
a
compromise
with
OMB
on
the
burden
estimates
to
obtain
ICR
clearances.
This
compromise
lowered
the
burden
hour
estimates
for
subsequent
year,
non­
PBT
chemical
reporting
on
Form
R
and
Form
A.
All
other
burden
hour
estimates
were
unchanged.
OIAA
management
also
agreed
that
EPA
should
not
take
any
credit
for
the
burden
reduction
attributable
to
the
TRI­
ME
reporting
software.
The
following
sections
explain
the
derivation
of
burden
hour
estimates:

°
Subsequent
Year
Form
R
Calculations/
Form
Completion
for
non­
PBT
chemicals
OIAA
management
and
OMB
negotiated
an
estimate
of
25.2
hours
for
subsequent
year
Form
R
Calculations/
Form
Completion.
This
revised
estimate
only
applies
to
non­
PBT
chemical
reporting.
This
compares
to
a
prior
estimate
of
47.1
hours
per
form,
and
a
revised
estimate
in
the
ICR
renewal
of
14.5
hours
based
on
respondent
data
from
180
facilities
(
EPA
2002).

The
estimate
of
25.2
hours
is
based
on
the
average
of
facility
per
form
averages
from
the
RTI
surveys
in
Reporting
Year
1998
(
RTI
1999a,
1999b).
Initially,
OMB
argued
that
these
data
from
18
respondents
represented
the
most
recent
data
on
respondent
burden.
However,
OMB
dropped
this
line
of
reasoning
when
I
pointed
out
that
we
also
had
99
observations
for
RY01
from
API
(
API
2002)
and
17
total
observations
from
RY00
and
RY01
from
our
contacts
with
TRI­
ME
users.
If
we
were
to
base
the
estimate
on
all
observations
from
RY98
onward,
the
average
"
per
Form
R"
burden
would
be
estimated
at
12.5
hours
per
form.
OMB
did
not
like
this
result.
Apparently,
as
with
other
recent
initiatives,
OMB
is
outcome­
oriented.

The
total
burden
estimate
reflects
25.2
hours
per
non­
PBT
Form
R
,
and
an
additional
5
hours
for
Recordkeeping/
Submission.
­
2­
°
Subsequent
Year
Form
R
Calculations/
Form
Completion
for
PBT
chemicals
OIAA
management
and
OMB
agreed
to
retain
the
estimate
of
47.1
hours
for
subsequent
year
Form
R
Calculations/
Form
Completion
for
PBT
chemical
reports.
This
is
the
same
as
the
prior
estimate
for
Form
R
Calculations/
Form
Completion,
and
higher
than
the
revised
estimate
in
the
ICR
supporting
statement
of
14.5
hours.

In
previous
analyses,
EPA
has
argued
that
the
activities
of
reporting
on
PBT
and
non­
PBT
chemicals
are
similar
enough
that
the
same
burden
hour
estimate
should
be
used.
OMB
was
persuaded
by
comments
from
trade
associations
that
the
special
conditions
of
PBT
reporting
(
no
de
minimis
exemption,
no
range
reporting)
create
higher
burden
for
PBT
reporting.
Because
the
available
burden
hour
data
did
not
specifically
address
whether
reporting
was
for
PBT
or
non­
PBT
chemicals,
OIAA
management
agreed
to
leave
the
subsequent
year
burden
estimate
for
PBT
chemicals
unchanged.
This
affects
about
20
percent
of
Form
Rs.

This
creates
the
appearance
of
a
rather
large
relative
difference
in
the
burden
of
reporting
a
PBT
chemical
versus
a
non­
PBT
chemical
(
47.1
hours
vs.
25.2)
hours
which
is
not
supported
by
data.
In
fact,
the
API
data
(
which
include
both
subsequent
year
PBT
reporting
and
first
year
reporting
on
lead
and
lead
compounds)
indicate
a
burden
of
10.1
hours
per
Form
R
(
API
2002).

The
total
burden
estimate
reflects
47.1
hours
per
PBT
Form
R,
and
an
additional
5
hours
for
Recordkeeping/
Submission.

°
Subsequent
Year
Form
A
Calculations/
Certification
OIAA
management
and
OMB
agreed
to
re­
estimate
subsequent
year
Form
A
Calculation/
Certification
burden
based
on
the
historical
assumption
that
calculations
for
a
Form
A
take
approximately
64
percent
of
the
time
of
calculations
for
the
Form
R
(
EPA
1994).
This
resulted
in
an
estimate
of
16.2
hours
per
chemical
for
the
Form
A.
This
compares
to
a
prior
estimate
of
30.2
hours
per
chemical,
and
a
revised
estimate
in
the
ICR
supporting
statement
of
9.3
hours.

After
adding
in
burden
estimates
for
Recordkeeping/
Submission
(
3
hours)
and
Form
Completion
(
1.4
hours),
the
total
for
a
facility
filing
a
Form
A
for
a
single
chemical
would
be
20.6
hours.
Unlike
the
estimate
in
the
ICR
supporting
statement,
the
revised
estimate
is
not
corroborated
by
data
from
reporting
facilities
(
EPA
2002).

The
total
burden
estimate
reflects
16.2
hours
per
Form
A,
and
an
additional
3
hours
for
Recordkeeping/
Submission
and
1.4
hours
for
Form
Completion.
­
3­
°
TRI­
Made
Easy
OIAA
management
and
OMB
agreed
not
to
claim
any
burden
reduction
for
the
85
to
90
percent
of
forms
filed
using
the
TRI­
ME
software.
Based
on
responses
from
facilities
that
tested
TRI­
ME
in
reporting
year
2000
and
facilities
that
used
TRI­
ME
in
2001,
EPA
had
estimated
that
TRI­
ME
reduces
burden
by
15
percent
in
the
activities
of
Form
R
Completion
and
Recordkeeping/
Submission
and
Form
A
Calculations/
Certification
and
Recordkeeping/
Submission.

The
total
burden
estimate
reflects
no
burden
reduction
attributable
to
TRI­
ME.

Conclusion
The
burden
hour
estimates
negotiated
by
OIAA
management
and
OMB
primarily
reflect
expediency
rather
than
information
quality.
Although
the
negotiated
burden
estimates
are
a
somewhat
better
reflection
of
actual
respondent
burden,
adopting
these
estimates
ignores
most
of
a
fairly
substantial
data
set
(
EPA
2002,
2003)
and
a
statistical
analysis
of
these
data
(
Abt
2003).
Furthermore,
the
estimates
from
the
ICR
supporting
statements
were
subject
to
public
comment
and
an
internal
peer
review.
It
is
my
hope
that
estimates
that
are
primarily
data­
driven
can
be
adopted
in
the
next
ICR
renewal.

In
the
interim,
analysts
using
these
negotiated
estimates
should
be
aware
of
potential
pitfalls
in
future
efforts
to
characterize
the
burden
of
TRI
reporting.
For
example,
these
estimates
introduce
an
assumed
relationship
in
the
burden
ratio
between
PBT
and
non­
PBT
reporting.
Although
based
on
a
weak
assumption,
this
ratio
may
drive
decisions
about
the
relative
merit
of
burden
reduction
that
affects
PBT
versus
non­
PBT
reporting.
Also,
future
efforts
to
estimate
burden
reduction
attributable
to
TRI­
ME
or
other
efforts
may
be
confounded
by
an
artificially
high
baseline
based
on
these
negotiated
estimates.

Following
is
a
table
that
summarizes
the
major
changes
in
estimates
of
subsequent
year
reporting
burden
from
supporting
statements
for
the
ICR
renewals.
(
None
of
the
estimates
for
first­
year
reporting
were
changed.)
­
4­
TRI
Burden
Hour
Estimates
Activity
Hours
per
year
Comments
Existing
Estimate
Change
Revised
Estimate
Subsequent
Years
of
Reporting
Facility
Compliance
Determination
4
0
4
No
change.

Form
R
Non­
PBT
chemicals
Calculations/
Form
Completion
47.1
­
21.9
25.2
Based
on
data
from
18
facilities
in
RY98.

Recordkeeping/
Submission
5
0
5
No
change.

Form
R
PBT
chemicals
Calculations/
Form
Completion
47.1
0
47.1
No
change
from
existing
estimate,
but
assumes
relative
difference
between
PBT
and
non­
PBT
reporting.

Recordkeeping/
Submission
5
0
5
No
change.

Form
A
Calculations/
Certification
30.2
­
14
16.2
Revised
based
on
assumptions
about
relative
burden
of
Form
R
vs.
A.

Recordkeeping/
Submission
3
0
3
No
change.
Form
Completion
1.4
0
1.4
Note:
No
additional
burden
reduction
for
TRI­
ME
software.
­
5­
REFERENCES
Abt
Associates.
.
Memo
from
Bill
Rhodes
and
Susan
Day
to
Cody
Rice
(
USEPA/
OEI)
re:
Estimation
of
TRI
Reporting
Burden,
September
23,
2003.

American
Petroleum
Institute.
Comments
on
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
for
Toxic
Chemical
Release
Reporting.
EPA
ICR
No.
1363.12,
OMB
No.
2070­
0093,
September
6,
2002.

Research
Triangle
Institute/
Center
for
Economics
Research,
Memo
from
Smita
Brunnermeier,
et
al
to
Joe
Callahan
(
USEPA/
OPPT),
Subject:
Informal
Survey
Results,
May
7,
1999a.

Research
Triangle
Institute/
Center
for
Economics
Research,
Memo
from
Smita
Brunnermeier,
et
al
to
Joe
Callahan
(
USEPA/
OPPT),
Subject:
Formal
Survey
Results,
June
15,
1999b.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Estimates
of
Burden
Hours
for
Economic
Analyses
of
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program.
June
10,
2002.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
in
Support
of
Final
Rulemaking
under
Section
313
of
Title
III
of
the
Superfund
Amendments
and
Reauthorization
Act
of
1996.
Prepared
for
Office
of
Toxic
Substances
by
ICF.
Inc.
EPA
Contract
No.
68­
02­
4240.
Task
Order
No.
3­
3.
February
1988.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
of
the
EPCRA
Section
313
Alternate
Threshold
Final
Rule,
November
18,
1994.

U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Note
from
Cody
Rice
to
Judith
Kendall
re:
Terms
of
Clearance
for
TRI
ICR
Renewal.
September
24,
2003.
