1

Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION

1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection

Title: Use of Mercury and Mercury Compounds in Products and Processes

EPA ICR No. 2532.01 OMB Control No.: 2070-NEW

1(b) Short Characterization/Abstract

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Office of Chemical Safety and 

Pollution Prevention is working to further reduce the use of mercury1and mercury compounds2

in products and certain manufacturing processes to prevent future releases of mercury to the 

environment. After negotiating and joining a global agreement called the Minamata Convention 

on Mercury (Minamata Convention, see Attachment 2), EPA continues to pursue measures to 

reduce the use of mercury in various media. EPA investigated current information on the use of 

mercury and mercury compounds in products and certain manufacturing processes in the United 

States and found significant data gaps that prevent the Agency from taking systematic, strategic, 

and effective actions to reduce the use of mercury and mercury compounds in order to prevent 

potential releases to the environment.

To close such data gaps, EPA will collect information from persons who process mercury

or mercury compounds for use in the production of mercury-added products,

3

import mercury for 

use in the production of mercury-added products, import mercury-added products, and/or export 

mercury-added products. In addition, EPA will request information from persons who process 

mercury or mercury compounds for use in certain industrial processes. EPA is particularly 

interested in the amount of mercury or mercury compounds used in mercury-added products as a 

whole and among various categories of products, including mercury or mercury compounds that 

are added during domestic manufacture,

4

as well as contained in imported and exported products.

Initially, this will be a one-time information collection request (ICR), but EPA may

request subsequent renewals, as necessary. EPA first will invite companies that manufacture, 

import, or export a product (or products) containing mercury or mercury compounds or 

companies that use mercury or mercury compounds in a manufacturing process (or processes) to 

 

1 The term “mercury” means elemental mercury, (Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number 7439-97-6).

2 The term “mercury compound” means mercury reacted with another substance (e.g., mercury chloride, mercury 

oxide, methylmercury).

3 The term “mercury-added product” means a product or product component that contains mercury or a mercury 

compound that was intentionally added.

4 The term “manufacture” means to manufacture or produce for commercial purposes. Unlike other definitions in 

TSCA regulations (e.g., 40 CFR 711.3), this definition of “manufacture” does not include “import.”5 EPA. EPAFDA Advisory on Mercury in Fish and Shellfish. Available at http://www.epa.gov/fish-tech/epa-fda-advisorymercury-fish-and-shellfish.
2

voluntarily submit responses to a questionnaire (see Attachment 4) for a period of 60 days after 

the proposed ICR is approved by the Office of Management and Budget. Thereafter, EPA will 

issue more formal measures under section 11 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to 

obtain the information. For all information received after the ICR is in place, the Agency

anticipates some form of follow-up with respondents (e.g., emails or telephone calls) to clarify

information received from respondents. Examples of such follow-up correspondence include, but 

are not limited to questions regarding reported amounts of mercury or mercury compounds that 

deviate from currently observed trends, disproportionately large or small volumes reported, or 

other discrepancies in reported information (e.g., reported volumes in sections of the 

questionnaire expected to match or be consistent appear to be incorrect per human error). In 

other instances, EPA anticipates that respondents might reach out to the Agency prior to 

submitting information for assistance in interpreting questions or in preparation of responses.

EPA anticipates that the information collection activity will involve approximately 250 

private entities that either manufacture, import, or export mercury-added products, or use 

mercury or mercury compounds in manufacturing processes, although the number of entities 

may be as high as 646. Respondents will answer set of questions about the amounts of mercury

or mercury compounds the entities use and in which products. The years of interest are 2010, 

2013, and 2016.

EPA will use the collected information to determine if and what type of actions, 

including voluntary and/or mandatory measures, are needed to reduce the use of mercury or 

mercury compounds. The Agency will also use such information to prioritize where and how 

measures are applied in order to help prevent potential risks of mercury exposure to human 

health and the environment. In addition, this information also will be used to facilitate 

compliance with obligations of the United States under the Minamata Convention to continue to 

reduce the use of mercury in products and processes, and to report on actions taken to do so.

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION

2(a) Need/Authority for the Collection

Background

Mercury is known to cause adverse health effects on humans and wildlife. Domestically, 

the most prevalent human and wildlife exposure to mercury results from ingesting fish 

contaminated with methylmercury, which forms when mercury in the air is deposited to water. 

Methylmercury is a highly toxic substance that affects nervous systems, particularly during an 

organism’s development. The federal government and all fifty states have issued advisories 

concerning ingestion of mercury in fish.

5

In addition to methylmercury, exposure to mercury can also pose health risks. Mercury

primarily causes health effects when it is inhaled as a vapor that can be absorbed through the 

 

5 EPA. EPA-FDA Advisory on Mercury in Fish and Shellfish. Available at http://www.epa.gov/fish-tech/epa-fdaadvisory-mercury-fish-and-shellfish.
3

lungs. These exposures can occur when mercury is spilled or products that contain mercury

break, resulting in release of mercury to the air, particularly in warm or poorly-ventilated indoor 

spaces. 

Mercury and mercury compounds are used in the manufacture of mercury-added products 

and certain manufacturing processes. The typical lifecycle of products includes manufacture, 

distribution in commerce, use, disposal, or recycling. At any point in the lifecycle, there is 

potential for mercury to be released.

6

Trends of Mercury Use in Products

Over the past three decades, the United States has seen a strong downward trend in the 

domestic use of mercury in products.

7 Nonetheless, more than 50 tons of mercury continues to be 

used or imported every year in products, many of which have cost-effective, non-mercury

substitutes.8In 2015, to collect information on domestic mercury supply and trade, the Agency

collected domestic sales information for the years 2010 and 2013 from five companies identified 

as the primary recyclers and distributors of mercury in the United States.9 Comparing totals for 

mercury in products sold and the amount of bulk mercury sold in the United States in 2013 

revealed a significant gap. EPA believes mercury may be used in manufacturing processes as a 

reactant or formulation component, including the production of polyurethane elastomers, which 

may not be reflected in the amount of mercury reported as sold in products. In addition, EPA is 

interested in finding out the amount of mercury in products manufactured in the United States 

and sold overseas, which would not be reported in domestic sales. The Agency is committed to 

continue working to explain such data gaps and to reduce the use of mercury in products and 

processes, where feasible.

Minamata Convention on Mercury and EPA Strategy

In 2013, the United States joined the Minamata Convention, an international environmental

agreement with multiple obligations to governments aimed at reducing the production and use of 

mercury worldwide. Articles 4 and 5 of the Minamata Convention contain required actions by all 

Parties related to mercury-added products and manufacturing processes in which mercury or 

mercury compounds are used, including, but not limited to:

 Implement measures and strategies to reduce or prohibit the use of mercury in listed 

products;

 Report to the Conference of Parties to the Convention on the measures or strategies 

implemented, including a quantification of the reductions achieved;

 Consider additional measures to achieve further reductions of listed products;

 

6 EPA. Elemental Mercury Used in Barometers, Manometers, Hygrometers, and Psychrometers; Significant New 

Use Rule. Federal Register. 77 FR 31728, May 30, 2012 (FRL-9345-9).

7 EPA. EPA’s Roadmap for Mercury, EPA-747R-06-001, July 2006, and New England Waste Management 

Officials’ Association (NEWMOA). IMERC Fact Sheet: Mercury Use in Products, p. 1, February 2014. Available at

http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/factsheets/all_products_2014.pdf.

8 NEWMOA. IMERC Fact Sheet: Mercury Use in Products, p. 1, February 2014.

9 EPA. Subpoena and Information Request. March 20, 2015. Available at http://www.epa.gov/mercury/2015-

subpoena-and-information-request-epa-mercury-recyclers.
4

 Take measures to prevent the listed products from being incorporated into assembled 

products;

 Discourage the manufacture and sale of mercury‐added products not covered by any

known use of mercury-added products prior to the date of entry into force of the 

Convention;

 Take appropriate measures to restrict or prohibit the use of mercury or mercury

compounds in manufacturing processes;

 Collect and maintain information on processes that use mercury or mercury compounds 

and their alternatives; and

 Discourage the development of any facility using any other manufacturing process in 

which mercury or mercury compounds are intentionally used that did not exist prior to 

the date of entry into force of the Convention.

In order to carry out its work on mercury-added products and manufacturing processes,

and to facilitate compliance with the U.S. obligations under the Minamata Convention, EPA 

wrote and published a plan called the “EPA Strategy to Address Mercury-Containing Products”

(EPA Strategy; see Attachment 3)

10

. The EPA Strategy is divided into five phases, the first of 

which is to update EPA’s information on mercury-added products and manufacturing processes. 

In later phases, EPA will use the improved information to inform voluntary or regulatory actions, 

as appropriate, to reduce the unnecessary use of mercury or mercury compounds.

Purpose of the ICR

The purpose of this ICR is to enable EPA to obtain the information necessary to achieve 

its goal to further reduce the use of mercury and mercury compounds in products and certain 

manufacturing processes in order to prevent future releases to the environment, as well as assist 

the United States in its implementation of its obligations under the Minamata Convention. EPA 

seeks to enhance its current information on how much mercury is used and in which products, 

and whether those products are manufactured domestically, imported, or exported.

Overview of Existing Information on Mercury-added Products

EPA has investigated federal and state reports and databases, among other sources, in 

order to accumulate as complete a collection of available information on mercury products as 

possible. The Agency found that its current collection lacks the specificity and level of detail that 

would allow EPA to target its use reduction efforts efficiently for both the government and 

private sectors. Internet research resulted in mostly anecdotal information. Proprietary databases 

and that of the U.S. Census Bureau do not distinguish between mercury products and nonmercury products. EPA’s Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule collects quantity information on 

chemical substances manufactured or processed in the United States, but not on individual or 

categories of products containing those substances. Although the CDR rule asks manufacturers 

and importers for information on end-uses of their chemical substances, the required information 

is too general to be useful to implement the mercury-added products strategy. The EPA Toxics

 

10 EPA. EPA Strategy to Address Mercury-Containing Products. September 2014. Available at

http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/productsstrategy.pdf.
5

Release Inventory (TRI) program requires manufacturers and processors to report whether 

mercury is used in, among other things, manufacturing or processing, as well as whether it is 

used in an article, but not the amount of mercury or which articles it is used in.

States collect useful information on the amount of mercury in mercury-added products 

sold in the United States. Laws in eight states (Connecticut, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, 

New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont) require manufacturers and importers to 

identify the mercury products they sell and the volume of mercury in them. The volume 

information is reported at a national level, although only companies selling mercury products 

within those eight states need to report. These data are reported online in the Interstate Mercury

Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC), which is managed by the Northeast Waste 

Management Officials’ Association (NEWMOA). States also collect information on mercury in 

products as part of separate programs. For example, EPA reviewed data reported under 

Washington’s Children's Safe Product Act,11 which requires manufacturers of children’s 

products sold in Washington to report if their product contains a Chemical of High Concern to 

Children, including mercury. Most states, however, do not collect information about mercury

products.

Limitations on Existing Information

In the past, the IMERC database has been a key source of national data on mercury used in 

products. The database houses information that states require the private sector to report to them 

on a triennial basis. The database provides a detailed picture of some aspects of the mercury

product market. However, as reported by IMERC, there are limitations12 of the use of such data

for EPA’s implementation of the Minamata Convention and targeting use reduction. For 

example:

 The data may underestimate the amount of mercury sold in products in the United 

States.

13 The manufacturers, importers, and distributors in eight “IMERC Notification” 

states must report on mercury-added products sold in the United States,

14 so the 

information is national in scale. However, if a mercury product is only sold in states other 

than the IMERC Notification states, then the product manufacturer, importer, or 

distributor is not required to report to IMERC. In addition, IMERC no longer collects 

data on a significant category of mercury-added products, specifically switches and 

relays, because these products are banned from sale in each of the eight IMERC 

Notification States.

 

11 WASH. REV. CODE § 70.240.

12 NEWMOA. Mercury-Added Products Database – Caveats & Limitations. Available at

http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/Notification/caveats.cfm. 

13 Ibid.

14 NEWMOA. Mercury-Added Products Database – About the Database. Available at

http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/Notification/about.cfm.
6

 In other instances, the data may overestimate the total amount of mercury sold in 

products.

15 In some cases, manufacturers supplied data for earlier reporting years, but are 

out of compliance for one or more years. Rather than assuming that this non-reporting is 

a result of a company having phased-out its mercury-added product, IMERC takes a more 

conservative approach and assumes that the mercury total for non-reporters for the 

current reporting period is the same as its most recently reported year.

 IMERC does not cover mercury compounds manufactured or imported for use in 

manufacturing processes or mercury-added products, with the exception of formulated 

products. And companies report the amount of mercury in products they sell in the 

United States, but not the amount in products they manufacture, import, or export.

Such shortcomings also were noted in 2013 by the Quicksilver Caucus, a coalition of 

state environmental association leaders dedicated to reducing mercury in the environment.16

In sum, without the ICR information, EPA’s future ability to analyze the use of mercury

and mercury compounds in products and certain manufacturing processes in the United States 

would need to rely on incomplete databases, assumptions, professional judgment, and anecdotal 

information.

Priority Data to be Collected and Statutory Authorities

Using the available sources described above, EPA has compiled estimates of the amount of 

mercury used by some manufacturers and importers in some products. EPA does not need 

estimates for each individual mercury-added product or manufacturing process, given that some 

products are almost completely phased out of the U.S. market and others are essential products 

without adequate substitutes (e.g., replacement components in larger equipment). However, in 

order to better implement the Minamata Convention and fulfill its mercury products strategy to

reduce non-essential mercury uses, the Agency needs reliable estimates of:

 The amount of mercury used in:

o Batteries

o Cosmetics (including skin lightening soaps and creams)

o Dental amalgam

o Formulated products (e.g., commercial chemical products, including catalysts, 

reactants, reagents, preservatives)

o Lighting, lamps, bulbs (including neon lighting and backlighting displays)

o Pesticides, biocides, and topical antiseptics (including paint)

o Pumps

o Measuring instruments (e.g., barometers, thermometers)

o Switches, relays, sensors, valves (including thermostats)

 

15 NEWMOA. Mercury-Added Products Database – Caveats & Limitations. Available at

http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/Notification/caveats.cfm.

16 Quicksilver Caucus. Status Report on Select Products, Processes and Technologies Utilizing Mercury. August 

2013. Available at https://dec.alaska.gov/eh/docs/mercury/Status%20Report%20by%20Quicksilver.pdf.
7

o Miscellaneous mercury-added products

o Products derived from the use of mercury or mercury compounds in a 

manufacturing process

 The amount of mercury and mercury compounds used in manufacturing processes; and

 The amount of mercury imported and exported in mercury-added products.

EPA’s authority for this information collection is TSCA sections 2(b)(1) and 11(c) (see 

Attachment 1). More detail on information the Agency intends to collect is described in Section 

4(b) of this supporting statement.

2(b) Practical Utility/Users of the Data

EPA will use the collected information to fill gaps in existing data, enabling the Agency

to more accurately estimate the amount of mercury used in manufactured, imported, and 

exported products in priority product categories. The Agency will use the results to decide 

whether actions are necessary to reduce specific mercury uses and to plan voluntary and 

regulatory action to achieve its goal to further reduce mercury use in products and certain 

processes in order to prevent future releases to the environment.

17 The information will also 

assist the United States in its sustained implementation of its obligations under the Minamata 

Convention.18 For example, the Agency intends to use the results to determine whether and how 

much the United States continues to manufacture products that are not essential (i.e., those that 

have already been successfully phased out in some states and/or readily can be replaced by nonmercury substitutes).

Similarly, EPA is interested in determining whether certain mercury-added products are 

manufactured solely for replacement parts or for uses for civil protection and military purposes, 

as well as research, calibration of instrumentation, or reference standards. The Agency believes 

that the totality of such information will not only lead to a more complete understanding of if 

and how mercury is currently used in mercury-added products and manufacturing processes, but 

also the degree to which such uses may be considered essential. Based on such analysis, EPA 

would be able to opt for voluntary or regulatory options best suited for a particular product or 

category of products, as well as the companies that manufacture, sell, or use such products.

 

17 EPA. EPA Strategy to Address Mercury-Containing Products. September 2014. Available at

http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/productsstrategy.pdf.

18 Ibid.
8

3. NON-DUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION 

CRITERIA

3(a) Non-Duplication

To the best of EPA’s knowledge, the data to be collected through this questionnaire are

not publically available. As described in Section 2(a), EPA has devoted significant resources to 

investigate available data on mercury use, including federal and state reports and databases.

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

Prior to submission to OMB, this ICR will be made available to the public for comment 

through a Federal Register notice. The public will have 60 days to provide comments. Any

comments received will be given consideration when completing the supporting statement that is 

submitted to OMB.

3(c) Consultations

Under 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1) OMB requires agencies to consult with potential ICR 

respondents and data users about specific aspects of ICRs before submitting an original or 

renewal ICR to OMB for review and approval. In accordance with this regulation, EPA will 

pursue additional consultations with interested parties during the development of the renewal of 

this collection.

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

Initially, this will be a one-time information collection. EPA may collect the information 

in multiple years if it should prove necessary and would renew this ICR accordingly.

3(e) General Guidelines

This ICR complies with the guidelines in 5 CFR 1320.5(d)(2). 

3(f) Confidentiality

The questionnaire will contain information for respondents on how to make a claim to 

EPA that all or part of their information is Confidential Business Information. 

3(g) Sensitive Questions

Not applicable. The information requested is not sensitive in nature.
9

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED

Based on the described investigation of available data, EPA determined that the best way

to acquire the needed information is to collect it directly from the entities that use mercury or 

mercury compounds to manufacture mercury-added products or in manufacturing processes, or 

that import or export mercury-added products. The existing databases were useful in helping to 

identify product categories, individual products, and NAICS codes to include in the information 

collection to ensure that the scope is sufficient without being overly broad.

4(a) Respondents and North American Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) Codes

Respondents affected by this collection activity primarily include those businesses that 

fall under the NAICS Codes in the table below.

Primary NAICS Codes and Definitions

Code Definition

Primary Product Manufacturing Industries

314110 Carpet and rug mills

322121 Paper (except newsprint) mills

322130 Paperboard mills

324122 Asphalt shingle and coating materials manufacturing

325180 Other basic inorganic chemical manufacturing

325199 All other basic organic chemical manufacturing

325211 Plastics material and resin manufacturing

325312 Phosphatic fertilizer manufacturing

325320 Pesticide and other agricultural chemical manufacturing

325411 Medicinal and botanical manufacturing

325412 Pharmaceutical preparation manufacturing

325413 In-vitro diagnostic substance manufacturing

325414 Biological product (except diagnostic) manufacturing

325510 Paint and coating manufacturing

325520 Adhesive manufacturing

325991 Custom compounding of purchased resins

325992 Photographic film, paper, plate, and chemical manufacturing

325998 All other miscellaneous chemical product and preparation manufacturing

326113 Unlaminated plastics film and sheet (except packaging) manufacturing

326150 Urethane and other foam product (except polystyrene) manufacturing

326199 All other plastics product manufacturing

326299 All other rubber product manufacturing
10

327215 Glass product manufacturing made of purchased glass

332911 Industrial valve manufacturing

332993 Ammunition except small arms manufacturing

332994 Small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing

334413 Semiconductor and related device manufacturing

334419 Other electronic component manufacturing

334511 Search, detection, navigation, guidance, aeronautical, and nautical system and 

instrument manufacturing

334512 Automatic environmental control manufacturing for residential, commercial, and 

appliance use

334513 Instruments and related products manufacturing for measuring, displaying, and 

controlling industrial process variables

334515 Instrument manufacturing for measuring and testing electricity and electrical 

signals

334516 Analytical laboratory instrument manufacturing

334519 Other measuring and controlling device manufacturing

335110 Electric lamp bulb and part manufacturing

335122 Commercial, industrial, and institutional electric lighting fixture manufacturing

335314 Relay and industrial control manufacturing

335912 Primary battery manufacturing

335931 Current-carrying wiring device manufacturing

335999 All other miscellaneous electrical equipment and component manufacturing

336413 Other aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment manufacturing

336612 Boat building

339914 Costume jewelry and novelty manufacturing

339950 Sign manufacturing

541712 Research and development in the physical, engineering, and life sciences (except 

biotechnology)

928110 National security

Secondary Product Manufacturing Industries

333294 Food product machinery manufacturing

333313 Office machinery manufacturing

333319 Other commercial and service industry machinery manufacturing

333414 Heating equipment (except warm air furnaces) manufacturing

333415 Air-conditioning and warm air heating equipment and commercial and industrial 

refrigeration equipment manufacturing

334412 Bare printed circuit board manufacturing
11

334413 Semiconductor and related device manufacturing

334510 Electromedical and electrotherapeutic apparatus manufacturing

334514 Totalizing fluid meter and counting device manufacturing

334515 Instrument manufacturing for measuring and testing electricity and electrical 

signals

334518 Watch, clock, and part manufacturing

334519 Other measuring and controlling device manufacturing

335129 Other lighting equipment manufacturing

335211 Electric house wares and household fan manufacturing

335212 Household vacuum cleaner manufacturing

335221 Household cooking appliance manufacturing

335222 Household refrigerator and home freezer manufacturing

335224 Household laundry equipment manufacturing

335228 Other major household appliance manufacturing

335313 Switchgear and switchboard apparatus manufacturing

336112 Light truck and utility vehicle manufacturing

336120 Heavy duty truck manufacturing

336213 Motor home manufacturing

336214 Travel trailer and camper manufacturing

339112 Surgical and medical instrument manufacturing

339932 Game, toy, and children’s vehicle manufacturing

424690 Other chemical and allied products merchant wholesalers

4(b) Information Requested

(i) Data items

The questionnaire “Collection of Information on Use of Mercury and Mercury

Compounds in Products and Processes” is Attachment 4. Generally, the questionnaire seeks to 

collect information on whether a company manufactures, imports, or exports products containing 

mercury or mercury compounds, or uses mercury or mercury compounds in a manufacturing 

process. For ease of responding, the questionnaire is divided into three primary sections 

requiring varying degrees of detail. However, the sections are divided such that a respondent 

may not be required to proceed past the first section or may not need to answer all of the 

questions in the two subsequent sections. Where feasible, questions are posed to provide boxes to 

check off instead of written responses and so that respondents are able to skip further questions 

within a section or skip sections altogether.

Section 1. The first section poses two “yes/no” questions for the years 2010, 2013, and/or 

2016: “Did your company manufacture, import, or export products containing mercury or 

mercury compounds;” and “Did your company use mercury or mercury compounds in a 
12

manufacturing process?” These inquiries serve as the threshold certifications that a company 

currently manufactures, imports, or exports products with mercury or uses mercury or mercury

compounds in a manufacturing process of interest to EPA.

Respondents answering “yes” to one of the questions would proceed to the second 

section. Two “no” answers would complete the questionnaire. However, the Agency will also 

ask respondents providing two “no” answers, if possible, to report the calendar year when their

use of mercury or mercury compounds ceased.

Section 2. The second section will present a table of eleven product and process 

categories. Respondents are only required to mark a box or boxes for general categories 

corresponding to products or processes for which a respondent’s company manufactured, 

imported, or exported a product or products in the years 2010, 2013, and/or 2016. If a respondent 

cannot identify a product or process among the general categories, he/she is instructed to check a 

miscellaneous category. The respondent is then directed to specific subsections of Section 3 per 

marked general category. This inquiry serves to determine the kinds of products particular 

companies manufactured, imported, or exported. Based on experience with the domestic mercury

market, the Agency believes that a respondent will likely only check one general category. In 

addition, this section provides respondents with check boxes that correspond to exclusions from 

reporting under the Minamata Convention where a product or process: (1) is essential for civil 

protection or military uses; (2) is only used for research, calibration of instruments, as a 

reference standard, or as a vaccine; or (3) contains only trace contaminants of mercury.

Section 3. The third section poses questions to elicit information for each category a 

respondent checked in Section 2.There are approximately five multi-part questions per category, 

which are designed to be nearly identical. However, they are structured so that subsequent parts 

of a question or an entire question could be skipped. For each category, the questions are limited 

to the years 2010, 2013, and/or 2016 and the respondents are allowed to use either metric or U.S. 

customary units. There is also a space allowed for respondents to provide additional comments 

should they so choose. The five multi-part questions include:

1. Asking if a respondent’s company manufactured a product that contained mercury or 

mercury compounds. If the respondent answers “no,” then he/she skips to the fourth

question. If the respondent answers “yes,” then he/she is asked to report the total amount 

of mercury or mercury compounds per product A list of specific varieties of products or 

processes, as well as an “other” option is presented to assist respondents.

2. Asking if a respondent’s company purchases in the United States mercury or mercury

compounds to be used in the production a product. If the respondent answers “no,” then 

he/she skips to the fourth question. If the respondent answers “yes,” then he/she is asked 

to report the total amount of mercury or mercury compounds purchased in the United 

States. This question does not ask for amounts reported to be broken out among specific 

varieties of products or processes.

3. Asking if a respondent’s company imported mercury or mercury compounds to be used 

in the production of a specific product. If the respondent answers “no,” then he/she skips 

to the fourth question. If the respondent answers “yes,” then he/she is asked to report the 

total amount of mercury or mercury compounds imported.
13

4. Asking if a respondent’s company imported a product containing mercury or mercury

compounds. If the respondent answers “no,” then he/she skips to the fifth question. If the 

respondent answers “yes,” then he/she is asked to report the total amount of mercury or 

mercury compounds per product. A list of specific varieties of products or processes, as 

well as an “other” option is presented to assist respondents.

5. Asking if a respondent’s company exported a product containing mercury or mercury

compounds. If the respondent answers “no,” then he/she may choose to provide any 

additional comments and then skips to the next category for which the respondent 

checked in Section 2. If the respondent answers “yes,” then he/she is asked to report the 

amount of mercury or mercury compounds per product. A list of specific varieties of 

products or processes, as well as an “other” option is presented to assist respondents.

Certain subsections will contain additional questions that correspond to provisions of the 

Minamata Convention, such as whether a specific product exceeds mercury or mercury

compound content limits. These types of questions are posed as “yes/no” questions. Such 

inquiries are intended to inform more specific reporting requirements and, in some cases, 

exemptions from reporting obligations under the Minamata Convention.

EPA welcomes public comment on how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected. In particular, EPA seeks comment on these aspects of the 

questionnaire:

1. Are there additional products or product categories that should be included in the 

questionnaire?

2. Are there additional products or product categories that should be eliminated from the 

questionnaire?

3. Should the questionnaire ask respondents to identify which products are intended solely 

as replacement parts?

(i) Respondent Activities

Individuals who are contacted to participate in this information collection activity could 

potentially perform each of the following tasks:

 Read the Federal Register notice or information collection letter;

 Read the questionnaire and instructions;

 Gather, organize, and compile records;

 Respond to questions; and

 Email or mail the completed questionnaire to EPA.
14

4. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED - AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION 

METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

5(a) Agency Activities

The Agency will conduct the following activities to complete the information collection:

 Request responses to the questionnaire via second Federal Register notice, to be provided 

by respondents after the ICR is approved;

 Send letters/formal measures to non-respondents;

 Follow up with non-responders, as needed;

 Review data;

 Follow up with respondents, if clarifications are needed; and

 Report findings.

5(b) Collection Methodology and Management

The Agency will initially publish and request comment on the efficacy of the 

questionnaire in the first Federal Register notice for the proposed ICR. After revisions, as 

appropriate, EPA in the second Federal Register notice for the proposed ICR will invite 

appropriate members of the general public to voluntarily provide information as set forth in a 

questionnaire for a period of 60 days after the proposed ICR is approved. Thereafter, EPA will 

issue subpoenas containing the same questionnaire under TSCA section 11 to obtain the 

information. For all information received after the ICR is in place, the Agency anticipates that 

some form of follow-up with respondents (e.g., emails or telephone calls), to clarify information 

received from respondents or to assist respondent in the preparation of responses.

EPA will then compile the responses to produce an understanding of mercury use across 

product categories, a list of individual products containing the most mercury, and other tools to 

help the Agency identify the best opportunities for use reduction and to construct reports to the 

Conference of Parties of the Minamata Convention.

5(c) Small Entity Flexibility

The majority of respondents will be small entities. The instrument has been developed to 

minimize the burden on all respondents while obtaining sufficient and accurate information.

5(d) Collection Schedule

Exhibit 5.1 provides the schedule of the various tasks involved in conducting the 

proposed information collection activity. As shown in the schedule, data collection would start 

within one week of OMB approval of the ICR and would end 14 weeks later.
15

Exhibit 5.1: Information

Collection Schedule

Task Week (from receipt of OMB 

approval)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Send subpoenas to 

respondents requiring 

completion of the 

questionnaire

30 days (4 weeks) for 

respondents to respond

Preliminary data review 

Follow up with nonresponders as needed

Follow up with 

respondents if 

clarifications are needed

Compile responses

6. ESTIMATING THE BURDEN AND COST OF THE COLLECTION

This section presents the burden and cost estimates incurred by all potentially affected 

entities as a result of the data collection. All costs are presented in 2014 dollars. The proposed 

information collection requires reporting at the company level. EPA estimates that up to 646 

companies in the United States manufacture, import, or export mercury-added products, or use 

mercury or mercury compounds in manufacturing processes. The following burden and cost 

estimate is based on this number; however, the Agency initially intends to narrow the scope of 

this ICR to up to 250 facilities. While the EPA expects to require information from 

approximately 250 entities, the Agency may need to request submissions from as many as 646

respondents. While the EPA expects to require information from approximately 250 entities, it 

may need to request submittals from as many as 646. The requested burden for this collection 

represents the burden associated with the maximum number of respondents, i.e., 646. All 

respondents will respond to Section 1 of this information collection; in addition, companies that 

use mercury or mercury compounds for the purposes described in Section 1 will respond to one 

or more categories in Section 2 and sets of questions in Sections 3 responding to one or more 

sections of the questionnaire.

Respondents are comprised of firms that are currently required under state law to report 

data to IMERC and firms that are not required to do so. EPA believes that firms that have 

reported data to IMERC will have a reduced burden compared with firms that have not submitted 

IMERC data, because they keep, manage, and report data on their products that contain mercury.
16

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

This section details the estimated burden to respondents participating in this ICR. For 

purposes of the ICR, a company that processes mercury or mercury compounds for use in the 

production of mercury-added products, imports mercury for use in the production of mercuryadded products, imports mercury-added products, exports mercury-added products, and/or 

processes mercury or mercury compounds for use in certain industrial processes is equivalent to 

one respondent. The questionnaire contains 13 separate sections; Section 1 contains company 

information and yes/no screening questions which determine whether the company should 

complete the rest of the questionnaire, Section 2 contains check boxes to indicate the types of 

products manufactured, imported, or exported by the company, and Sections 3 through 13 ask 

specific questions about each product type.

Unit Burden Estimates

Section 1

Section 1 of the form asks the respondent for basic company information as well as initial 

questions to indicate if a company manufactured, imported, or exported any products containing 

mercury or if mercury was used in a manufacturing process in the years 2010, 2013, and/or 2016.

Company Information

The first part of Section 1 requires the respondent to provide their company name, 

address, the name(s) and title(s) of the responding and certifying official(s), and the contact 

information for the certifying official. EPA assumes providing this information will take 

approximately 6 minutes, based on data in the 2011 Economic Analysis for the Final Inventory 

Update Reporting (IUR) Modifications Rule.

19 EPA expects this burden to be identical regardless 

of a particular respondent’s experience with IMERC reporting.

Table 1: Hourly Unit Burden for Providing Company and Contact Information

Questions

Unit Burden (Hours)

Clerical Technical Managerial Total

Responders that Have not Submitted Data to IMERC

Company Information 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.10

IMERC Data Submitters

Company Information 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.10

Source(s): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. 

Economic Analysis for the Final Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Modifications Rule. June 

30, 2011. Burden for submitters provide company and technical contact information. 

Questions 1(a) and 1(b)

 

19 EPA. Economic Analysis for the Final Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Modifications Rule. June 30, 2011.
17

The second part of Section 1 asks respondents to indicate whether they manufactured, 

imported, or exported any products containing mercury or whether mercury was used in a 

manufacturing process in the years 2010, 2013, and/or 2016. EPA estimated the burden for 

reviewing their records to determine this information is 2.5 hours.

Table 2: Hourly Unit Burden for Determining Whether the Respondent 

Manufactures, Imports, or Exports Products Containing Mercury or uses 

Mercury in a Manufacturing Process

Questions

Unit Burden (Hours)

Clerical Technical Managerial Total

Responders that Have not Submitted Data to IMERC

1(a) and 1(b) 0.00 2.50 0.00 2.50

IMERC Data Submitters

1(a) and 1(b) 0.00 2.50 0.00 2.50

Source(s): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. 

Economic Analysis for the Final Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Modifications Rule. June 

30, 2011. Burden for compliance determination.

Total Industry Unit Burden Estimates for Section 1

Table 3 presents the total unit burden estimates for all submitters to complete Section 1 of 

the document. To calculate the total burden, the estimates derived above are weighted by the 

percentage of respondents completing a given section, that are expected to respond to a given 

question and the number of responses per respondent, in this case all respondents completing 

Section 1 are expected to respond to all questions in Section 1, with one response per respondent.

Table 3: Total Burden to Complete Section One for All Submitters

Question

Total per Unit 

Burden

(Hours)

Percentage of 

Respondents who

Complete the Section 

that Respond to the 

Question

Responses 

per 

Respondent

Total 

Burden

(Hours)

Company Information 0.10 100% 1 0.10

1(a) and 1(b) 2.50 100% 1 2.50

Total 2.60

Section 2 

Section 2 of the form requires respondents to indicate the mercury added-product(s) they

manufacture, import, or export and whether their products are used within certain end use 

categories, such as military products or only for research and development purposes. EPA 

believes that the burden to check the box indicating the product category is negligible, and the 

burden to indicate certain end use categories is approximately 1.23 hours per respondent for 

firms that have not submitted IMERC data and 0.98 hours per respondent for IMERC data 

submitters, based on the burden to indicate consumer/commercial product categories in IUR 
18

reporting.20 See Table 4. EPA believes that 100 percent of respondents will complete this 

section.

Table 4: Hourly Unit Burden for Indicating Certain End Uses

Questions

Unit Burden (Hours)

Clerical Technical Managerial Total

Responders that Have not Submitted Data to IMERC

Information on Certain Uses 0.14 0.84 0.25 1.23

IMERC Data Submitters

Information on Certain Uses 0.12 0.75 0.20 0.98

Source(s): US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. 

Economic Analysis for the Final Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Modifications Rule. June 30, 

2011. Burden for submitters provide commercial and consumer end use categories. 

Sections 3 to 13

Sections 3 to 13 of the form ask for information on the use of mercury and mercury 

compounds in specific end products. The sections below present the burden estimates for each 

question in these sections.

Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are yes/no questions that require the respondent to indicate 

whether the company manufactured, imported, or exported a product containing elemental 

mercury or mercury compounds, or whether the company purchased or imported elemental 

mercury or mercury compounds to manufacture a product, in 2010, 2013, or 2016. EPA assumed 

the burden for responding to these questions to be negligible, as it is likely the submitter would 

have reviewed this information when responding to questions 1.a. and 1.b. in Section 1 of the 

questionnaire.

Questions 1(a), 2(a), 3(a), and 5(a).

Questions 1(a), 2(a), 3(a), and 5(a) require the respondent to provide the total amount of 

mercury or mercury compounds manufactured in products manufactured or exported by the 

company or the amount of elemental mercury or mercury compounds domestically purchased or 

imported by the company to be used to products. EPA estimates that the burden associated with 

each one of these questions is similar to reporting product volumes on the paper Inventory

Update Rule (IUR) form and is 1.51 hours for firms that have not submitted IMERC data and 

1.21 hour for IMERC data submitters.21

 

20 EPA. Economic Analysis for the Final Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Modifications Rule. June 30, 2011.

21 Ibid.
19

Table 5: Hourly Unit Burden for Questions 1(a), 2(a), 3(a), and 5(a)

Questions

Unit Burden (Hours)

Clerical Technical Managerial Total

Responders that Have not Submitted Data to IMERC

1(a), 2(a), 3(a), and 5(a) 0.23 1.03 0.25 1.51

IMERC Data Submitters

1(a), 2(a), 3(a), and 5(a) 0.19 0.82 0.20 1.21

Source(s): U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. 

Economic Analysis for the Final Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Modifications Rule. June 

30, 2011. Burden for submitters to report production volumes, EPA assumes that Non-IMEC 

submitters have the same burden as a firm that reports CDR data for the first time and IMERC

data submitters have the burden of a recurring CDR submitter. 

Question 4(a)

Question 4(a) requires the respondent to indicate the total amount of mercury or mercury

compounds in manufactured products imported by the respondent. EPA believes that identifying 

the amount of mercury in imported products may be more burdensome that in domestically

manufactured products or exports. Therefore, EPA uses the burden estimate for importers to 

collect information on the chemicals contained in imported articles from their suppliers as 

presented in the white paper Understanding the Costs Associated with Eliminating Exemptions 

for Articles in SNURs.22 The white paper estimates that this task will take between 0.08 and 8 

hours, therefore, for the purposes of this ICR, EPA used the midpoint estimate of 4.04 hours. For 

IMERC data submitters EPA used the 20% burden reduction estimates for the IUR form23 and 

estimated a unit burden of 3.23 hours.

Table 6: Hourly Unit Burden for Question 4 (a)

Question Unit Burden (Hours)

Clerical Technical Managerial Total

Responders that Have not Submitted Data to IMERC

4(a) 0.00 4.04 0.00 4.04

IMERC Data Submitters

4(a) 0.00 3.23 0.00 3.23

Source(s): Based on the average burden to collect information from suppliers on the 

chemicals in imported products in Understanding the Costs Associated with Eliminating 

Exemptions for Articles in SNURs. IMERC data submitters are assumed to have a 20% burden 

reduction based on the IUR EA, burden savings estimates for repeat submitters.

Questions 1(b) and 5(b) [Sections 3 and 4 Only].

Questions 1(b) and 5(b) are only found in Section 3 of the form, which requires the 

respondent to indicate whether the company has manufactured or exported cosmetics with a 

mercury concentration greater than 1 ppm or batteries with mercury content of 2% or greater. 

EPA estimates this burden to be similar to reporting chemical concentrations in a consumer or 

 

22 EPA. Understanding the Costs Associated with Eliminating Exemptions for Articles in SNURs. November 20, 

2014.

23 EPA. Economic Analysis for the Final Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Modifications Rule. June 30, 2011.
20

commercial product under the paper IUR form; 1.46 hours for IMERC data submitters and 1.81 

hours for firms that have not submitted IMERC data.24

Table 7: Hourly Unit Burden for Questions 1(b) and 5(b)

Questions

Unit Burden (Hours)

Clerical Technical Managerial Total

Responders that Have not Submitted Data to IMERC

1(b) and 5(b) 0.11 1.36 0.34 1.81

IMERC Data Submitters

1(b) and 5(b) 0.09 1.09 0.28 1.46

Source(s): US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. 

Economic Analysis for the Final Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Modifications Rule. June 

30, 2011. Burden for submitters to report chemical concentrations in a consumer or 

commercial product, EPA assumes that Non-IMEC submitters have the same burden as a firm 

that reports CDR data for the first time and IMERC data submitters have the burden of a 

recurring CDR submitter.

Question 4(b) [Sections 3 and 4 Only].

Similar to question 4(a), EPA believes that importers may have a larger burden than 

domestic manufacturers or exporters, when reporting whether they imported any cosmetics with 

a mercury concentration greater than 1 ppm or batteries with mercury content of 2% or greater. 

EPA estimates the burden to respond to this question to be half of the burden for question 4(a), 

or 2.02 hours for firms that have not submitted IMERC data and 1.62 hours for IMERC data 

submitters.

Table 8: Hourly Unit Burden for Questions 4(b)

Question Unit Burden (Hours)

Clerical Technical Managerial Total

Responders that Have not Submitted Data to IMERC

4(b) 0.00 2.02 0.00 2.02

IMERC Data Submitters

4(b) 0.00 1.62 0.00 1.62

Source(s): Assumed to be half of the burden to collect information from suppliers on the 

chemicals in imported products from the Article Importation white paper, as submitters will 

already be looking at this information for the question above. IMERC data submitters are 

assumed to have a 20% burden reduction based on the IUR EA, burden savings estimates for 

repeat submitters.

Questions 1(c), 4(c) and 5(c) [Sections 3 and 4 Only].

Questions 1(c), 4(c), and 5(c) require submitters to provide the percentage of the total 

number of cosmetics with greater than 1 ppm of mercury content or lower or batteries with 

mercury content of 2% or greater that they manufactured, imported, or exported. EPA believes 

submitters will calculate this total using information gathered to answer previously answered on 

the form, and therefore assumes this burden to be similar to calculating the volume of a chemical 

that is recycled or disposed of off-site on the TRI Form R, as this information is calculated using 

 

24 EPA. Economic Analysis for the Final Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Modifications Rule. June 30, 2011.
21

other information supplied on Form R (EPA, 2011b).25 EPA estimates the time to calculate these 

numbers to be 5 minutes of technical time and approximately 3.5 minutes of managerial review 

time per field (EPA, 2011b).26 For this ICR EPA multiplied these totals by three, to account for 

the three years’ worth of data, for a total burden of 0.44 hours for firms that have not submitted 

IMERC data. EPA assumes that IMERC data submitters will have a 20% burden reduction based 

on the IUR EA (EPA, 2011a)27 and a burden of 0.35 hours per question.

Table 9: Unit Per Question Burden for Questions1(c), 4(c) and 5(c)

Questions

Unit Burden (Hours)

Clerical Technical Managerial Total

Responders that Have not Submitted Data to IMERC

1(c), 4(c) and 5(c) 0.19 0.25 0.00 0.44

IMERC Data Submitters

1(c), 4(c) and 5(c) 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.35

Source(s): Based on TRI (EPA, 2011b) burden estimate for calculating the volume of a 

chemical that is recycled or disposed of off-site. This is assumed to be 5 minutes of technical 

time to calculate a single value based other data in the form, plus managerial review time. The 

five minute total is multiplied by 3 for 3 years of data. IMERC data submitters are assumed to 

have a 20% burden reduction based on the IUR EA, burden savings estimates for repeat 

submitters.

Question 6.

Question 6 is an optional open ended question asking for additional comments, therefore 

this question has no burden by convention.28

Table 10: Unit Per Question Burden for Question 6

Question Unit Burden (Hours)

Clerical Technical Managerial Total

Responders that Have not Submitted Data to IMERC

6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

IMERC Data Submitters

6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Source(s): EPA, 2011b

Total Industry Unit Burden Estimates for Sections 3 to 13

Table 11 presents the burden estimates for non-IMERC data submitting firms to complete 

one product specific section. Table 12 presents the burden estimates for IMERC data submitting 

firms to complete one product specific section. To calculate the burden, the estimates derived in 

Tables 11 and 12 are weighted by the percentage of respondents completing a given section that 

are expected to respond to a given question and the number of responses per respondent. EPA 

estimated the number of respondents who domestically manufacture products (85%), import 

 

25 EPA. Revising the TRI Burden to Ration Based Methodology. Information Collection Request Renewal (ICR) 2nd 

FR Notice. April 28, 2011.

26 Ibid.

27 EPA. Economic Analysis for the Final Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Modifications Rule. June 30, 2011.

28 EPA. Revising the TRI Burden to Ration Based Methodology. Information Collection Request Renewal (ICR) 2nd 

FR Notice. April 28, 2011.
22

products (21%), and export products (28%) by assuming the proportions are similar to the 

proportions reported by the U.S. Census Bureau data on the number of importing and exporting 

manufacturing and wholesale firms.29 EPA estimated the number of manufacturers domestically 

purchasing mercury (59% of all companies) or importing mercury (26% of all companies) by 

multiplying the number of domestic manufacturers with the percentage of mercury imported or 

domestically manufactured from EPA’s CDR database. The estimated number of product types 

per respondent (1.77) and the number of respondents answering the de minimis value questions 

in Sections 3 and 4 is based on data samples from the IMERC database.

30

 

29 U.S. Census, Profile of US Importing and Exporting Companies: 2012-2013. Released April 7, 2015.

30 IMERC, Mercury Added Products Database. Modified December 19, 2014.
23

Table 11: Total Burden to Complete One Product Specific Section (Sections 3–13) for Responders that Have not Submitted Data to IMERC

Question

Burden 

for 100% 

of Section

Percentage of Respondents who 

Complete the Section that 

Respond to the Question

Responses 

per 

Respondent

Total 

Burden

1. Did your company manufacture [product] that contain mercury or mercury compounds in 2010, 2013 or 

2016? 0.00 100% 1 0.00

1.a. If yes, then provide the total amount of mercury or mercury compounds in each of the following types 

of [product] per year(s) 1.51 85%1

1.772

2.28

1.b. Did your company manufacture any [product] with more than a de minimis level of mercury content? 1.81 85%11 1.54

1.c. If yes, then provide the approximate number (or percentage) of the number provided for question 

3.a.(1)(c) in each of the following years: 2010, 2013, 2016 0.44 10%3

1 0.04

2. Did your company purchase in the United States elemental mercury or mercury compounds to be used in 

the production of [product] manufactured by your company in 2010, 2013, or 2016? 0.00 100% 1 0.00

2.a. If yes, then provide the total amount of elemental mercury or mercury compounds your company 

purchased in the United States for use in the manufacture of [product] in each of the following years: 

2010, 2013, 2016

1.51 59%41.772

1.57

3. Did your company import elemental mercury or mercury compounds to be used in the production of 

[product] manufactured by your company in 2010, 2013, or 2016? 0.00 100% 1 0.00

3.a. If yes, then provide the total amount of elemental mercury or mercury compounds your company 

imported for use in the manufacture of [product] in each of the following years: 2010, 2013, 2016 1.51 26%5

1.772

0.70

4. Did your company import [product] containing elemental mercury or mercury compounds in 2010, 2013, 

or 2016? 0.00 100% 1 0.00

4.a. If yes, then provide the total amount of mercury or mercury compounds in each of the listed types of 

[product] per year(s) 4.04 21%6

1.772

1.50

4.b. Did your company import any [product] more than a de minimis level of mercury content? 2.02 21%61 0.42

4.c. If yes, then provide the approximate number (or percentage) of the number of [product] reported for 

question 3.a.(1)(c) in each of the following years: 2010, 2013, 2016 0.44 2.5%7

1.00 0.01

5. Did your company export [product] containing mercury or mercury compounds in 2010, 2013, or 2016? 0.00 100% 1 0.00

5.a. If yes, then provide the total amount of mercury or mercury compounds in each of the listed types of 

[product] per year(s) 1.51 28%8

1.772

0.75

5.b. Did your company export any [product] with more than a de minimis level of mercury content? 1.81 28%81 0.51

5.c. If yes, then provide the approximate number (or percentage) of the number of [product] reported for 

question 3.a.(1)(c) in each of the following years: 2010, 2013, 2016 0.44 3.4%9

1 0.01

6. Additional comments question 3.a.(1)(c) in each of the following years: 2010, 2013, 2016 0.00 - - 0.00
24

Table 11: Total Burden to Complete One Product Specific Section (Sections 3–13) for Responders that Have not Submitted Data to IMERC

Question

Burden 

for 100% 

of Section

Percentage of Respondents who 

Complete the Section that 

Respond to the Question

Responses 

per 

Respondent

Total 

Burden

Total for Section 3 and 4 (Batteries and Cosmetics - - - 9.35

Total for Sections 5-13 (All Other Products; Excluded Questions 1.b, 1.c, 4.b, 4.c, 5.b, and 5.c) - - - 6.81

Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding

1 Estimated percentage (85%) of manufacturing and wholesale firms, that domestically manufacture or purchase products based on U.S. Census data (U.S. Census, Profile of US Importing and Exporting 

Companies: 2012-2013. Released April 7, 2015).

2 Each firm makes an average of 1.77 types of each product based on a sample of 30 IMERC firms

3 The percentage of firms that domestically manufacture products (85%) times the times the percentage of firms that have a product above a de minimis level (12% based on (IMERC, Mercury Added 

Products Database. Modified December 19, 2014)) = 10%.

4 The percentage of firms that domestically manufacture products (85%) times the times the amount of mercury and mercury compounds that are domestically manufactured (69% (EPA. 2012 Chemical Data 

Reporting (CDR) Database. Updated April 3, 2014)) = 59%.

5 The percentage of firms that domestically manufacture products (85%) times the times the amount of mercury and mercury compounds that are imported (31% (EPA. 2012 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) 

Database. Updated April 3, 2014)) = 26%.

6 Estimated percentage (21%) of manufacturing and wholesale firms, that import products based on U.S. Census data (U.S. Census, Profile of US Importing and Exporting Companies: 2012-2013. Released 

April 7, 2015).

7 The percentage of firms that import products (21%) times the times the percentage of firms that have a product above a de minimis level (12% (IMERC, Mercury Added Products Database. Modified 

December 19, 2014)) = 2.5%.

8 The percentage of firms that export products (28%) based on U.S. Census data (U.S. Census, Profile of US Importing and Exporting Companies: 2012-2013. Released April 7, 2015).

9 The percentage of firms that export products (28%) times the times the percentage of firms that have a product above a de minimis level (12% (IMERC, Mercury Added Products Database. Modified 

December 19, 2014)) = 3.4%.
25

Table 12: Total Hourly Burden to Complete One Product Specific Section (Sections 3–13) for IMERC Data Submitters

Question

Total per 

Question 

Burden

Percentage of Respondents 

who Complete the Section that 

Respond to the Question

Responses per 

Respondent

Total 

Burden

1. Did your company manufacture [product] that contain mercury or mercury compounds in 2010, 

2013 or 2016? 0.00 100% 1 0.00

1.a. If yes, then provide the total amount of mercury or mercury compounds in each of the 

following types of [product] per year(s) 1.21 85%1

1.772

1.82

1.b. Did your company manufacture any [product] with mercury content of 2% or greater? 1.46 85%11 1.24

1.c. If yes, then provide the approximate number (or percentage) of the number provided for 

question 3.a.(1)(c) in each of the following years: 2010, 2013, 2016 0.35 10%3

1 0.04

2. Did your company purchase in the United States elemental mercury or mercury compounds to be 

used in the production of [product] manufactured by your company in 2010, 2013, or 2016? 0.00 100% 1 0.00

2.a. If yes, then provide the total amount of elemental mercury or mercury compounds your 

company purchased in the United States for use in the manufacture of [product] in each of the 

following years: 2010, 2013, 2016

1.21 59%41.772

1.26

3. Did your company import elemental mercury or mercury compounds to be used in the production 

of [product] manufactured by your company in 2010, 2013, or 2016? 0.00 100% 1 0.00

3.a. If yes, then provide the total amount of elemental mercury or mercury compounds your 

company imported for use in the manufacture of [product] in each of the following years: 2010, 

2013, 2016

1.21 26%51.772

0.56

4. Did your company import [product] containing elemental mercury or mercury compounds in 2010, 

2013, or 2016? 0.00 100% 1 0.00

4.a. If yes, then provide the total amount of mercury or mercury compounds in each of the listed 

types of [product] per year(s) 3.23 21%6

1.77 1.20

4.b. Did your company import any [product] with mercury content of 2% or greater? 1.62 21%61 0.34

4.c. If yes, then provide the approximate number (or percentage) of the number of [product] 

reported for question 3.a.(1)(c) in each of the following years: 2010, 2013, 2016 0.35 2.5%7

1 0.01

5. Did your company export [product] containing mercury or mercury compounds in 2010, 2013, or 

2016? 1.21 28%8

1.77 0.60

5.a. If yes, then provide the total amount of mercury or mercury compounds in each of the listed 

types of [product] per year(s) 1.46 28%8

1 0.41

5.b. Did your company export any [product] with mercury content of 2% or greater mercury? 0.35 3.4%91 0.01

5.c. If yes, then provide the approximate number (or percentage) of the number of [product] 

reported for question 3.a.(1)(c) in each of the following years: 2010, 2013, 2016 0.35 2.8%9

1 0.01

6. Additional comments question 3.a.(1)(c) in each of the following years: 2010, 2013, 2016 0.00 - - 0.00
26

Table 12: Total Hourly Burden to Complete One Product Specific Section (Sections 3–13) for IMERC Data Submitters

Question

Total per 

Question 

Burden

Percentage of Respondents 

who Complete the Section that 

Respond to the Question

Responses per 

Respondent

Total 

Burden

Total for Section 3 and 4 (Batteries and Cosmetics) - - - 7.49

Total for Sections 5-13 (All Other Products; Excluded Questions 1.b, 1.c, 4.b, 4.c, 5.b, and 5.c) - - - 5.45

Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding

1 Estimated percentage (85%) of manufacturing and wholesale firms, that domestically manufacture or purchase products based on U.S. Census data (U.S. Census, Profile of US Importing and Exporting 

Companies: 2012-2013. Released April 7, 2015).

2 Each firm makes an average of 1.77 types of each product based on a sample of 30 IMERC firms

3 The percentage of firms that domestically manufacture products (85%) times the times the percentage of firms that have a product above a de minimis level (12% based on (IMERC, Mercury Added 

Products Database. Modified December 19, 2014)) = 10%.

4 The percentage of firms that domestically manufacture products (85%) times the times the amount of mercury and mercury compounds that are domestically manufactured (69% (EPA. 2012 Chemical 

Data Reporting (CDR) Database. Updated April 3, 2014)) = 59%.

5 The percentage of firms that domestically manufacture products (85%) times the times the amount of mercury and mercury compounds that are imported (31% (EPA. 2012 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) 

Database. Updated April 3, 2014)) = 26%.

6 Estimated percentage (21%) of manufacturing and wholesale firms, that import products based on U.S. Census data (U.S. Census, Profile of US Importing and Exporting Companies: 2012-2013. Released 

April 7, 20155).

7 The percentage of firms that import products (21%) times the times the percentage of firms that have a product above a de minimis level (12% (IMERC, Mercury Added Products Database. Modified 

December 19, 2014)) = 2.5%.

8 The percentage of firms that export products (28%) based on U.S. Census data (U.S. Census, Profile of US Importing and Exporting Companies: 2012-2013. Released April 7, 2015).

9 The percentage of firms that export products (28%) times the times the percentage of firms that have a product above a de minimis level (12% (IMERC, Mercury Added Products Database. Modified 

December 19, 2014)) = 3.4%.
27

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs 

This section presents estimates of the cost expected to be incurred as a result of 

the information collection activity. This estimate is based on the cost of the burden 

estimates provided above, and includes other costs associated with this ICR.

Labor costs in this report have been updated using the most recently available, revised 

wage rates and information on cost of benefits. These wage rates are taken from the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employer Costs for Employee Compensation 

Supplemental Tables, December 2014 (released on March 11, 2015), with the 

information extracted from Table 2, Private industry workers in manufacturing 

industries, by occupational group. This table is available online at 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf in PDF format. The clerical wages are 

taken from the BLS data for “office and administrative support.” The technical wages are 

taken from the BLS data for “professional and related.” The managerial wages are taken 

from the BLS data for “management, business and financial.” Labor wage rates and 

hourly cost of benefits taken from those sources have been used to calculate the labor 

cost for respondents, as shown below. The hourly overhead is calculated as 17 percent of 

the base wage. This approach is used for consistency with Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics economic analyses practices, and is based on the analysis in Wage Rates for 

Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program. Table 13 presents $2014 

hourly industry wages.

Table 13: Loaded Wage Rates

Labor 

Category Date Wage1 Fringe 

Benefits1

Fringes as % 

of Wage

Overhead %

of Wage2

Fringe + 

Overhead 

Factor

Loaded 

Wages

(a) (b) (c) = (b)/(a) (d) (e)=(1)+(c)+(d) (f) = (a) x (e)

Managerial Dec '14 $47.90 $24.18 50% 17% 1.67 $80.22

Technical Dec '14 $42.19 $22.85 54% 17% 1.71 $72.21

Clerical Dec '14 $18.68 $9.40 50% 17% 1.67 $31.26

Source(s):

1Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables: December 2006-September 2015, U.S. Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, December 9, 2015 (pp. 31,33,37) (http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsuphst.pdf, accessed January 25, 2016

2 An overhead rate of 17 percent was estimated based on industry data gathered for the Revised Economic Analysis for the 

Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report and Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory 

Program.

To estimate costs, EPA multiplied the per-hour loaded labor rates found in 

column (f) of Table 13 with the hourly labor estimates in Section 6(a). Table 14 presents 

the total per unit cost to complete Section 1 as $186 for all submitters. Table 15 presents 

the total cost for completing Section 2 as $85 for respondents that have not submitted 

IMERC data and $73 for IMERC data submitters, and Table 16 and Table 17 present the 

cost associated with completing one product specific section (Sections 3 to 13). EPA 

estimates the cost for completing Section 3 or 4 to be $645 for respondents that have not 

submitted IMERC data and $517 for IMERC data submitters. The cost of completing a 

single section in Sections 5 through 13 is estimated to be $465 for respondents that have 

not submitted IMERC data and $372 for IMERC data submitters.
28

Table 14: Total Cost to Complete Section One for All Submitters

Question

Total per Unit 

Cost

($2014)

Percentage of Respondents who 

Complete the Section that 

Respond to the Question

Responses per 

Respondent

Total 

Cost

($2014)

Company Information $5.59 100% 1.00 $5.59

1(a) and 1(b) $181 100% 1.00 $181

Total $186

Table 15: Total Cost to Complete Section Two

Question Total per Unit Cost

($2014)

Percentage of Respondents who 

Complete the Section that 

Respond to the Question

Responses 

per 

Respondent

Total 

Cost

($2014)

Firms that Have not Submitted Data to IMERC

Total for All of Section 2 $85.09 100% 1.00 $85.09

IMERC Data Submitters

Total for All of Section 2 $73.95 100% 1.00 $73.95
29

Table 16: Total Cost to Complete One Product Specific Section (Sections 3–13) for Responders that Have not Submitted Data to IMERC

Question

Total per 

Unit Cost

($2014)

Percentage of Respondents who 

Complete the Section that 

Respond to the Question

Responses 

per 

Respondent

Total 

Cost

($2014)

1. Did your company manufacture [product] that contain mercury or mercury compounds in 2010, 2013 or 

2016? $0.00 100% 1 $0.00

1.a. If yes, then provide the total amount of mercury or mercury compounds in each of the following types 

of [product] per year(s) $102 85%1

1.772

$153

1.b. Did your company manufacture any [product] with more than a de minimis level of mercury content? $129 85%11 $110

1.c. If yes, then provide the approximate number (or percentage) of the number provided for question 

3.a.(1)(c) in each of the following years: 2010, 2013, 2016 $23.93 10%3

1 $2.44

2. Did your company purchase in the United States elemental mercury or mercury compounds to be used in 

the production of [product] manufactured by your company in 2010, 2013, or 2016? $0.00 100% 1 $0.00

2.a. If yes, then provide the total amount of elemental mercury or mercury compounds your company 

purchased in the United States for use in the manufacture of [product] in each of the following years: 

2010, 2013, 2016

$102 59%41.772

$106

3. Did your company import elemental mercury or mercury compounds to be used in the production of 

[product] manufactured by your company in 2010, 2013, or 2016? $0.00 100% 1 $0.00

3.a. If yes, then provide the total amount of elemental mercury or mercury compounds your company 

imported for use in the manufacture of [product] in each of the following years: 2010, 2013, 2016 $102 26%5

1.772

$47.32

4. Did your company import [product] containing elemental mercury or mercury compounds in 2010, 2013, 

or 2016? $0.00 100% 1 $0.00

4.a. If yes, then provide the total amount of mercury or mercury compounds in each of the listed types of 

[product] per year(s) $292 21%6

1.772

$109

4.b. Did your company import any [product] more than a de minimis level of mercury content? $146 21%61 $30.63

4.c. If yes, then provide the approximate number (or percentage) of the number of [product] reported for 

question 3.a.(1)(c) in each of the following years: 2010, 2013, 2016 $23.93 2.5%7

1.00 $0.60

5. Did your company export [product] containing mercury or mercury compounds in 2010, 2013, or 2016? $0.00 100% 1 $0.00

5.a. If yes, then provide the total amount of mercury or mercury compounds in each of the listed types of 

[product] per year(s) $102 28%8

1.772

$50.40

5.b. Did your company export any [product] with more than a de minimis level of mercury content? $129 28%81 $36.10

5.c. If yes, then provide the approximate number (or percentage) of the number of [product] reported for 

question 3.a.(1)(c) in each of the following years: 2010, 2013, 2016 $23.93 3.4%9

1 $0.80

6. Additional comments question 3.a.(1)(c) in each of the following years: 2010, 2013, 2016 $0.00 - - $0.00
30

Table 16: Total Cost to Complete One Product Specific Section (Sections 3–13) for Responders that Have not Submitted Data to IMERC

Question

Total per 

Unit Cost

($2014)

Percentage of Respondents who 

Complete the Section that 

Respond to the Question

Responses 

per 

Respondent

Total 

Cost

($2014)

Total for Section 3 and 4 (Batteries and Cosmetics) - - - $645

Total for Sections 5-13 (All Other Products; Excluded Questions 1.b, 1.c, 4.b, 4.c, 5.b, and 5.c) - - - $465

Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding

1 Estimated percentage (85%) of manufacturing and wholesale firms, that domestically manufacture or purchase products based on U.S. Census data (U.S. Census, Profile of US Importing and Exporting 

Companies: 2012-2013. Released April 7, 2015).

2 Each firm makes an average of 1.77 types of each product based on a sample of 30 IMERC firms

3 The percentage of firms that domestically manufacture products (85%) times the times the percentage of firms that have a product above a de minimis level (12% based on (IMERC, Mercury Added 

Products Database. Modified December 19, 2014)) = 10%.

4 The percentage of firms that domestically manufacture products (85%) times the times the amount of mercury and mercury compounds that are domestically manufactured (69% (EPA. 2012 Chemical Data 

Reporting (CDR) Database. Updated April 3, 2014)) = 59%.

5 The percentage of firms that domestically manufacture products (85%) times the times the amount of mercury and mercury compounds that are imported (31% (EPA. 2012 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) 

Database. Updated April 3, 2014)) = 26%.

6 Estimated percentage (21%) of manufacturing and wholesale firms, that import products based on U.S. Census data (U.S. Census, Profile of US Importing and Exporting Companies: 2012-2013. Released 

April 7, 2015).

7 The percentage of firms that import products (21%) times the times the percentage of firms that have a product above a de minimis level (12% (IMERC, Mercury Added Products Database. Modified 

December 19, 2014)) = 2.5%.

8 The percentage of firms that export products (28%) based on U.S. Census data (U.S. Census, Profile of US Importing and Exporting Companies: 2012-2013. Released April 7, 2015).

9 The percentage of firms that export products (28%) times the times the percentage of firms that have a product above a de minimis level (12% (IMERC, Mercury Added Products Database. Modified 

December 19, 2014)) = 3.4%.
31

Table 17: Total Cost to Complete One Product Specific Section (Sections 3–13) for IMERC Data Submitters

Question

Total per Unit 

Cost

($2014)

Percentage of Respondents 

who Complete the Section that 

Respond to the Question

Responses per 

Respondent

Total 

Cost

($2014)

1. Did your company manufacture [product] that contain mercury or mercury compounds in 2010, 

2013 or 2016? $0.00 100% 1 $0.00

1.a. If yes, then provide the total amount of mercury or mercury compounds in each of the 

following types of [product] per year(s) $81.29 85%1

1.772

$122

1.b. Did your company manufacture any [product] with mercury content 2% or greater? $104 85%11 $88.39

1.c. If yes, then provide the approximate number (or percentage) of the number provided for 

question 3.a.(1)(c) in each of the following years: 2010, 2013, 2016 $19.14 10%3

1 $1.95

2. Did your company purchase in the United States elemental mercury or mercury compounds to be 

used in the production of [product] manufactured by your company in 2010, 2013, or 2016? $0.00 100% 1 $0.00

2.a. If yes, then provide the total amount of elemental mercury or mercury compounds your 

company purchased in the United States for use in the manufacture of [product] in each of the 

following years: 2010, 2013, 2016

$81.29 59%41.772

$84.55

3. Did your company import elemental mercury or mercury compounds to be used in the production 

of [product] manufactured by your company in 2010, 2013, or 2016? $0.00 100% 1 $0.00

3.a. If yes, then provide the total amount of elemental mercury or mercury compounds your 

company imported for use in the manufacture of [product] in each of the following years: 2010, 

2013, 2016

$81.29 26%51.772

$37.86

4. Did your company import [product] containing elemental mercury or mercury compounds in 2010, 

2013, or 2016? $0.00 100% 1 $0.00

4.a. If yes, then provide the total amount of mercury or mercury compounds in each of the listed 

types of [product] per year(s) $233 21%6

1.77 $86.82

4.b. Did your company import any [product] with mercury content 2% or greater? $117 21%61 $24.51

4.c. If yes, then provide the approximate number (or percentage) of the number of [product] 

reported for question 3.a.(1)(c) in each of the following years: 2010, 2013, 2016 $19.14 2.5%7

1 $0.48

5. Did your company export [product] containing mercury or mercury compounds in 2010, 2013, or 

2016? $0.00 28%8

1.77 $0.00

5.a. If yes, then provide the total amount of mercury or mercury compounds in each of the listed 

types of [product] per year(s) $81.29 28%8

1 $40.32

5.b. Did your company export any [product] with mercury content 2% or greater? $104 3.4%91 $29.12

5.c. If yes, then provide the approximate number (or percentage) of the number of [product]

reported for question 3.a.(1)(c) in each of the following years: 2010, 2013, 2016 $19.14 2.8%9

1 $0.64

6. Additional comments question 3.a.(1)(c) in each of the following years: 2010, 2013, 2016 $0.00 - - $0.00
32

Table 17: Total Cost to Complete One Product Specific Section (Sections 3–13) for IMERC Data Submitters

Question

Total per Unit 

Cost

($2014)

Percentage of Respondents 

who Complete the Section that 

Respond to the Question

Responses per 

Respondent

Total 

Cost

($2014)

Total for Section 3 and 4 (Batteries and Cosmetics) - - - $517

Total for Sections 5-13 (All Other Products; Excluded Questions 1.b, 1.c, 4.b, 4.c, 5.b, and 5.c) - - - $372

Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding

1 Estimated percentage (85%) of manufacturing and wholesale firms, that domestically manufacture or purchase products based on U.S. Census data (U.S. Census, Profile of US Importing and Exporting 

Companies: 2012-2013. Released April 7, 2015).

2 Each firm makes an average of 1.77 types of each product based on a sample of 30 IMERC firms

3 The percentage of firms that domestically manufacture products (85%) times the times the percentage of firms that have a product above a de minimis level (12% based on (IMERC, Mercury Added 

Products Database. Modified December 19, 2014)) = 10%.

4 The percentage of firms that domestically manufacture products (85%) times the times the amount of mercury and mercury compounds that are domestically manufactured (69% (EPA. 2012 Chemical 

Data Reporting (CDR) Database. Updated April 3, 2014)) = 59%.

5 The percentage of firms that domestically manufacture products (85%) times the times the amount of mercury and mercury compounds that are imported (31% EPA. 2012 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) 

Database. Updated April 3, 2014)) = 26%.

6 Estimated percentage (21%) of manufacturing and wholesale firms, that import products based on U.S. Census data (U.S. Census, Profile of US Importing and Exporting Companies: 2012-2013. Released 

April 7, 2015).

7 The percentage of firms that import products (21%) times the times the percentage of firms that have a product above a de minimis level (12% (IMERC, Mercury Added Products Database. Modified 

December 19, 2014)) = 2.5%.

8 The percentage of firms that export products (28%) based on U.S. Census data (U.S. Census, Profile of US Importing and Exporting Companies: 2012-2013. Released April 7, 2015).

9 The percentage of firms that export products (28%) times the times the percentage of firms that have a product above a de minimis level (12% (IMERC, Mercury Added Products Database. Modified 

December 19, 2014)) = 3.4%.
33

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost

EPA estimates that the Agency cost for administering and mailing out the survey

is $24,726, and includes both labor and materials costs. Labor costs are 1/7th of a fulltime employee (FTE) 13, Step 5 employee in the Washington-Baltimore locality, with a 

total annual wage of $101,914 (OPM, 2014). EPA applied a government overhead factor 

of 1.6 to account for fringe benefits and overhead, for a total EPA staff cost of 

approximately $23,295 in $2014 (($101,914 x 1.6)/7=$23,295). EPA’s cost for sending 

646 questionnaires with stamped return envelopes is $2.22 each ($0.98 in postage and 

$1.24 in materials and processing cost). Both labor and material costs estimates are based 

on data from EPA ICR No. 249.10 OMB Control No. 2070-NEW [Information Collection 

Request for] Survey of Public and Commercial Buildings. Supporting Statement for a 

Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

31 Stamps cost estimates 

are based on current U.S. postage rates for first class mail.

32

Table 18: Agency Costs ($2014)

Activity Agency Cost

EPA Staff Time (1/7 of a GS 13-Step 5) $23,295

Mailing Questionnaire $1,432

Total $24,726

6(d) Bottom-Line Industry Burden and Cost Estimates

Respondent tally

EPA used various data sources including IMERC, TRI data, March 2015 

subpoenas, and Internet research to identify companies to that may manufacture, import, 

or export mercury in a product, or use mercury in a manufacturing process. EPA 

identified up to 646 facilities in the United States that manufacture, import, or export 

mercury-added products, or use mercury or mercury compounds in manufacturing 

processes; 515 companies that have not previously submitted data to IMERC and 131 

companies that have submitted IMERC data. If all 646 companies received a 

questionnaire, EPA expects that each would complete Sections 1 and 2 of the 

questionnaire. However some of these companies may not be using mercury in any

products of interest to EPA, such as mercury present in fuel sources for coal-fired boilers

or other industrial furnaces, and these firms will not complete Sections 3 to 13. Based on 

company data, EPA estimates that a total of 27 companies would respond to Sections 3 or 

4 and 528 would respond to Sections 5 through 13.33 EPAs research indicates that no 

firms manufacture both batteries and cosmetics (Section 3 and 4), however for Sections 

5-13 the average of 1.09 products categories per respondent was calculated from an 

 

31 EPA. EPA ICR No. 249.10 OMB Control No. 2070-NEW [Information Collection Request for] Survey 

of Public and Commercial Buildings. Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. July 30, 2014.

32 Stamps.com. “Current Postage Rates: USPS Postage Rates.” Available at

http://www.stamps.com/usps/current-postage-rates/.

33 The total of 528 companies, includes 6 companies that are expected to complete Section 3 or 4. 
34

IMERC sample of 30 active companies. Table 19 presents the total number of responders 

and responses for each section.

Table 19: Total Number of Responders and Responses

Section Number of Responders1

Sections per 

Respondent

Number of Responses

Non-IMERC IMERC2 Total Non-IMERC IMERC Total

Section 1 515 131 646 1 515 131 646

Section 2 515 131 646 1 515 131 646

Sections 3 or 4

3

2 25 27 1 2 25 27

Sections 5-13 416 112 528 1.09 454 122 576

Total Industry Burden and Cost for All Submitters

Table 20 contains the total burden and cost for all potential respondents. EPA 

estimates the total industry burden to be 6,399 hours and $444,430.

Table 20: Total Burden and Cost for All Submitters

Activity

Total 

Number of 

Companies

Responses 

per 

Company

Total 

Number of 

Responses

Total 

Burden per 

Activity 

(hours)

Total Cost 

per Activity 

($2014)

Total Burden 

(hours)

Total 

Cost 

($2014)

Responders that Have not Submitted Data to IMERC

Section 1 

Completion 515 1 515 2.60 $186 1,337 $95,889

Section 2

Completion 515 1 515 1.23 $85 634 $43,839

Section 3-4 

Completion 2 1 2 9.35 $645 19 $1,290

Sections 5-13 

Completion 416 1.09 454 6.81 $465 3,090 $211,107

Total 5,080 $352,125

IMERC Data Submitters

Section 1 

Completion 131 1 131 2.60 $186 339 $24,343

Section 2

Completion 131 1 131 0.98 $74 128 $9,673

Section 3-4 

Completion 25 1 25 7.49 $517 187 $12,926

Sections 5-13 

Completion 112 1.09 122 5.45 $372 664 $45,363

Total 1,319 $92,305

Summary for All Submitters

Section 1 

Completion 646 1 646 2.60 $186 1,676 $120,232

Section 2

Completion 646 1 646 1.18 $83 762 $53,512

Section 3-4 

Completion 27 1 27 7.63 $527 206 $14,216

Sections 5-13 

Completion 528 1.09 576 6.52 $445 3,755 $256,470

Total 6,399 $444,430
35

For comparison, the Agency used the above approach to generate a total burden 

and cost for a narrowed scope of up to 250 respondents. As set forth in Table 20a, EPA 

estimates the total industry burden to be 2,566 hours and $178,961.

Table 21a: Total Burden and Cost for all Submitters – 250 Firms

Activity

Total 

Number of 

Companies

Responses 

per 

Company

Total 

Number of 

Responses

Total 

Burden per 

Activity 

(hours)

Total Cost 

per Activity 

($2014)

Total Burden 

(hours)

Total 

Cost 

($2014)

Responders that Have not Submitted Data to IMERC

Section 1 

Completion 65 1 65 2.60 $186 169 $12,094

Section 2 

Completion 65 1 65 1.23 $85 80 $5,529

Section 3-4 

Completion 3 1 3 9.35 $645 28 $1,935

Sections 5-13 

Completion 62 1.09 68 6.81 $465 460 $31,436

Total 737 $50,994

IMERC Data Submitters

Section 1 

Completion 185 1 185 2.60 $186 480 $34,436

Section 2 

Completion 185 1 185 0.98 $74 181 $13,683

Section 3-4 

Completion 21 1 21 7.49 $517 157 $10,858

Sections 5-13 

Completion 170 1.09 185 5.45 $372 1,010 $68,990

Total 1,829 $127,967

Summary for All Submitters

Section 1 

Completion 250 1 250 2.60 $186 649 $46,529

Section 2 

Completion 250 1 250 1.04 $77 261 $19,212

Section 3-4 

Completion 24 1 24 7.73 $533 185 $12,793

Sections 5-13 

Completion 232 1.09 253 5.81 $397 1,471 $100,426

Total 2,566 $178,961
36

Average Burden and Cost per Respondent

Table 22 presents the average total burden per respondent; 9.37 hours for 

companies that have not submitted IMERC data and 10.18 hours for companies that have 

submitted IMERC data. Table 23 presents the average cost per submitter, which EPA 

estimates to be $683 for companies that have not submitted IMERC data and $706 for 

companies that have.

Table 22: Average Burden per Respondent

Activity

Hours Responses 

per 

Average 

Company

Average 

Burden 

(hours) Clerical Technical Managerial Total

Responders that Have not Submitted Data to IMERC

Section 1 

Completion 0.04 2.54 0.02 2.60 1 2.60

Section 2

Completion 0.14 0.84 0.25 1.23 1 1.23

Section 3-4 

Completion 1.01 6.69 1.15 8.85 0.004 0.03

Sections 5-13 

Completion 0.80 4.69 0.77 6.25 0.88 5.51

Total 9.37

IMERC Data Submitters

Section 1 

Completion 0.04 2.54 0.02 2.60 1 2.60

Section 2

Completion 0.12 0.75 0.20 1.07 1 1.07

Section 3-4 

Completion 0.79 5.68 1.03 7.49 0.19 1.43

Sections 5-13 

Completion 0.66 4.07 0.71 5.45 0.93 5.08

Total 10.18

Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding

The average number of responses per company is calculated by dividing the total number of responses for each 

section by the total number of companies. For example the average number of Section 3-4s per company for firms 

that have not submitted IMERC data is calculated as 2 responses/565 companies = .004.
37

Table 23: Average Cost per Respondent

Activity

Cost ($2014) Responses 

per 

Average 

Company

Average 

Cost

($2014)

Clerical Technical Managerial Total

Responders that Have not Submitted Data to IMERC

Section 1 

Completion $1.09 $183.42 $1.60 $186.12 1.00 $186

Section 2

Completion $4.38 $60.66 $20.06 $85.09 1.00 $85

Section 3-4 

Completion $30.48 $512.90 $101.73 $645.11 0.004 $2.50

Sections 5-13 

Completion $25.65 $368.39 $70.91 $464.95 0.88 $410

Total $683

IMERC

Section 1 

Completion $1.09 $183.42 $1.60 $186.12 1.00 $186

Section 2

Completion $3.75 $54.16 $16.04 $73.95 1.00 $74

Section 3-4 

Completion $24.65 $410.03 $82.36 $517.04 0.19 $99

Sections 5-13 

Completion $20.72 $294.26 $56.98 $371.96 0.93 $347

Total $706

Notes: Totals may not sum due to rounding

The average number of responses per company is calculated by dividing the total number of responses for each 

section by the total number of companies. For example the average number of Section 3-4s per company for 

firms that have not submitted IMERC data is calculated as 2 responses/565 companies = .004

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables

Table 23 contains the bottom line burden and cost estimate for all potential 

respondents. EPA estimates the total burden to be 6,399 hours and $469,156, including 

Agency costs.

Table 24: Bottom Line Burden and Costs for all Submitters

Cost Category Labor Hours Cost

Respondent Labor 6,399 $444,430

EPA Labor N.A. $23,295

Other Direct EPA Costs N.A. $1,432

Total 6,399 $469,156

For comparison, the Agency used the above approach to generate a total burden 

and cost for a narrowed scope of up to 250 respondents. As set forth in Table 23a, EPA 

estimates the total industry burden to be 2,566 hours and $202,810, including Agency

costs.
38

Table 23a: Bottom Line Burden and Costs – 250 Firms

Cost Category Labor Hours Cost

Respondent Labor 2,566 $178,961

EPA Labor N.A. $23,295

Other Direct EPA Costs N.A. $554

Total 2,566 $202,810

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden

Not applicable because this request is for a new collection of information.

6(g) Burden Statement

The annual public burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 

9.9 hours per response (response in this context meaning submission by a respondent of a 

completed questionnaire). Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b). An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information 

unless it displays a current and valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers 

for EPA’s regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register, are 

listed in 40 CFR part 9 and included on the related collection instrument or form, if 

applicable.

The Agency has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID No. 

EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0125, which is available for online viewing at 

www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC). The EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 

located in the EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC. The EPA/DC 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 

EPA/DC Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the 

Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket is (202) 566-0280.

You may submit comments regarding 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. Submit your 

comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0125 and OMB Control No. 

2070-NEW, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or by

mail to: Pollution Prevention and Toxics Docket, Environmental Protection Agency

Docket Center (EPA/DC), Mailcode: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 

725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503.
39

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS TO THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT

Attachment 1 – Toxic Substances Control Act, section 2(b)(1) [15 U.S.C. 2601] and 

section 11(c) [15 U.S.C. 2610]

Attachment 2 – Minamata Convention on Mercury

Attachment 3 – EPA Strategy to Address Mercury-Containing Products

Attachment 4 – Questionnaire: Collection of Information on Use of Mercury and 

Mercury Compounds in Products and Processes