January
24,
2000
Statement
Supporting
the
Renewal
of
the
Information
Collection
Procedure
for
Title
III
Trade
Secrecy
Regulations
1.
Identification
of
the
Information
Collection
1
(
a)
Trade
Secret
Claims
for
Community
Right­
to­
Know
and
Emergency
Planning
(
EPCRA
Section
322)
­
EPA
No.
1428.05
1
(
b)
Short
Characterization
This
information
collection
request
pertains
to
trade
secrecy
claims
submitted
under
Section
322
of
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act
of
1986
(
EPCRA),
also
known
as
Title
III
of
SARA,
the
Superfund
Amendments
and
Reauthorization
Act.
Title
III
contains
provisions
requiring
facilities
to
report
to
State
and
local
authorities,
and
EPA,
the
presence,
use
and
release
of
extremely
hazardous
substances
(
described
in
Sections
302
and
304)
and
hazardous
and
toxic
chemicals
(
described
in
Sections
311,
312
and
313
respectively).
Section
322
of
Title
III
allows
a
facility
to
withhold
the
specific
chemical
identity
from
these
Title
III
reports
if
the
facility
asserts
a
claim
of
trade
secrecy
for
that
chemical
identity.
The
provision
establishes
the
requirements
and
procedures
that
facilities
must
follow
to
request
trade
secrecy
treatment
of
chemical
identities,
as
well
as
the
procedures
for
submitting
public
petitions
to
the
Agency
for
review
of
the
"
sufficiency"
of
trade
secrecy
claims.

Trade
secrecy
protection
is
provided
for
specific
chemical
identities
contained
in
reports
submitted
under
each
of
the
following
Title
III
sections:

o
303
(
d)(
2)
Facility
notification
of
changes
that
have
or
are
about
to
occur.

o
303
(
d)(
3)
Local
Emergency
Planning
Committee
(
LEPC)
requests
for
facility
information
to
develop
or
implement
emergency
plans.

o
311
Material
Safety
Data
Sheets
(
MSDSs)
submitted
by
facilities,
or
lists
of
those
chemicals
submitted
in
place
of
the
MSDSs.

o
312
Tier
II
emergency
and
hazardous
chemical
inventory
forms.

o
313
Toxic
chemical
release
inventory
forms.

Section
322
requires
that
facilities
requesting
trade
secrecy
protection
submit
to
EPA,
in
conjunction
with
their
Title
III
report,
an
explanation
showing
that
their
claim
for
the
chemical
identity
meets
the
four
statutory
criteria
of
trade
secrecy
enumerated
in
subsection
(
b)
of
that
provision.
2
January
24,
2000
Facility
owners
and
operators
submit
trade
secrecy
claims
only
to
EPA.
Claims
consist
of
either
one
or
two
versions
of
the
Title
III
report
depending
on
the
type
of
report,
and
two
versions
of
an
up­
front
substantiation
of
the
trade
secrecy
claim.
The
substantiation
is
designed
to
gather
sufficient
factual
support
to
indicate
whether
the
claim
will
meet
the
four
statutory
criteria
of
trade
secrecy.
It
is
an
EPA­
developed
form,
and
is
discussed
in
detail
in
Part
3(
b)(
i)
below.

Section
322(
d)
also
provides
for
a
public
petition
process
to
request
the
disclosure
of
chemical
identities
claimed
as
trade
secret.
The
final
rule
does
not
specify
a
petition
format,
but
does
require
that
a
petition
contain
certain
elements
set
forth
below
in
Part
3(
b)(
ii).

EPA
is
required
by
Section
322(
h)
to
identify
the
adverse
health
and
environmental
effects
associated
with
the
Section
313
toxic
chemicals
claimed
as
trade
secret
and
to
include
this
information
in
the
Toxic
Chemical
Release
Inventory
database
required
by
Section
313(
j).

That
provision
also
instructs
the
Governor
or
State
Emergency
Response
Commission
to
identify
the
adverse
health
effects
of
the
chemicals
claimed
as
trade
secret
under
Sections
303,
311
and
312
and
provide
this
information
to
persons
requesting
the
infor­
mation.
These
details
are
not
discussed
herein
because
there
is
no
Federal
involvement
in
this
activity.
Pursuant
to
the
statute,
this
exchange
of
information
occurs
between
third
parties,
i.
e.,
States
and
persons
requesting
such
information.
Because
EPA
has
no
knowledge
or
responsibility
in
this
area,
the
Agency
is
not
responsible
for
documenting
burden/
costs
in
such
situations.
(
Dole
v.
United
Steelworkers
of
America,
110
S.
Ct.
929
(
1990)).

Section
323
regulations
contain
provisions
allowing
health
professionals
to
gain
access
to
trade
secret
chemical
identities
under
three
different
circumstances:

o
non­
emergency
treatment
and
diagnosis.
The
chemical
identity
of
a
hazardous
chemical,
extremely
hazardous
substance
or
toxic
chemical
must
be
given
to
a
health
professional
if
the
information
is
needed
in
the
diagnosis
or
treatment
of
an
exposed
individual.

o
medical
emergencies.
Expedited
access
to
the
identity
of
chemicals
to
which
people
have
been
exposed
is
provided
for
health
professionals.

o
preventative
measures.
Health
professionals
studying
chemical
exposure
and
health
effects
for
local
governments
are
also
given
access
to
chemical
identities
upon
written
request.

Two
preconditions
must
be
met
in
order
for
health
professionals
to
gain
access
to
trade
secret
chemical
identity
in
non­
emergency
and
preventative
measure
situations;
they
must
submit
a
written
statement
of
need
and
a
written
confidentiality
agreement
to
the
facility
owner
or
operator
prior
to
obtaining
the
information.
No
such
requirements
exist
in
the
medical
emergency
situation,
but
the
owner
or
operator
disclosing
the
information
may
require
a
written
confidentiality
agreement
and
statement
of
need
as
soon
as
circumstances
permit.
3
January
24,
2000
The
Offices
that
will
use
trade
secret
information
are
the
Chemical
Emergency
Preparedness
and
Prevention
Office
(
CEPPO)
in
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
and
the
Office
of
Pollution
Prevention
and
Toxics
(
OPPT)
in
the
Office
of
Prevention,
Pesticides
and
Toxic
Substances.
Trade
secrecy
claims
are
stored
in
areas
designed
to
assure
the
confidentiality
of
the
collected
information.

2.
Need/
Authority
for
Collection;
Use/
Users
of
the
Data
2
(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
Collection
The
specific
provision
of
Title
III
authorizing
this
collection
is
Section
322,
Trade
Secrets.
Congress's
intent
in
writing
trade
secrecy
provisions
under
Title
III
was
to
balance
industry's
concern
with
the
protection
of
legitimate
trade
secrets
with
communities'
right­
to­
know
chemical
identification
information,
by
establishing
procedures
for
asserting
claims,
for
the
public
to
obtain
review
of
their
validity,
and
for
an
Agency
claim
review
process
which
eliminates
legally
invalid
and
frivolous
claims.

Section
322(
a)(
1)(
B)
requires
a
facility
that
requests
trade
secrecy
protection
for
a
Title
III
chemical
to
substitute
a
generic
chemical
class
or
category
name
in
the
place
on
the
Title
III
submittal
where
the
withheld
specific
chemical
identity
is
normally
reported.
A
copy
of
this
Title
III
submittal,
as
well
as
the
withheld
chemical
identification
information,
are
to
be
submitted
separately
to
the
EPA
pursuant
to
Sections
322(
a)(
2)(
A)(
iii)
and
(
a)(
2)(
B)(
ii).

A
facility
is
entitled
to
withhold
chemical
identification
information
according
to
Section
322(
a)(
2)(
A)(
i),
only
if
that
facility
claims
that
such
information
is
a
trade
secret
on
the
basis
of
the
following
four
factors
which
are
enumerated
in
the
provisions
of
Section
322(
b)(
1)­(
4):

o
The
facility
has
not
disclosed
the
chemical
identity
to
any
other
person,
other
than
a
member
of
a
local
emergency
planning
committee,
an
officer
or
employee
of
the
United
States
or
a
State
or
local
government,
an
employee
of
such
person,
or
a
person
who
is
bound
by
a
confidentiality
agreement,
and
the
facility
has
taken
reasonable
measures
to
protect
the
confidentiality
of
such
information
and
will
continue
to
take
such
measures;

o
The
information
is
not
required
to
be
disclosed
or
otherwise
made
available
to
the
public
under
any
other
Federal
or
State
law;

o
Disclosure
of
the
information
is
likely
to
cause
substantial
harm
to
the
competitive
position
of
the
facility;
and
o
The
chemical
identity
is
not
readily
discoverable
through
reverse
engineering.

A
facility
is
required
under
Section
322(
2)(
A)
to
make
its
claim
of
trade
secrecy
by
4
January
24,
2000
submitting,
in
conjunction
with
its
Title
III
report,
an
explanation
containing
the
reasons,
including
specific
descriptions,
why
the
subject
information
satisfies
the
four
statutory
criteria.
Within
30
days
after
receipt
of
a
public
petition,
EPA
is
required
under
Section
322(
d)
to
review
the
information
contained
in
a
claimant's
explanation
to
determine
whether
a
claim
is
"
sufficient."
If
the
Agency
determines
a
claim
is
"
sufficient,"
Section
322(
d)(
3)(
A)
provides
for
the
claimant's
submission
of
supplemental
information
to
establish
the
veracity
of
the
assertions
contained
in
the
substantiation.
If
the
Agency
determines
that
a
claim
is
"
insufficient,"
or
that
the
chemical
identity
is
not
a
trade
secret,
and
further
determines
that
the
claim
is
frivolous,
Section
325(
d)
requires
that
the
Agency
assess
a
civil
or
administrative
penalty
for
the
claim.

Section
322(
f)
permits
a
facility
to
designate,
apart
from
the
specific
chemical
identity,
information
which
is
contained
in
their
claim
explanation
to
be
entitled
to
protection
under
the
Trade
Secrets
Act,
18
U.
S.
C.,
Section
1905.
Except
for
information
entitled
to
such
protection,
the
provision
requires
that
the
Agency
make
all
claim
explanations
publicly
available.
Further,
Title
III
Section
324(
a)
mandates
that
EPA,
the
States,
and
local
authorities,
make
each
hardcopy
Title
III
report
publicly
available
during
normal
working
hours
at
locations
designated
by
the
above
entities,
as
appropriate,
in
a
manner
consistent
with
the
provisions
of
Section
322,
(
i.
e.,
with
the
generic
chemical
name
substituted
for
the
specific
chemical
identity
where
a
trade
secrecy
claim
is
made
for
the
latter).

The
final
rule,
which
provides
for
the
submission
of
two
versions
of
the
report
and
the
substantiation,
enables
EPA,
State
Emergency
Response
Commissions
(
SERCs)
and
LEPCs
to
fulfill
the
statutory
mandate
that
public
access
be
readily
available
to
documents
containing
only
the
generic
chemical
descriptions,
and
that
the
specific
chemical
identity
and
other
designated
trade
secret
information
be
accorded
confidential
treatment.

The
final
rule
provides
for
submission
to
EPA
of
a
sanitized
and
an
unsanitized
version
of
the
substantiation
form,
a
sanitized
and
where
indicated,
an
unsanitized
version
of
the
Title
III
report
by
a
facility
requesting
trade
secrecy
protection
for
a
Title
III
reported
chemical.
The
sanitized
and
unsanitized
versions
of
these
documents
are
identical
in
all
respects
except
that
the
trade
secret
chemical
identification
information
reported
in
the
unsanitized
version
is
deleted
from
the
sanitized
version
and
a
generic
class
or
category
name
is
substituted
in
its
place.
Also,
other
information
provided
in
the
unsanitized
substantiation
that
is
designated
as
a
trade
secret
by
a
facility
is
deleted
from
the
sanitized
substantiation.
Claimants
submit
only
a
sanitized
version
of
Section
303(
d)(
2)
and
(
d)(
3)
reports,
and
Section
311
MSDSs
to
appropriate
State
and
local
authorities.

Answers
to
the
substantiation
questions
described
below
provide
the
"
specific
description"
stipulated
in
Section
322(
a)(
2)(
ii)
on
why
a
facility
believes
trade
secrecy
should
apply.
Without
this
information,
the
Agency
would
not
be
in
a
position
to
evaluate
whether
or
not
a
claim
to
withhold
the
chemical
identity
is
"
sufficient,"
nor
would
it
have
the
time
(
statutorily
set
at
30
days)
required
to
request
and
review
the
data
in
response
to
a
petition
for
identity
disclosure.
5
January
24,
2000
Further,
this
information
is
needed
in
order
for
the
Agency
to
evaluate
claims
for
frivolousness
and
seek
related
penalties
under
Section
325.
On
a
broader
scale,
the
information
collection
request
is
also
necessary
in
order
for
EPA
to
evaluate
whether
the
claim
is
complete
under
Sections
322(
a)(
1)
and
(
a)(
2).

In
order
to
assess
the
sufficiency,
validity
and
frivolousness
of
claims,
the
Agency
for
several
reasons
developed
a
standardized
claim
substantiation
form.
It
was
anticipated
that
the
form
would
reduce
confusion
about
what
information
is
to
be
supplied
to
meet
the
four
statutory
criteria.
It
was
also
anticipated
that
the
form
would
help
submitters
more
easily
determine
if
they
have
sufficient
bases
to
make
trade
secrecy
claims,
ensure
that
all
submissions
are
evaluated
on
the
basis
of
comparable
information,
and
"
flag"
the
documents
for
procedural
safeguards
to
quickly
identify,
review
and
protect
the
confidentiality
of
the
claim.

It
has
been
EPA's
experience,
based
on
reviews
of
the
substantiations
submitted
in
the
past
six
reporting
years,
that
use
of
a
standardized
substantiation
form
has:
(
1)
enabled
submitters
to
adequately
understand
and
develop
information
necessary
to
submit
a
"
sufficient"
claim;
(
2)
enabled
EPA
to
ensure
that
all
submissions
are
evaluated
on
the
basis
of
comparable
information,
and;
(
3)
served
as
an
efficient
identifier
of
the
trade
secret
status
of
the
document
and
associated
report,
and
hence,
has
ensured
the
use
of
appropriate
Agency
handling
and
routing
procedures
protective
of
their
confidentiality.

2
(
b)
Use/
Users
of
the
Data
The
trade
secrecy
claim
information
is
used
only
by
the
CEPPO
and
OPPT
and
is
needed
by
these
offices
in
order
to:
(
1)
perform
the
Agency's
review
of
claims
as
required
by
Section
322
(
d)
to
determine
whether
the
claims
are
"
sufficient"
to
support
a
finding
that
the
specific
chemical
identity
withheld
is
a
trade
secret;
(
2)
ensure
that
claims
for
all
withheld
chemical
identities
are
complete
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
Sections
322
(
a)
(
1)
and
(
a)
(
2),
and;
(
3)
evaluate
claims
for
frivolousness
and
the
attendant
assessment
of
penalties
stipulated
in
Section
325
(
d)(
1).

3.
Respondents/
SIC
Codes;
Information
Requested
3
(
a)
Respondents/
SIC
Codes
Sections
303,
311
and
312
claims
are
submitted
by
both
the
manufacturing
sector,
(
SIC
codes
20­
39)
and
the
non­
manufacturing
sector.
No
range
of
SIC
codes
exists
for
the
nonmanufacturing
sector.
Examples
of
this
sector
include
the
construction
industry
and
dry
cleaners.
Examples
of
the
manufacturing
sector
include
chemical
manufacturers
and
paper
manufacturers.
Section
313
claims
are
submitted
by
covered
sectors
which
as
of
reporting
year
1998
include:
metal
mining
((
SIC
code
10
(
except
1011,
1081,
and
1094)),
coal
mining
((
SIC
code
12
(
except
1241)),
manufacturers
(
SIC
codes
20­
39),
electric
utilities
(
SIC
codes
4911
(
limited
to
facilities
6
January
24,
2000
that
combust
coal
and/
or
oil
for
the
purpose
of
generating
electricity
for
distribution
in
commerce),
4931
(
limited
to
facilities
that
combust
coal
and/
or
oil
for
the
purpose
of
generating
electricity
for
distribution
in
commerce),
4939
(
limited
to
facilities
that
combust
coal
and/
or
oil
for
the
purpose
of
generating
electricity
for
distribution
in
commerce)),
commercial
hazardous
waste
treatment
(
SIC
code
4953
(
limited
to
facilities
regulated
under
the
RCRA
Subtitle
C,
42
U.
S.
C.
section
6921
et
seq.)),
chemical
and
allied
products­
wholesale
(
SIC
code
5169),
petroleum
bulk
terminals
and
plants
(
also
known
as
stations)­
wholesale
(
SIC
code
5171),
and
solvent
recovery
services
(
SIC
code
7389
(
limited
to
facilities
primarily
engaged
in
solvents
recovery
services
on
a
contract
or
fee
basis)).
In
addition,
federal
facilities
were
added
to
the
respondent
community
by
Executive
Order
12856.
Federal
facilities
were
required
to
report
beginning
calendar
year
1994.
Federal
facility
reporting
did
result
in
a
significant
increase
in
trade
secrecy
claims.
Section
313
reports
are
due
to
EPA
by
July
1
for
each
year
for
activities
that
occurred
during
the
previous
calendar
year.
For
example,
reports
for
calendar
year
1998
activities
were
due
by
July
1,
1999.
Petitions
are
voluntarily
submitted
by
any
interested
member
of
the
public.
Any
potential
rulemaking
expanding
Section
313
reporting
community
is
not
expected
to
result
in
an
increase
in
percentage
of
trade
secret
claims
to
non­
trade
secret
claims.

3
(
b)
Information
Requested
(
i)
Data
Items
for
Trade
Secrecy
Claims
Based
on
the
four
Section
322(
b)
substantiation
requirements,
the
Agency
developed
six
core
questions
to
comprise
a
standard
substantiation
form.
(
See
Attachment
1)

Questions
one
and
two
on
the
form
directly
refer
to
the
first
criterion
of
Section
322(
b).
The
first
question,
on
"
specific
measures"
is
the
detail
required
by
the
submitter
to
prove
to
the
EPA
reviewer
that
reasonable
safeguards
have
been
taken
to
prevent
unauthorized
disclosure
of
the
specific
chemical
identity.
Answers
to
the
second
question
will
be
used
by
the
Agency
to
evaluate
the
facility's
claim
that
the
specific
chemical
identity
has
not
been
disclosed
to
anyone
not
bound
by
a
confidentiality
agreement.

Answers
to
the
form's
third
question
respond
to
the
statute's
second
criterion
that
the
submitter
show
that
a
State
or
Federal
agency
has
not
already
determined
that
the
chemical
identity
is
not
a
trade
secret,
or
that
there
are
no
existing
State
or
Federal
statutes
prohibiting
the
claiming
of
the
chemical
identity
as
a
trade
secret.

Questions
four
and
five
require
answers
to
the
facility's
known
connection
with
the
use
of
the
chemical,
and
estimates
of
competitive
harm
that
would
result
from
disclosure.
Submitters
must
provide
EPA
with
a
description
of
their
unique
use
of
the
chemical
(
3.4i),
known
linkages
of
the
chemical
to
the
facility
in
publications
and
patents
(
3.4ii),
an
explanation
of
how
competitors
could
deduce
use
from
disclosure
of
the
chemical
identity
(
3.4iii),
and
why
knowledge
of
this
use
would
be
valuable
to
competitors
(
3.4iv).
Specific
indications
of
the
competitive
harm
resulting
7
January
24,
2000
from
disclosures
are
asked
in
question
five.
These
questions
refer
back
to
the
third
criterion
of
Section
322.

Question
six
enables
EPA
to
identify
the
prevalence
of
the
chemical
in
the
company's
products
or
releases,
and
the
corresponding
ability
of
competitors
to
identify
the
chemical
through
reverse
engineering.
This
issue
is
specifically
addressed
in
the
fourth
criterion.

In
addition,
blocks
on
the
first
page
of
the
form
provide
space
for
accurate
chemical
identification
of
the
claimed
secret
(
CAS
number,
chemical
identity),
a
field
for
substitution
of
the
generic
class
or
category,
a
check­
off
box
to
clearly
identify
the
type
of
Title
III
report
for
which
the
claim
is
being
asserted,
and
the
facility
Dun
and
Bradstreet
number
(
for
precise
facility
and
record
identification).
There
is
no
additional
burden
to
collect
this
information
because
it
is
transferred
directly
from
the
reports
required
under
the
various
sections
of
Title
III
for
which
a
claim
is
being
made.

Finally,
the
submitter
must
sign
a
certification
statement,
found
on
the
last
page
of
the
form,
that
the
information
is
true
to
the
best
knowledge
and
belief
of
the
submitter.

(
ii)
Data
Items
for
Public
Petition
Process
No
specific
petition
format
is
required.
However,
the
final
rule
does
require
that
the
following
be
included
in
a
petition:

o
the
petitioner's
name,
address
and
telephone
number;

o
the
name
and
address
of
the
company
claiming
trade
secrecy;

o
a
copy
of
the
relevant
sanitized
Title
III
report
(
e.
g.,
MSDS,
Tier
II
or
toxic
chemical
release
form);
and
o
a
specific
indication
of
the
chemical
identity
that
is
being
requested
for
disclosure.

EPA
requires
a
copy
of
the
Title
III
report
in
order
to
prevent
any
confusion
about
the
particular
disclosure
in
question.
By
statute,
copies
of
facility
filings
are
available
at
designated
State
or
local
entities.
In
writing
the
proposed
and
final
regulations,
the
Agency
considered
these
elements
to
be
the
minimum
needed
to
successfully
identify
and
begin
the
review
of
a
trade
secrecy
claim.

4.
The
Information
Collected
­­
Agency
Activities,
Collection
Methodology,
and
Information
Management
4
(
a)
Agency
Activities
8
January
24,
2000
o
Process
and
store
the
data.

o
Review
the
claims
for
completeness,
"
sufficiency"
and
frivolousness.

o
Respond
to
requests
for
confidential
information
from
State
Governors,
and
nonconfidential
information
from
the
public.

o
Respond
to
petitions
from
the
public
for
disclosure
of
chemical
identities
claimed
as
trade
secret.

o
Prepare
adverse
health
and
environmental
effects
data
for
relevant
chemical
identities
claimed
as
trade
secret.

4
(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
The
collection
of
trade
secrecy
claims
is
accomplished
by
respondents
sending
their
claim
submissions
to
EPA.
The
sanitized
or
non­
trade
secret
versions
of
the
Title
III
report
and
the
substantiation
are
stored
so
as
to
be
easily
accessible
to
the
public.
Data
reported
on
the
sanitized
version
of
a
Title
III,
Section
313
report
is
entered
in
the
Toxic
Chemical
Inventory
database.
The
unsanitized
versions
of
the
Title
III
report
and
the
substantiation
are
handled,
labeled
and
stored
in
a
manner
protective
of
their
confidentiality.

The
unsanitized
trade
secret
versions
of
these
documents
are
reviewed
to
determine
the
"
sufficiency"
validity
and
frivolousness
of
the
claims.
Both
the
sanitized
and
unsanitized
documents
are
used
to
review
the
generic
chemical
class
or
category
name
in
light
of
the
specific
chemical
identity
claimed
as
trade
secret,
to
ensure
the
appropriateness
of
the
generic
description.
For
Section
313
claims,
both
chemical
descriptions
are
reviewed
and
used
to
devise
adverse
health
and
environmental
effects
data
which
are
representative
of
the
characteristics
of
the
specific
chemical
identity
withheld,
and
protective
of
the
trade
secret
chemical
identity.

While
use
of
magnetic
tape
or
information
technology
is
being
encouraged
in
the
relatively
uniform
Title
III
reporting
sections,
the
unique
nature
and
length
of
trade
secrecy
substantiation
responses
will
not
confer
any
special
advantage
to
their
being
reported
on
alternative
media.
Standardized
responses
are
not
expected,
or
encouraged,
to
answers
on:
facility
safeguards
to
protect
confidentiality
of
a
chemical,
the
extent
of
disclosure
to
local,
State
and
Federal
government
entities,
discussions
of
the
use
of
the
chemical
­
and
competitors'
ability
to
discover
it,
and
statements
on
harm
to
competitive
position.

The
public
petition
process
applies
only
to
a
chemical
identity
that
a
facility
claims
as
trade
secret,
and
not
to
other
information
contained
in
a
substantiation
which
a
facility
has
claimed
as
a
trade
secret.
After
receiving
a
petition,
EPA
has
30
days
to
determine
whether
the
assertions
on
a
facility's
substantiation
form
(
if
true)
would
form
a
"
sufficient"
basis
for
a
trade
secrecy
claim.
If
9
January
24,
2000
the
form
meets
the
criteria
of
sufficiency,
EPA
will
notify
the
submitter
that
they
have
30
days
to
submit
supplemental
material
supporting
the
truth
of
the
assertions
made
in
the
substantiation.
If
the
claim
does
not
meet
the
criteria
of
sufficiency,
EPA
will
notify
the
submitter
that
the
claim
will
be
denied.
The
facility
may
appeal
to
the
Office
of
General
Counsel
or
submit
a
statement
of
good
cause
to
amend
the
substantiation.
EPA
will
then
accept
or
reject
the
statement,
allowing
or
disallowing
the
submission
of
additional
information.
Finally,
EPA
will
determine,
based
on
all
the
information
a
facility
has
submitted,
whether
the
claim
warrants
trade
secrecy.

EPA­
initiated
reviews
may
be
conducted
following
the
same
steps
involved
in
the
public
petition
process
and
result
in
an
Agency
decision
regarding
the
"
sufficiency"
of
the
trade
secrecy
claims.
However,
EPA­
initiated
reviews
may
be
less
formal
and
culminate
in
the
withdrawal
of
a
claim
by
a
facility
prior
to
the
issuance
of
a
formal
Agency
decision
on
the
merits
of
the
claim.
The
less
formal
reviews
usually
involve
claims
which
are
determined
incomplete
upon
EPA
review
or
complete
claims
which
are
thought
by
EPA
to
demonstrate
obvious
problems
or
weaknesses.
In
these
circumstances,
the
Agency
has
contacted
the
facilities
by
telephone
or
by
issuing
a
Notice
of
Noncompliance
(
NON).
The
facilities
have
responded
by
formally
withdrawing
their
claims
prior
to
a
formal
decision
on
the
merits
of
the
claims.

4
(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
The
regulatory
provisions
of
Sections
311­
312
and
the
statutory
provision
of
Section
313
inherently
minimize
the
burden
for
small
entities.
Sections
311­
312
have
reporting
thresholds
under
which
facilities
are
not
required
to
report.
Section
313
applies
only
to
facilities
with
10
or
more
full­
time
employees.

The
option
to
submit
a
trade
secrecy
claim
on
a
Title
III
report
is
voluntary.
Facilities
that
submit
trade
secrecy
claims
are
doing
so
because
they
believe
it
is
to
their
benefit.
In
addition,
the
need
to
claim
trade
secrecy
protection
for
a
chemical
identity
is
just
as
important
to
small
companies
as
it
is
to
large
ones.
Therefore,
the
need
to
supply
information
to
support
a
submission,
as
well
as
to
review
it,
is
dependent
upon
a
firm's
demonstration
that
it
can
adequately
answer
the
four
criteria
found
in
the
statute.
Any
firm,
regardless
of
size,
need
only
provide
as
much,
or
as
little,
detail
as
it
feels
necessary
to
support
its
claim
under
the
statute.

4
(
d)
Collection
Schedule
The
collection
schedule
is
voluntary.
Under
Section
322,
a
specific
chemical
identity
claimed
as
a
trade
secret
is
withheld
from
the
face
of
Title
III
reports.
That
provision
requires
that
claim
explanations,
and
the
information
claimed
as
a
trade
secret,
be
submitted
concurrently
with
the
submission
of
the
Title
III
reports.
Apart
from
the
statutory
mandate
that
requires
the
filing
of
a
claim
each
time
the
subject
chemical
is
reported
in
a
Title
III
submission,
an
updated
claim
is
necessary
to
establish
the
current
applicability
of
the
four
statutory
criteria
of
trade
secrecy.
Even
the
slightest
change
in
the
circumstances
which
support
the
claim
can
be
pivotal
to
10
January
24,
2000
the
"
sufficiency,"
validity,
and
frivolousness
of
the
claim.
Even
where
previously
created
substantiations
are
relevant
and
appropriate
for
use
at
a
later
time,
EPA
encourages
submitters
to
carefully
review
the
substantiations.

In
the
case
of
Sections
312
and
313,
the
reporting
is
annual
and
facilities
submit
a
current
claim
annually
with
those
reports.
With
regard
to
Section
311,
a
claim
must
be
resubmitted
to
EPA
if
an
MSDS
or
list
is
updated.
According
to
the
Sections
311­
312
final
rule,
an
initial
MSDS
or
list
must
be
updated
within
three
months
after
the
facility
owner
or
operator
discovers
significant
new
information
regarding
an
aspect
of
a
hazardous
chemical.
With
regard
to
Section
303(
d)(
2)
and
(
d)(
3),
a
claim
need
not
be
resubmitted
to
EPA
after
the
initial
communication
to
the
relevant
LEPC,
unless
further
communication
follows
between
the
facility
and
LEPC
which
discusses
the
specific
chemical
identity
in
question.

5.
Nonduplication,
Consultations,
and
other
Collection
Criteria
5
(
a)
Nonduplication
The
information
that
we
request
from
trade
secrecy
claim
submitters
is
not
duplicated
by
any
other
Agency
collection
since
the
collection
of
information
is
entirely
Title
III
oriented.
In
addition,
unlike
other
statutes
permitting
confidential
business
information
claims,
Title
III:
(
1)
permits
trade
secrecy
claims
only
for
specific
chemical
identification
information;
(
2)
permits
claims
for
a
chemical
identity
only
in
very
narrowly
defined
circumstances
which
are
stipulated
in
the
statute,
and;
(
3)
requires
an
up­
front
substantiation
of
the
applicability
of
those
narrowly
defined
circumstances
by
a
claimant
at
the
time
the
report
for
a
chemical
claimed
as
trade
secret
is
filed.

5
(
b)
Consultations
In
the
previous
ICR,
EPA
estimated
that
it
will
take
16
to
29
hours
to
prepare
trade
secrecy
claim
package
for
sections
303,
311
and
312.
EPA
received
this
information
by
contacting
a
few
submitters
of
claims
in
1993.
EPA
recently
contacted
a
few
submitters
of
trade
secrecy
claims
in
reporting
years
1996
through
1998.
Submitters
informed
EPA
that
the
fixed
costs
of
22
hours
remains
the
same
as
was
estimated
in
the
previous
ICR,
however,
the
variable
costs
estimated
previously
are
now
lower.
Submitters
informed
EPA
that
it
only
requires
between
two
and
four
hours
to
prepare
new
claims
and
between
one
and
three
hours
to
prepare
resubmittals
of
trade
secret
claims.
(
Memorandum
from
Sicy
Jacob,
OSWER/
EPA,
8/
12/
99).

5(
c)
Public
Notice
In
compliance
with
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.),
the
Agency
notified
the
public
through
the
Federal
Register
notice
on
the
resubmission
of
this
ICR
on
September
16,
1999
(
64
FR
50280).
EPA
did
not
receive
any
comments.
11
January
24,
2000
5
(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
Although
submitting
answers
to
the
trade
secrecy
substantiation
form
questions
is
a
necessary
step
towards
ensuring
eventual
protection
of
a
chemical
identity,
the
decision
to
seek
that
protection
is
entirely
voluntary.
The
submission
process
involves
one
initial
collection
of
information
for
"
sufficiency,"
with
the
possibility
of
a
request
for
supplementary
information
[
as
provided
in
Section
322
(
d)(
3)(
A)]
to
establish
veracity
of
the
assertions
stated
in
the
substantiation
if
EPA
determines
that
a
claim
is
initially
"
sufficient"
during
a
review
initiated
by
public
petition
or
the
Agency.

5
(
e)
Confidentiality
and
Sensitive
Questions
All
trade
secrecy
claims
submitted
to
EPA
under
Title
III
are
handled
and
stored
according
to
procedures
set
out
in
the
Interim
OSWER
Procedures
For
Protecting
Title
III
Trade
Secret
Documents.
These
procedures
were
developed
expressly
for
Title
III
trade
secrecy
claims
with
the
knowledge
that
these
documents
are
sensitive.
Handling
and
review
of
documents
containing
Title
III
trade
secret
information
is
permitted
only
by
persons
who
have
obtained
formal
clearance
to
access
the
information
based
on
a
work­
related
need
to
engage
in
these
activities.
When
not
being
processed
or
reviewed
by
authorized
individuals,
the
claim
submissions
containing
trade
secret
information
are
stored
in
restricted
access
areas.
To
ensure
that
appropriate
handling
procedures
are
activated
and
the
confidentiality
of
Title
III
trade
secret
submissions
is
maintained,
the
Agency
attaches
a
cover
sheet
to
the
top
of
each
trade
secret
document
and
otherwise
marks
the
document
to
clearly
identify
the
document
as
Title
III
confidential.

6.
Estimating
the
Burden
and
Cost
of
the
Collection
6(
a)
Estimated
Number
of
Trade
Secrecy
Claims
Costs
to
the
Government
and
to
respondents
are
based
on
actual
numbers
of
trade
secrecy
claims
received
during
reporting
years
(
RYs)
1996
through
1998.
The
reporting
year
corresponds
to
the
calendar
year.
The
deadline
for
submitting
claims
for
a
given
reporting
year
falls
in
the
following
calendar
year.
For
example,
the
deadline
for
submitting
claims
under
section
311/
312
for
reporting
year
1997
is
March
1,
1998
(
deadline
for
submitting
the
hazardous
chemical
inventory
reports
under
section
312),
and
the
deadline
for
section
313
claims
is
July
1,
1998
(
deadline
for
submitting
Toxic
Chemical
Release
Reporting
Form).
Any
facilities
that
may
wish
to
file
trade
secrecy
claims
in
these
reporting
forms
must
submit
the
trade
secrecy
claim
package
with
these
reports.

The
cost
and
burden
of
processing
the
claims
submitted
for
reporting
year
1997
are
incurred
in
FY
98.
There
is
a
one­
year
lag
between
the
reporting
year
for
submitting
claims
(
e.
g.,
12
January
24,
2000
RY97)
and
the
fiscal
year
for
processing
claims
under
sections
311/
312
(
e.
g.
FY98),
and
there
may
be
a
two­
year
lag
between
the
reporting
year
(
e.
g.,
1997)
for
submitting
claims
and
the
fiscal
year
for
processing
claims
under
section
313
if
some
of
the
claims
submitted
in
July
1998
are
processed
in
October
or
later
of
1998,
which
is
fiscal
year
1999.
However,
to
be
consistent,
in
this
ICR,
all
section
311/
312
and
section
313
claims
from
one
reporting
year
will
be
treated
as
having
been
processed
in
the
following
fiscal
year.

Table
1
presents
the
actual
number
of
submissions
indicating
trade
secret
claims
for
all
sections
of
Title
III
for
FYs
1997
to
1999
(
corresponding
to
RY96
through
RY98).
For
the
three­
year
period,
the
total
number
of
claims
submitted
was
890.
The
number
of
claims
submitted
under
section
313
includes
claims
that
are
later
withdrawn
by
submitters.
The
actual
number
of
valid
claims
for
section
313
is
approximately
five
per
year.
(
Personal
communication
from
Tim
Crawford,
IMD/
EPA,
8/
17/
99).
Claims
are
withdrawn
for
four
principal
reasons.
First,
submitters
have
unintentionally
identified
their
claims
as
trade
secret.
EPA
then
requested
submitters
to
re­
submit
a
revision
to
indicate
that
their
claim
is
not
a
trade
secret.
Second,
submitters
have
submitted
the
same
claim
more
than
once.
In
most
cases,
the
submitters
will
later
withdraw
their
claim.
Third,
submitters
have
sent
EPA
a
claim
that
is
incomplete.
Instead
of
submitting
a
revision,
the
submitter
may
request
to
withdraw
its
claim.
Fourth,
the
chemical
claimed
trade
secret
may
not
be
a
reportable
chemical
during
a
particular
reporting
year.
When
submitters
who
had
been
sending
in
claims
marked
trade
secret
that
were
incomplete,
i.
e.,
they
were
missing
sanitized
data,
and
were
contacted
by
the
Agency,
many
submitters
determined
that
they
did
not
intend
to
submit
a
trade
secret
claim
after
all,
and
withdrew
their
claims.
(
Memorandum
from
Donna
Stephens,
IMD/
EPA,
7/
12/
99).

Table
2
shows
the
estimated
number
of
trade
secret
claims
expected
to
be
filed
by
facilities
in
the
new
ICR
period
of
FY00
through
FY02.
For
section
313,
some
claims
may
pertain
to
RYs
1998
through
2000.
Overall,
the
number
of
trade
secret
claims
filed
is
expected
to
increase
slightly
over
the
number
actually
submitted
in
the
previous
period.
No
claims
are
expected
to
be
filed
under
section
303.
(
Memoranda
from
Sicy
Jacob,
OSWER/
EPA,
8/
12/
99.)

The
number
of
section
313
trade
secret
submissions
is
expected
to
increase
from
current
levels
because
of
a
TRI
chemical
expansion
activity
which
became
effective
in
TRI
reporting
year
1998
(
FY99
and
FY00).
The
expansion
is
projected
to
result
in
an
additional
10,000
TRI
Form
R
submissions,
which
should
result
in
a
small
increase
in
trade
secret
claims.
In
addition,
approximately
17,300
additional
TRI
reports
are
expected
to
be
submitted
when
TRI
reporting
is
expanded
to
include
both
lower
thresholds
and
new
chemicals
under
the
TRI
Persistent
Bioaccumulative
Toxic
(
PBT)
chemicals
rule.
The
PBT
reporting,
which
is
expected
to
become
required
in
RY00,
or
FY01
or
FY02,
is
expected
to
generate
approximately
five
additional
trade
secret
claim
submissions
per
year.
(
Personal
communication
from
Tim
Crawford,
IMD/
EPA,
8/
17/
99).

Table
1
13
January
24,
2000
Actual
Number
of
Trade
Secret
Claims
FY
1997
­
FY
1999
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
SARA
Section
FY97
FY98
FY99
Total
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
303(
d)
2
and
(
d)(
3)
0
0
0
0
311/
312
347
212
280
839
313
16
16
19
51
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Total
363
228
299
890
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Sources:
Memorandum
from
Sicy
Jacob,
OSWER/
EPA,
8/
12/
99,
and
Personal
communication
from
Tim
Crawford,
IMD/
EPA,
8/
17/
99.

Table
2
Estimated
Number
of
Trade
Secret
Claims
FY
2000
­
FY
2002
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
SARA
Section
FY00
FY01
FY02
Total
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
303(
d)
2
and
(
d)(
3)
0
0
0
0
311/
312
280
280
280
840
313
24
24
29
77
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Total
304
304
309
917
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Sources:
Memorandum
from
Sicy
Jacob,
OSWER/
EPA,
8/
12/
99,
and
Personal
communication
from
Tim
Crawford,
IMD/
EPA,
8/
17/
99.

6(
b)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
14
1Government
labor
costs
are
calculated
using
the
following
fully
loaded
wage
rates
for
1999:
GS­
13,
$
44.48/
hr;
GS­
12,
$
37.41/
hr;
GS­
9,
$
25.79/
hr;
GS­
7,
$
21.08/
hr.

2U.
S.
Dept.
of
Labor,
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
data
from
Economic
Analysis
of
the
Proposed
Rule
to
Modify
Reporting
of
Persistent
Bioaccumulative
Toxic
Chemicals
Under
EPCRA
Section
313,
Economic
and
Policy
Analysis
Branch,
OPPT,
EPA,
Dec.
1998.
Table
4­
3,
p.
4­
6.

January
24,
2000
Costs
to
the
Federal
Government
for
processing
trade
secret
claims,
the
petition
and
review
processes,
and
for
providing
adverse
health
effects
data,
are
presented
in
Table
3.
Each
of
the
three
cost
areas
is
discussed
below.

(
i)
Processing
and
Storage
of
Trade
Secret
Claims
EPA
will
incur
expenses
to
process
and
store
each
trade
secret
claim
submission.
These
activities
include
affixing
document
control
number
labels
and
trade
secret
cover
sheets,
processing
basic
information
about
the
claims,
checking
for
completeness,
and
storing
the
submissions.
EPA
must
store
all
trade
secret
submissions
and
be
prepared
to
respond
to
public
petitions
for
disclosure
of
the
subject
chemical
identities.
Both
fixed
and
variable
costs
are
estimated.

Fixed
costs
are
incurred
for
maintenance
and
operation
of
the
existing
storage
and
filing
system
for
section
313
claims.
Fixed
costs
for
the
three­
year
period
(
FY97­
99)
covered
by
the
expiring
ICR
for
115
square
feet
of
storage
space
were
$
2,288,
unchanged
from
the
previous
reporting
period
(
Personal
communication
from
Tim
Crawford,
IMD/
EPA,
8/
17/
99).
Storage
of
section
311/
312
records
requires
a
minimum
amount
of
space,
and
is
handled
by
the
Federal
Records
Center,
at
no
charge
to
the
Agency
(
Memorandum
from
Sicy
Jacob,
OSWER/
EPA,
8/
12/
99).

Variable
costs
are
estimated
by
program.
1
For
sections
303
and
311/
312
of
EPCRA,
costs
supporting
inventory
of
new
claims,
and
storage,
retrieval,
and
checking
of
claims
for
completeness,
are
estimated
to
be
approximately
$
145
(
2.25
hours)
per
claim.
2
Variable
costs
associated
with
processing
section
313
claims
are
estimated
to
be
approximately
$
856
(
28.33
hours)
per
claim
for
FY00
through
FY02
(
Update
of
memorandum
from
Janette
Petersen,
IMD/
EPA,
9/
30/
96).

Based
on
these
figures,
costs
for
processing
trade
secret
submissions
for
OPPT
and
OSWER
are
estimated
to
be
$
63,432
per
year
for
FY00
and
FY01,
and
$
67,712
for
FY02.
A
weighted
average
cost
per
claim
is
$
202
for
FY
00
and
01,
and
$
217
for
FY02.
Total
costs
are
estimated
to
be
$
194,576
for
the
three­
year
period.
The
increase
in
costs
in
FY02
is
attributable
to
the
additional
trade
secret
claims
expected
when
the
TRI
PBT
rule
goes
into
effect.
15
January
24,
2000
The
total
burden
hours
for
the
first
two
years
are
estimated
to
be
1,310
and
1,452
hours
for
FY02.
Total
burden
hours
are
estimated
to
be
4,072
for
the
three­
year
period.
A
weighted
average
burden
per
claim
is
4.3
hours
for
FY00
and
FY01,
and
4.7
hours
for
FY02.

(
ii)
Petition/
Claim
Review
In
addition
to
the
costs
associated
with
processing
and
storing
trade
secret
claim
documents,
the
Federal
government
will
also
incur
costs
by
responding
to
petitions
filed
by
the
public
requesting
the
Agency's
review
of
specific
claims,
and
as
a
result
of
EPA
initiated
review
of
claims.

The
process
established
for
petitioning
and
reviewing
trade
secret
claims
follows
a
standard
series
of
steps.
The
costs
of
this
process,
however,
are
dependent
on
the
merits
of
the
claims
and
decisions
that
facilities
make
to
contest
an
EPA
finding
if
a
trade
secret
claim
is
disallowed.
The
costs
are
also
dependent
on
the
number
of
petitions
that
the
public
files
and
the
number
and
magnitude
of
EPA­
initiated
reviews.

The
actual
number
of
petitions
which
has
been
filed
over
the
history
of
the
program
is
two;
the
first
petition
during
FY89
pertained
to
one
claim,
and
the
second
during
FY90
pertained
to
10
claims
asserted
by
one
facility.
No
new
petitions
have
been
received
by
the
Agency
during
the
period
of
the
expiring
ICR.
(
Memorandum
from
Sicy
Jacob,
OSWER/
EPA,
8/
12/
99,
and
personal
communication
with
Tim
Crawford,
IMD/
EPA,
8/
17/
99).
The
low
rate
of
petitions
received
is
believed
to
be
the
result
of
Agency­
initiated
review
activities
in
the
absence
of
petitions.
In
the
absence
of
any
new
petition
activity,
previous
ICRs
have
assumed
10
claims
per
year,
as
occurred
in
1990.
However,
given
that
no
new
petitions
have
been
received
in
nine
years,
a
more
realistic
assumption
would
be
to
average
the
number
of
claims
over
the
past
nine
years,
and
use
the
average
of
one
claim
per
year
(
assuming
each
petition
pertains
to
one
claim)
for
this
ICR.

The
estimates
for
the
costs
of
the
petition
process
to
the
government
included
in
the
initial
ICR
originated
from
the
RIA,
which
developed
three
scenarios
to
identify
the
potential
steps
and
time
involved
for
EPA,
as
well
as
petitioners
and
facilities
in
claim
reviews.
The
scenarios
ranged
from
a
low
level
to
a
high
level,
or
complex
review.
Based
on
State
community
right­
to­
know
programs,
an
estimate
of
the
likelihood
of
occurrence
for
each
petition
scenario
was
identified
and
a
weighted
average
cost
of
petition
review
was
calculated.
The
RIA
assumed
that
no
public
petitions
would
result
in
a
petitioner,
the
EPA,
or
a
facility
taking
legal
action.
In
the
event
of
a
court
challenge,
the
RIA
recognized
that
the
costs
of
the
process
would
likely
be
much
higher
than
the
estimated
cost
of
the
most
complicated
review
case.
However,
the
RIA
did
not
consider
the
cost
associated
with
a
court
challenge
because
estimating
legal
costs
is
difficult
and
there
were
no
cases
under
existing
programs
on
which
to
base
such
an
estimate.
16
January
24,
2000
These
assumptions,
in
combination
with
the
actual
costs
incurred
to
review
the
10
claims
pertaining
to
the
1990
petition
and
the
actual
costs
incurred
in
connection
with
the
internallygenerated
Agency
review
of
trade
secret
claims,
were
used
to
determine
the
estimated
costs
to
EPA
shown
in
Table
3.
Burden
and
cost
for
low
level
and
complex
review
are
estimated
separately.

Low
level
review
burden
and
cost
were
estimated
based
on
an
actual
public
citizen
petition
received,
pertaining
to
one
claim
asserted
by
one
facility.
The
review
involved
approximately
30
hours
of
Agency
time
primarily
spent
by
professional
staff
at
the
GS­
13
level
(
fully­
loaded
hourly
wage
of
$
44.48/
hour,
1999).
The
Agency's
finding
of
"
insufficiency"
was
not
challenged.

In
the
previous
ICR,
the
Agency
based
its
estimates
of
future
burden
and
costs
for
complex
reviews
on
data
pertaining
to
actual
reviews
conducted
under
section
313.
These
reviews
were
Agency
initiated,
however,
and
not
the
result
of
any
public
petition.
The
previous
ICR
based
its
cost
and
burden
calculations
on
53
complex
reviews
per
year
for
the
period.
However,
that
number
is
based
not
on
the
number
of
actual
high
level,
or
complex
reviews,
but
on
the
number
of
chemical
delisting
petitions
submitted
to
the
TRI
program.
The
actual
number
of
high
level,
Agency­
initiated
reviews
is
five
per
year,
or
15
for
the
next
three­
year
period
of
FY00
through
FY02.
(
Personal
communication
with
Tim
Crawford,
IMD/
EPA,
8/
17/
99).
The
annual
burden
is
thus
estimated
to
be
185
hours
and
the
total
annual
cost,
$
8,225.
The
average
burden
per
review
is
estimated
at
37
hours,
and
the
average
cost
per
review
is
estimated
to
be
$
1,645
(
all
labor
at
fully­
loaded
1999
GS
13
hourly
rate).
For
the
three­
year
period,
the
total
burden
is
estimated
to
be
555
hours,
and
the
cost,
$
24,675.
All
Agency­
initiated
reviews
were
carried
out
under
section
313;
the
Agency
does
not
initiate
reviews
of
claims
made
under
sections
311
and
312
(
Memorandum
from
Sicy
Jacob,
OSWER/
EPA,
8/
12/
99,
and
personal
communication
from
Tim
Crawford,
IMD/
EPA,
8/
17/
99).

EPA
recognizes
that
the
estimated
burden
hours
per
review
presented
here
for
complex
reviews
exceed
those
estimated
for
low
level
reviews
by
only
about
20
percent
on
average.
However,
based
on
review
activities
conducted
for
the
previous
ICR,
this
narrow
range
was
believed
to
provide
the
most
reasonable
estimate
of
anticipated
resource
requirements
over
the
three­
year
period.
Agency
staff
do
not
expect
the
hourly
burden
estimates
to
change
over
the
next
three­
year
period
(
Memorandum
from
Sicy
Jacob,
OSWER/
EPA,
8/
12/
99,
and
personal
communication
from
Tim
Crawford,
IMD/
EPA,
8/
17/
99).
In
addition,
changes
to
the
TRI
program
will
result
in
significant
expansion
of
the
program
and
could
alter
the
number
of
both
low
level
and
complex
reviews.
At
this
time,
however,
it
is
impossible
to
estimate
what
those
changes,
or
their
impacts,
might
be
(
Personal
communication
from
Tim
Crawford,
IMD/
EPA,
8/
17/
99).

Under
Section
322(
g),
EPA
has
the
responsibility
to
provide
trade
secret
information
to
States
who
request
such
information.
One
such
request
was
received,
but
the
company
withdrew
17
January
24,
2000
its
trade
secret
claim.
Therefore,
this
ICR
does
not
estimate
costs
or
burdens
because
no
additional
requests
are
expected,
and
the
Agency
does
not
have
adequate
experience
on
which
to
base
an
estimate.

(
iii)
Provision
of
Adverse
Health
Effects
Information
Table
3
also
shows
the
estimated
costs
incurred
to
collect
and
distribute
health
hazard
data
for
EPCRA
section
313
chemicals
claimed
as
trade
secret.
During
the
previous
three
years
(
FY97
through
FY99),
a
total
of
12
profiles
were
prepared
using
a
total
of
approximately
132
hours.
Four
profiles
are
expected
to
be
prepared
each
year
again
during
FY00
through
FY02.
The
burden
estimate
for
FY97
through
FY99
shown
in
the
table
is
based
on
an
annual
projected
burden
of
11.2
hours
per
profile,
or
44.8
hours
per
year
at
the
GS­
13
level
($
44.48/
hr,
1999).
The
estimated
burden
per
profile
has
not
changed
from
the
previous
ICR.
The
total
annual
cost
is
estimated
to
be
$
1,992.
For
the
three­
year
period,
the
total
burden
is
estimated
to
be
135
hours,
at
a
cost
of
$
5,976.
(
Personal
communication
with
Tim
Crawford,
IMD/
EPA,
8/
17/
99.

Although
the
RIA
identified
three
additional
tasks
included
as
part
of
the
provision
of
health
effects
data,
no
additional
burden
was
estimated
to
be
associated
with
these
tasks.
This
is
because
these
tasks
(
sanitizing
hazard
profiles,
provision
of
section
313
data
to
the
public
upon
request,
and
provision
of
section
313
data
to
states
upon
request)
are
either
not
performed
(
e.
g.,
no
requests
for
trade
secret
data
have
been
received
from
the
states)
or
are
performed
routinely
as
part
of
the
normal
Toxic
Release
Inventory
(
TRI)
data
release
(
Personal
communication
from
Tim
Crawford,
IMD/
EPA,
8/
17/
99).

The
total
burden
to
the
federal
government
for
managing
claims
submitted
under
sections
303,
and
311/
312
over
the
three­
year
period
covered
by
this
ICR
will
be
1,779
hours,
at
a
cost
of
$
112,752.
For
handling
section
313
claims,
the
federal
government
burden
is
estimated
to
be
2,730
hours
for
the
three­
year
period,
at
a
total
cost
of
$
99,150.
The
grand
total
hours
is
4,509
hours,
or
1503
hours
per
year,
and
$
211,902
for
the
three­
year
period.
18
January
24,
2000
Table
3
Cost
to
Federal
Government
­
Sections
322/
323
Cost
Type
FY00
FY01
FY02
Total
1.
Processing
and
Storing
Trade
Secret
Claims
Fixed
Costs
Section
313:
Dollars
$
2,288
$
2,288
$
2,288
$
6,864
Variable
Costs
Section
303,
311/
312:

Number
of
Claims
280
280
280
840
Hours
per
Claim
2.25
2.25
2.25
Dollars
per
Claim
$
145
$
145
$
145
Section
313:
Number
of
Claims
24
24
29
77
Hours
per
Claim
28.33
28.33
28.33
Dollars
per
Claim
$
856
$
856
$
856
Hours
All
1,310
1,310
1,452
4,072
Dollars
All
$
61,144
$
61,144
$
65,424
$
187,712
Subtotal
­
All
Costs
Hours
1,310
1,310
1,452
4,072
Dollars
$
63,432
$
63,432
$
63,712
$
194,576
Weighted
Avg.
Burden/
Claim
4.3
4.3
4.7
19
January
24,
2000
Weighted
Avg.
Cost/
Claim
$
202
$
202
$
217
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Cost
Type
FY00
FY01
FY02
Total
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

2.
Agency
Review
Process
A.
Low
Level
Review
(
Assumes
each
petition
pertains
to
one
claim)

Number
of
Petitions
1
1
1
3
Hours
per
Petition
30
30
30
Dollars
per
Petition
$
1,334
$
1,334
$
1,334
Hours
­
all
petitions
30
30
30
90
Cost
­
all
petitions
$
1,334
$
1,334
$
1,334
$
4,002
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

2.
Agency
Review
Process
B.
Complex
Review
Number
of
Reviews
5
5
5
15
Hours
per
Review
37
37
37
Dollars
per
Review
$
1,645
$
1,645
$
1,645
Hours
All
185
185
185
555
Cost
All
$
8,225
$
8,225
$
8,225
$
24,675
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

3.
Provision
of
Adverse
Health
Effects
Information
20
January
24,
2000
Number
of
Profiles
4
4
4
12
Hours
per
Profile
11.2
11.2
11.2
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Cost
Type
FY00
FY01
FY02
Total
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Cost
per
Profile
$
498
$
498
$
498
Hours
All
45
45
45
135
Dollars
$
1,992
$
1,992
$
1,992
$
5,976
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Federal
Government
Totals
A.
Sections
303,
311/
312
(
Low
Level
Review)

Hours
593
593
593
1,779
Dollars
$
37,584
$
37,584
$
37,584
$
112,7
52
B.
Section
313
(
Complex
Review)

Hours
910
910
910
2,730
Dollars
$
33,050
$
33,050
$
33,050
$
99,150
Grand
Totals
Hours
1,503
1,503
1,503
4,509
Cost
$
70,634
$
70,634
$
70,634
$
211,902
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
21
January
24,
2000
Note:
Totals
may
not
add
up
exactly
due
to
rounding.
22
January
24,
2000
6(
c)
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
and
Costs
(
i)
Forms
Completion
One
of
the
major
cost
components
associated
with
trade
secret
claims
is
the
cost
to
facilities
to
prepare
substantiations.
The
time
required
to
complete
this
process
for
each
chemical
will
vary
with
the
complexity
of
the
situation,
the
number
of
chemicals
that
a
facility
seeks
to
claim,
and
the
amount
of
detail
that
a
facility
includes
in
each
answer.
The
cost
estimates
presented
in
Table
4
are
based
on
phone
conversations
with
trade
secret
submitters
and
on
assumptions
about
the
time
it
takes
to
complete
various
activities,
which
are
explained
in
brief
below.

Facilities
will
incur
two
types
of
costs
in
the
handling
and
filing
of
trade
secret
claims:
fixed
costs
(
i.
e.,
costs
that
do
not
vary
with
the
number
of
chemicals
claimed
trade
secret)
and
variable
costs,
which
are
incurred
on
a
per
claim
basis.
In
all
cases,
all
facilities
that
file
trade
secret
claims
will
incur
fixed
costs;
these
costs
will
be
incurred
only
once,
however,
reflecting
the
fact
that
actions
such
as
rule
familiarization,
chemical
selection,
and
preparation
of
facility
identification
information
will
be
undertaken
only
once.
It
is
assumed
that
only
facilities
making
first­
time
trade
secret
claims
incur
fixed
costs;
although
other
facilities
may
spend
time
reading
the
rule
and
deciding
whether
to
make
a
claim,
this
analysis
does
not
attribute
those
costs
to
the
regulation.

The
number
of
first­
time
claims
prepared
annually
was
estimated
based
on
an
assumption
that
approximately
one­
quarter
of
the
claims
received
are
submitted
by
new
facilities
(
first­
time
filers)
or
pertain
to
chemicals
for
which
an
existing
submitter
is
claiming
a
trade
secret
for
the
first
time.
(
Memorandum
from
Sicy
Jacob,
OSWER/
EPA
8/
12/
99).
(
See
Table
4,
1.
Forms
Completion
­
Facilities,
Fixed
Costs:
304
x
.25
=
76.)
While
the
burden
associated
with
claims
falling
into
the
second
category
will
not
include
rule
familiarization,
it
does
include
time
spent
by
the
submitter
to
determine
whether
a
trade
secret
claim
is
necessary
(
chemical
selection).
This
effort
is
a
major
portion
of
overall
fixed
costs.
The
22
hours
allocated
to
forms
completion,
fixed
costs
are
broken
down
as
follows:
10.8
hours,
management;
11
hours,
technical;
and
.2
hours,
secretarial
(
Memorandum
from
Bob
Andrei,
EETD/
EPA,
1993).

The
second
type
of
costs
that
facilities
will
incur
are
variable
costs;
facilities
will
incur
these
costs
for
each
chemical
claimed
as
trade
secret.
These
costs
include
preparing
the
trade
secret
substantiation,
sanitizing
the
report,
and
mailing
the
report
to
EPA.
In
this
ICR,
burden
hours
used
to
calculate
variable
costs
for
all
trade
secret
claims
expected
during
FY00
through
FY02
have
been
updated
to
reflect
the
effort
required
to
prepare
original
substantiations
for
a
given
chemical
that
does
not
have
a
previously
submitted
substantiation
prepared,
as
well
as
resubmittal
of
previously
submitted
claims.
Repeat
submitters
incur
somewhat
lower
per
unit
23
3U.
S.
EPA,
Economic
Analysis
of
the
Proposed
Rule
To
Modify
Reporting
of
Persistent
Bioaccumulative
Toxic
Chemicals
Under
EPCRA
Section
313.
U.
S.
EPA,
Washington,
D.
C.
Dec.
1998,
Table
4­
3,
p.
4­
6.

January
24,
2000
preparation
cost
than
those
incurred
by
facilities
filing
first­
time,
or
original
claims
for
several
reasons.
First,
resubmitting
facilities
that
assert
a
claim
repeatedly
for
the
same
chemical
under
the
same
Title
III
section
313,
311/
312
or
303
can
use
essentially
the
same
substantiation
form
answers
that
were
used
in
the
original
substantiation
claim.
Second,
facilities
save
money
by
filing
essentially
the
same
substantiation
with
reports
submitted
under
multiple
Title
III
sections
during
the
same
reporting
year.
Third,
facilities
save
by
submitting
essentially
the
same
substantiation
form
answers
to
support
claims
for
multiple
chemicals
reported
pursuant
to
the
same
Title
III
section.
These
cost
savings
occur
when,
for
instance,
a
facility
makes
claims
for
multiple
chemicals
which
comprise
the
same
formulation
or
portions
of
a
formulation.

This
year
OSWER
contacted
five
actual
submitters
of
trade
secret
claims
under
sections
311/
312
to
obtain
updated
burden
estimates
for
submitting
claims.
Submitters
of
new
claims
reported
time
requirements
of
two
to
four
hours,
with
an
average
of
three
hours.
Submitters
of
previously
submitted
claims,
who
submitted
between
one
and
40
claims,
reported
times
of
one
to
three
hours,
with
an
average
of
two
hours
total
for
all
claims.
(
Memorandum
from
Sicy
Jacob,
IMD/
EPA,
8/
12/
99).
Erring
on
the
conservative
side,
this
ICR
assumes
that
each
facility
spends
the
highest
amount,
four
hours
per
claim,
for
variable
costs.
The
hours
are
broken
down
as
follows:
.25
hour,
management;
2
hours,
technical;
and
1.75
hours,
secretarial
(
Breakdown
proportionally
same
as
previous
ICR,
which
was
taken
from
Memorandum
from
Bob
Andrei,
EETD/
EPA,
1993).

The
cost
to
respondents
is
estimated
based
on
the
time
needed
to
complete
the
tasks
described
above,
and
the
hourly
labor
wage
rates
at
appropriate
levels.
Wage
rates,
including
fringe
costs
and
overhead,
are
$
86.86/
hr.
for
management
time,
$
64.30/
hr.
for
technical
time,
and
$
25.63/
hr.
for
clerical
time.

Wage
rates
are
from
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
and
are
updated
by
the
Employer
Cost
Index
to
March
1998.
The
same
wage
rates
were
used
in
a
recent
EPA
Economic
Analysis
pertaining
to
a
Toxic
Release
Inventory
rulemaking.
3
The
wage
rates
represent
the
mix
of
labor
categories
deemed
appropriate
for
the
Agency's
Comprehensive
Assessment
and
Information
Rule
(
CAIR).
24
January
24,
2000
Table
4
Burden/
Costs
to
Respondents
by
Activity­
Sections
322/
323
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Affected
Entity
FY00
FY01
FY02
Total
1.
Forms
Completion
­
Facilities
Fixed
Costs
Number
Affected
76
76
77
229
Hours
Per
Facility
22
22
22
Dollars
Per
Facility
$
1,577
$
1,577
$
1,577
Hours
All
1,672
1,672
1,694
5,038
Dollars
All
$
119,852
$
119,852
$
121,429
$
361,133
Variable
Costs
Number
Affected
304
304
309
917
Hours
Per
Facility
4
4
4
Dollars
Per
Facility
$
169
$
169
$
169
Hours
All
1,216
1,216
1,236
3,668
Dollars
All
$
51,376
$
51,376
$
52,221
$
54,973
Subtotal
Hours
All
2,888
2,888
2,930
8,706
Dollars
All
$
171,228
$
171,228
$
173,650
$
516,106
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
25
January
24,
2000
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Affected
Entity
FY00
FY01
FY02
Total
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

2.
Petition
Process
Petitioners
(
General
Public)

Number
of
Petitions
1
1
1
3
Hours
Per
Petition
2.5
2.5
2.5
Dollars
per
Petition
$
161
$
161
$
161
Hours
All
2.5
2.5
2.5
7.5
Cost
All
$
161
$
161
$
161
$
483
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Facilities
Number
of
Petitions/
Reviews
6
6
6
18
Avg.
Hours
Per
Petition
32.7
32.7
32.7
Dollars
per
Petition
$
2,840
$
2,840
$
2,840
Hours
All
196
196
196
588
Cost
All
$
17,040
$
17,040
$
17,040
$
51,120
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Subtotal
Hours
All
198.5
198.5
198.5
596
Cost
All
$
17,201
$
17,201
$
17,201
$
51,603
26
January
24,
2000
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Affected
Entity
FY00
FY01
FY02
Total
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

3.
Third
Party
Notification
State
Gov'ts/
SERCS
Number
of
Inquiries
5
5
5
15
Hours
per
Inquiry
1
1
1
Dollars
per
Inquiry
$
33
$
33
$
33
Health
Professionals
Number
of
Inquiries
5
5
5
15
Hours
per
Inquiry
1
1
1
Dollars
per
Inquiry
$
64
$
64
$
64
Facilities
Number
of
Inquiries
10
10
10
30
Hours
per
Inquiry
1
1
1
Dollars
per
Inquiry
$
56
$
56
$
56
Hours
All
20
20
20
60
Dollars
All
$
1,045
$
1,045
$
1,045
$
3,135
Total
Respondent
Burden
Hours
All
3,107
3,107
3,149
9,363
Cost
All
$
189,474
$
189,474
$
191,896
$
570,844
27
January
24,
2000
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
(
ii)
Petition
and
Review
The
petition
and
review
process
will
also
cause
certain
facilities
and
public
petitioners
to
incur
costs
when
the
Agency
reviews
the
validity
of
trade
secrets
claims.
Petitioner
efforts
involve
preparing
the
petition
requesting
that
EPA
review
the
trade
secret
claim.
The
requisite
elements
of
a
petition
include
the
following:
the
petitioner's
name,
address
and
telephone
number;
the
name
and
address
of
the
company
claiming
trade
secrecy;
and,
a
copy
of
the
submission
in
which
the
chemical
identity
is
claimed
as
trade
secret
with
a
specific
indication
as
to
which
chemical
identity
the
petitioner
seeks
to
have
disclosed.

The
Agency
assumes
that
the
two
scenarios
regarding
complexity
of
claims
which
were
considered
in
estimating
EPA
costs
(
see
Table
3)
also
apply
to
costs
to
petitioners
and
facilities
in
the
petition
process
and
to
facilities
in
EPA­
initiated
reviews.
The
previous
ICR
assigned
no
facility
burden
in
connection
with
Agency­
initiated
reviews
of
trade
secret
claims.
As
in
the
previous
ICR,
the
Agency
assumes
that
all
Agency­
initiated
reviews
would
involve
facilities
at
an
increased
level
of
effort,
relative
to
a
low
level
petition­
initiated
review.
The
additional
effort
was
assumed
proportional
to
the
additional
effort
required
by
EPA
(
20
percent
above
low
level).
Table
4
incorporates
the
burden
required
by
these
additional
reviews
in
a
weighted
average
cost
per
review.
This
weighted
average
cost
was
calculated
based
on
the
estimate
of
28
hours
burden
required
for
low
level
petition
review
used
in
the
previous
ICR
(
Memorandum
from
Dorothy
McManus,
OSWER/
EPA,
10/
21/
93).
Thus,
28
hours
was
used
as
the
burden
estimate
for
all
low
level
reviews.
For
Agency­
initiated
reviews,
33.6
hours
(
28
x
1.20)
was
used.
The
Agency
did
not
receive
any
petitions
from
the
public
during
the
previous
ICR
period
for
sections
311/
312.
The
number
of
1
petition
for
section
313
is
from
the
assumption
of
an
average
of
one
petition
(
containing
1
claim)
per
year,
and
the
projected
number
of
five
Agency­
initiated
complex
reviews,
from
Table
3.
Costs
were
calculated
using
the
technical
hourly
wage
rate
of
$
64.30
for
the
one
petition
from
the
general
public,
and
the
managerial
hourly
wage
rate
of
$
86.86
for
the
five
complex
petitions/
reviews.

(
iii)
Third
Party
Notification
Also
under
the
heading
of
variable
costs
is
the
burden
and
cost
to
facilities
responding
to
requests
for
information
on
the
health
effects
of
trade
secret
chemicals
in
non­
emergency
and
preventative
measure
situations
from
health
professionals
and
state
governors
or
State
Emergency
Response
Commissions
(
SERCs).
The
state
government
inquiries
can
be
made
as
the
result
of
a
public
request
for
the
information.
These
costs
and
burdens
were
not
required
to
be
included
in
previous
ICRs.

Based
on
limited
telephone
inquiries
made
in
1996,
in
1995
the
estimated
number
of
information
requests
from
state
governors
was
one,
and
from
health
professions,
one
(
Memorandum
from
Lea
Anne
Gleason,
OSWER/
EPA,
10/
30/
96.)
However,
to
avoid
28
January
24,
2000
underestimating
the
potential
cost
and
burden,
this
ICR
is
continuing
to
assume
that
five
inquiries
will
be
made
each
year
by
each
of
five
different
state
governments
and
health
professionals.
Facilities
are
therefore
assumed
to
respond
to
10
inquiries
each
year.
The
estimated
burden
for
each
organization
is
one
hour
(.
5
hour
management,
or
GS­
13
equivalent
for
the
state
government,
and
.5
hour
for
secretarial,
or
GS­
7
for
states).
For
health
professionals,
the
estimated
burden
is
one
hour,
technical
labor
(
Memorandum
from
Lea
Anne
Gleason,
OSWER/
EPA,
10/
30/
96)).
The
cost
per
inquiry
is
estimated
to
be
$
33
for
state
governments,
$
64
for
health
professionals,
and
$
56
for
facilities.
The
total
burden
for
all
three
types
of
organizations
is
estimated
to
be
10
hours
per
year,
and
the
cost,
$
209
per
year.

(
iv)
Respondent
Burden
Table
5
presents
the
corresponding
burden
hours
for
each
category
of
respondent
discussed
in
the
previous
sections.

(
v)
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
There
are
no
capital
and
operation
and
maintenance
costs
associated
with
any
requirements
in
this
ICR.

(
vi)
Explanation
of
Difference
of
Annual
Reporting
Burden
The
previous
ICR
requested
an
average
annual
burden
of
8,641
hours,
while
this
ICR
requests
3,121
hours,
a
64
percent
decline.
The
average
annual
burden
per
respondent
has
fallen
by
64
percent
from
26.7
hours,
to
9.9
hours.
Three
principal
reasons
are
behind
such
dramatic
declines.
First,
the
Agency
obtained
updated
estimates
on
the
variable
costs
incurred
by
facilities
during
the
forms
completion
activity.
The
new
information
showed
a
75
percent
decline
in
the
average
burden,
from
16
hours
down
to
four
hours,
which
was
the
high
end
of
the
estimates.
Second,
the
Agency
changed
its
outdated
assumption
regarding
the
number
of
petitions
that
it
expects
to
receive.
The
Agency
had
been
basing
its
assumption
of
10
claims
(
contained
in
one
petition)
on
a
single
experience
in
1990.
No
new
petitions
have
been
received
since
then,
so
rather
than
continue
to
use
the
assumption
that
10
claims
would
be
received
every
year,
this
ICR
took
an
average
of
the
10
claims
over
the
past
nine
years,
and
used
the
figure
of
1
claim
per
year.
Third,
the
Agency
had
been
using
the
figure
of
53
claims
undergoing
complex
review
each
year,
in
the
burden
calculations.
This
year,
however,
Agency
staff
realized
that
the
high
figure
of
53
actually
including
primarily
TRI
delisting
petitions,
and
that
the
real
number
of
petitions
undergoing
complex
review
each
year
is
no
greater
than
five.

In
the
expiring
ICR,
the
estimated
number
of
respondents
for
FY99
was
304,
which
is
very
close
to
the
number
of
299
respondents
for
FY99,
and
the
same
as
the
number
expected
in
each
of
the
next
three
years.
29
January
24,
2000
The
annual
government
burden
for
low
level
reviews
of
trade
secret
claims
will
fall
dramatically
to
just
30
hours
each
year
down
from
300
hours.
This
is
caused
by
the
change
in
the
assumption
regarding
how
many
petitions
will
be
received,
discussed
above.
The
annual
government
burden
for
complex
reviews
will
also
fall
dramatically,
to
185
hours
from
1,961
hours,
again
because
of
a
correction
in
the
number
of
complex
review
conducted,
from
53
down
to
five.
The
burden
hours
per
review,
however,
are
unchanged
from
the
previous
ICR.
On
the
cost
side,
these
reductions
in
government
hours
have
caused
the
government's
costs
to
drop
substantially
from
$
582,921
for
the
three­
year
period,
to
$
211,902.
30
January
24,
2000
Table
5
Burden
to
Respondents
­
Sections
322/
323
of
SARA
Title
III
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Group
Affected/
Activity
FY00
FY01
FY02
Total
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Facilities
Forms
Completion
Number
Affected
304
304
319
917
Avg.
Hours
per
8.5
8.5
8.5
Hours
All
2,888
2,888
2,888
8,706
Petition
Review
Number
Affected
6
6
6
18
Avg.
Hours
Per
32.7
32.7
32.7
Hours
All
196
196
196
588
Third
Party
Notification
Number
Affected
10
10
10
30
Avg.
Hours
per
1
1
1
Hours
All
10
10
10
30
Petitioners
Petition/
Review
Number
Affected
1
1
1
3
Hours
per
2.5
2.5
2.5
Hours
All
2.5
2.5
2.5
7.5
31
January
24,
2000
Others
(
State
Gov'ts
and
Health
Professionals)

Third
Party
Notification
Number
Affected
10
10
10
10
Hours
Per
1
1
1
Hours
All
10
10
10
30
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

FY00
FY01
FY02
Total
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Total
for
all
affected
(
non­
Federal)

Number
Affected
315
315
315
950
Hours
per
9.9
9.9
9.9
Burden
All
3,107
3,107
3,149
9,363
32
January
24,
2000
6(
d)
Burden
Statement
The
annual
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
is
estimated
to
average
9.9
hours
per
claim.
Burden
means
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
such
a
request,
and
a
person
or
facility
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.

Send
comments
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information
(
EPA
ICR
No.
1428.05),
including
suggestions
for
reducing
the
burden,
to:
Director,
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
Mailcode
2822,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460;
and
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
N.
W.,
Washington,
D.
C.
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.
Include
the
EPA
ICR
number
and
OMB
control
number
in
any
correspondence.
