July 20, 2010 

—Does not contain TSCA CBI—

Prepared by: 

Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

Economics, Exposure and Technology Division 

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

_ 

Economic Analysis for the Proposed Inventory Update 

Reporting (IUR) Modifications Rule
i

Contributors 

The EPA analyst responsible for this report is Wendy Hoffman of the Economic and Policy Analysis 

Branch; Economics, Exposure and Technology Division; Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. 

Analytical and draft preparation support was provided by Abt Associates, Inc. under EPA Contract No. 

EP-W-08-010. 
ii

Table of Contents 

Contributors ................................................................................................................................................. i

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................viii

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................. xv

1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Statutory Authority .......................................................................................................................1-1

1.2 Regulatory History........................................................................................................................1-1

2. Current IUR Requirements and Affected Entities ...........................................................................2-1

2.1 Overview of Current IUR Requirements ......................................................................................2-1

2.2 Overview of the Regulated Community .......................................................................................2-2

3. Changes in Reporting Requirements under the Proposed IUR Modifications Rule .....................3-1

3.1 Technical Modifications to the Regulatory Text ..........................................................................3-1

3.1.1 Move the IUR Regulatory Text from 710 Subpart C to 711 and Eliminate Subpart 

Divisions ..........................................................................................................................3-1

3.1.2 Consolidation of Definitions............................................................................................3-1

3.1.3 Delete “Non-isolated Intermediate” Definition from §710.3...........................................3-2

3.1.4 Delete Subpart B Text......................................................................................................3-2

3.1.5 Delete Superfluous Text Associated With Reporting Production Volumes ....................3-2

3.1.6 Correcting Text Associated With Reporting Number of Sites and Number of Workers.t.3-

2

3.2 Modifications to Selected Definitions...........................................................................................3-2

3.2.1 Manufacture and Manufacturer........................................................................................3-2

3.2.2 Site ...................................................................................................................................3-3

3.2.3 Electronic-Reporting Related Definitions........................................................................3-3

3.2.4 Processing and Use-Related Definitions..........................................................................3-4

3.2.5 Principal Reporting Year and Submission Period............................................................3-4

3.3 Modifications to Reporting Thresholds ........................................................................................3-5

3.3.1 Method for Determining Whether a Manufacturer is Subject to IUR Reporting 

Requirements ...................................................................................................................3-5

3.3.2 Eliminate 300,000 lb. Threshold for Processing and Use Information............................3-5

3.3.3 Eliminate the 25,000 lb. Threshold for Certain Regulated Chemicals ............................3-6

3.4 Changes to Substances Subject to the IUR Rule...........................................................................3-6

3.4.1 Make Chemicals Subject to Enforceable Consent Agreements (ECAs) Ineligible for 

Exemptions ......................................................................................................................3-6

3.4.2 Full Exemption for Manufactured Water.........................................................................3-6

3.4.3 Remove Fully Exempt Polymers from the Partially Exempt List....................................3-7

3.5 Modifications to Reportable Data Elements .................................................................................3-7

3.5.1 Parent Company and Site Identity ...................................................................................3-7

3.5.2 Technical Contact ............................................................................................................3-7

3.5.3 Chemical Identity.............................................................................................................3-7

3.5.4 Report Production Volume for Each of the Years since the Last Principal Reporting Year

.........................................................................................................................................3-8

3.5.5 Volume of Chemical Substance Used On-Site ................................................................3-8

3.5.6 Indicate Whether Imported Chemicals Are Physically at Reporting Site........................3-8

3.5.7 Report Production Volume Exported...............................................................................3-8
iii

3.5.8 Identify Whether a Chemical Is To Be Recycled, Remanufactured, Reprocessed, Reused, 

or Reworked.....................................................................................................................3-8

3.6 Concentration Ranges ...................................................................................................................3-9

3.7 Industrial Processing and Use Information Reporting..................................................................3-9

3.7.1 Revise Industrial Function Categories .............................................................................3-9

3.7.2 Revise Industrial Sectors ...............................................................................................3-10

3.8 Consumer and Commercial Use Reporting ................................................................................3-10

3.8.1 Revise Consumer and Commercial Product Categories ................................................3-10

3.8.2 Designation of Consumer or Commercial Use ..............................................................3-10

3.8.3 Number of Commercial Workers Reasonably Likely To Be Exposed..........................3-10

3.9 Changes to Standard for the Reporting of Processing and Use Information ..............................3-11

3.10 Modifications to Confidential Business Information (CBI) Claims ...........................................3-11

3.10.1 Chemical Identity CBI Claims.......................................................................................3-11

3.10.2 Upfront Substantiation for Processing and Use Information CBI Claims .....................3-12

3.10.3 Limitation on Confidentiality Claims for Data Elements Identified as “Not Known or 

Reasonably Ascertainable” ............................................................................................3-12

3.11 Method of Submission ................................................................................................................3-12

3.11.1 Updated e-IUR Reporting Software...............................................................................3-13

3.11.2 Require Electronic Submissions over the Internet.........................................................3-13

3.11.3 Electronic Signature Process..........................................................................................3-13

3.12 Modifications Specifically Affecting Importers .........................................................................3-14

3.13 Modify Reporting Frequency......................................................................................................3-15

4. Industry Burden and Cost Estimates.................................................................................................4-1

4.1 Methodology for Compliance Cost and Burden Analysis ............................................................4-1

4.2 Industry Unit Burden and Cost Estimates.....................................................................................4-2

4.2.1 Estimates of Wage Rates .................................................................................................4-2

4.2.2 Estimates of Baseline Labor Hours (Burden) ..................................................................4-2

4.2.3 Estimates of Baseline Submission (Mailing) Costs .........................................................4-6

4.2.4 Estimates of Baseline Cost per Report.............................................................................4-7

4.2.5 Estimates of the Number of Sites and Reports ..............................................................4-10

4.2.6 Estimates of Future Reporting Cycles’ Labor Hours (Burden) .....................................4-10

4.3 Total Baseline IUR Industry Compliance Burden and Costs......................................................4-16

4.4 Changes in Industry Burden and Costs Due to the Proposed IUR Modifications Rule..............4-17

4.4.1 Technical Modifications to the Regulatory Text ...........................................................4-17

4.4.2 Modifications to Selected Definitions ...........................................................................4-17

4.4.3 Method for Determining Whether a Manufacturer is Subject to IUR Reporting 

Requirements .................................................................................................................4-17

4.4.4 Eliminate the 300,000 lb. Threshold for Processing and Use Reporting.......................4-19

4.4.5 Eliminate the 25,000 lb. Threshold for Certain Regulated Chemicals ..........................4-21

4.4.6 Make Chemicals Subject to Enforceable Consent Agreements (ECAs) Ineligible for 

Exemptions ....................................................................................................................4-23

4.4.7 Full Exemption for Manufactured Water.......................................................................4-24

4.4.8 Remove Fully-Exempt Polymers from the Partially-Exempt List.................................4-25

4.4.9 Parent Company and Site Identity .................................................................................4-25

4.4.10 Technical Contact ..........................................................................................................4-26

4.4.11 Chemical Identity...........................................................................................................4-26

4.4.12 Report Production Volume for Each of the Years since Last Principal Reporting 

Year.............................................................................................................................4-26
iv

4.4.13 Volume of Chemical Substance Used On-Site ..............................................................4-27

4.4.14 Indicate Whether Chemical Is Physically at Reporting Site ..........................................4-29

4.4.15 Report Production Volume Exported.............................................................................4-30

4.4.16 Identify Whether a Chemical Is To Be Recycled, Remanufactured, Reprocessed, Reused, 

or Reworked...................................................................................................................4-31

4.4.17 Concentration Ranges ....................................................................................................4-32

4.4.18 Revise Industrial Function Categories ...........................................................................4-33

4.4.19 Revise Industrial Sectors ...............................................................................................4-34

4.4.20 Revise Consumer and Commercial Product Categories ................................................4-34

4.4.21 Designation of Consumer or Commercial Use ..............................................................4-36

4.4.22 Number of Commercial Workers Reasonably Likely To Be Exposed..........................4-36

4.4.23 Changes to the Standard for the Reporting of Processing and Use Information............4-37

4.4.24 Chemical Identity CBI Claims.......................................................................................4-38

4.4.25 Upfront Substantiation for Processing and Use Information CBI Claims .....................4-38

4.4.26 Limitation on the Confidentiality Claims for Data Elements Identified as “Not Known or 

Reasonably Ascertainable” ............................................................................................4-39

4.4.27 Require Electronic Submissions over the Internet.........................................................4-39

4.4.28 Updated e-IUR Reporting Software...............................................................................4-41

4.4.29 Electronic Signature Process..........................................................................................4-41

4.4.30 Modifications Specifically Affecting Importers ............................................................4-42

4.4.31 Modify Reporting Frequency.........................................................................................4-43

4.5 Total Industry Compliance Burden and Cost of all Amendments ..............................................4-45

4.5.1 Modifications that Affect the Number of Reports Submitted........................................4-45

4.5.2 Modifications That Affect the Reporting Burden..........................................................4-48

4.5.3 Amendment that Affects the Reporting Frequency .......................................................4-53

4.5.4 Average Cost and Burden per Site.................................................................................4-53

4.6 Annualized Industry Cost Estimates for all Modifications.........................................................4-56

5. Agency Burden and Cost Estimates ...................................................................................................5-1

5.1 Methodology for Agency Burden and Cost ..................................................................................5-1

5.2 Data for Agency Cost Estimates ...................................................................................................5-1

5.2.1 Agency Wage Rates.........................................................................................................5-1

5.2.2 Extramural (Contractor) Costs.........................................................................................5-2

5.3 Current Total Agency Burden and Cost........................................................................................5-2

5.4 Changes to Agency Burden and Cost as a Result of the Proposed Modifications........................5-4

5.4.1 Technical Modifications to the Regulatory Text .............................................................5-4

5.4.2 Modifications to Selected Definitions .............................................................................5-4

5.4.3 Method for Determining Whether a Manufacturer is Subject to IUR Reporting 

Requirements ...................................................................................................................5-4

5.4.4 Eliminate the 300,000 lb. Threshold for Processing and Use Reporting.........................5-6

5.4.5 Eliminate the 25,000 lb. Threshold for Certain Regulated Chemicals ............................5-7

5.4.6 Make Chemicals Subject to Enforceable Consent Agreements (ECAs) Ineligible for 

Exemptions ......................................................................................................................5-8

5.4.7 Full Exemption for Manufactured Water.........................................................................5-9

5.4.8 Remove Fully-Exempt Polymers from the Partially-Exempt List...................................5-9

5.4.9 Parent Company and Site Identity ...................................................................................5-9

5.4.10 Technical Contact ..........................................................................................................5-10

5.4.11 Chemical Identity...........................................................................................................5-10

5.4.12 Report Production Volume for Each of the Years since Last Principal Reporting Year ...5-

10
v

5.4.13 Volume of Chemical Substance Used On-Site ..............................................................5-11

5.4.14 Indicate Whether Chemical Is Physically at Reporting Site ..........................................5-12

5.4.15 Report Production Volume Exported.............................................................................5-12

5.4.16 Identify Whether Chemical Is To Be Recycled, Remanufactured, Reprocessed, Reused, 

or Reworked...................................................................................................................5-13

5.4.17 Concentration Ranges ....................................................................................................5-14

5.4.18 Revise Industrial Function Categories ...........................................................................5-14

5.4.19 Revise Industrial Sectors ...............................................................................................5-15

5.4.20 Revise Consumer and Commercial Product Categories ................................................5-15

5.4.21 Designation of Consumer or Commercial Use ..............................................................5-16

5.4.22 Number of Commercial Workers Reasonably Likely To Be Exposed..........................5-17

5.4.23 Changes to the Standard for the Reporting of Processing and Use Information............5-18

5.4.24 Chemical Identity CBI Claims.......................................................................................5-18

5.4.25 Upfront Substantiation for Processing and Use Information CBI Claims .....................5-18

5.4.26 Limitation on Confidentiality Claims for Data Elements Identified as “Not Known or 

Reasonably Ascertainable” ............................................................................................5-19

5.4.27 Require Electronic Submissions over the Internet.........................................................5-19

5.4.28 Updated e-IUR Reporting Software...............................................................................5-20

5.4.29 Electronic Signature Process..........................................................................................5-20

5.4.30 Modifications Specifically Affecting Importers ............................................................5-21

5.4.31 Modify Reporting Frequency.........................................................................................5-21

5.5 Total Agency Cost of All Modifications.....................................................................................5-22

5.6 Annualized Agency Cost Estimates for All Modifications.........................................................5-27

6. Social Cost Summary...........................................................................................................................6-1

7. Impact of the Proposed IUR Rule Modifications Rule on the Benefits of the IUR........................7-1

7.1 Benefits of Information-Based Policies ........................................................................................7-1

7.2 Benefits of Individual Proposed Amendments .............................................................................7-2

7.2.1 Tailor Information Collected to More Closely Match the Agency’s Information Needs 7-3

7.2.2 Increase EPA’s Ability to Effectively Provide Public Access to the Information...........7-6

7.2.3 Obtain New and Updated Exposure Information.............................................................7-7

7.2.4 Improve Utility of Information Reported ......................................................................7-10

7.3 Potential Users of Information Generated by the Proposed IUR Modifications Rule................7-12

7.3.1 EPA Risk-Screening and Management Programs .........................................................7-13

7.3.2 Other Federal Risk Management Programs...................................................................7-14

7.3.3 State and Local Programs ..............................................................................................7-15

7.3.4 Nongovernmental Organization (NGO) Initiatives and Private-Sector Stewardship ....7-15

8. Small Entity Analysis...........................................................................................................................8-1

8.1 Select a Relevant Small Entity Definition ....................................................................................8-1

8.2 Identify Number of Small Companies Reporting in 2006 ............................................................8-2

8.3 Estimate Number of Parent Companies........................................................................................8-3

8.4 Estimate Number of Small Companies.........................................................................................8-3

8.5 Estimate Cost-to-Sales Ratios for Small Companies....................................................................8-4

8.6 Summary.......................................................................................................................................8-5

9. Additional Analyses .............................................................................................................................9-1

9.1 Executive Order 12866 .................................................................................................................9-1

9.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) ..................................................................................9-1

9.3 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)..................................................................................................9-1
vi

9.4 Executive Order 13132 - Federalism ............................................................................................9-2

9.5 Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice..........................................................................9-2

9.6 Executive Order 13045 – Children’s Health.................................................................................9-2

9.7 Executive Order 13175 – Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments........9-3

9.8 Executive Order 13211 – Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use....................................................9-3

9.9 National Technology Transfer Advancement Act ........................................................................9-3

10. References.........................................................................................................................................10-1

Appendix A. 2006 Form U......................................................................................................................A-1

Appendix B. Proposed Revised Form U................................................................................................ B-1

Appendix C. – Current and Proposed Industrial Function Categories .............................................C-1

Appendix D. Current and Proposed Consumer and Commercial Product Categories....................D-1

Appendix E. – Industrial Sectors........................................................................................................... E-1

Appendix F. – Sensitivity Analyses........................................................................................................ F-1

F.1 Method for Determining Whether the Threshold Is Met ..............................................................F-1

F.2 Reporting Production Volume Used On-Site................................................................................F-3

F.3 Modifying Industrial Function Categories....................................................................................F-5

F.4 “Other” as a Consumer and/or Commercial Product Category ....................................................F-7

F.5 Upfront CBI Substantiation ..........................................................................................................F-9

Appendix G. – Alternative Regulatory Options...................................................................................G-1

G.1 Require Submitters to Submit Full Data Annually ......................................................................G-1

G.1.1 Annual Reporting Cost and Burden when the Option is Considered by Itself ...............G-1

G.1.2 Annual Reporting Cost and Burden when the All the Proposed Amendments are 

Considered ......................................................................................................................G-3

G.1.3 Small Entity Analysis .....................................................................................................G-5

G.2 Modify Reporting Frequency to a Three-Year Cycle ..................................................................G-6

G.2.1 Three-Year Reporting Cycle Cost when the Option is Considered by Itself..................G-6

G.2.2 Three-Year Cycle Cost and Burden when the All the Proposed Amendments are 

Considered ......................................................................................................................G-8

G.2.3 Small Entity Anaylsis ...................................................................................................G-11

G.3 Change the Threshold for Reporting to 10,000 lb. ....................................................................G-12

G.3.1 10,000 lb. Reporting Threshold Cost and Burden when the Option is Considered by Itself

......................................................................................................................................G-12

G.3.2 Change the Threshold for Reporting to 10,000 lb. when All Proposed Amendments are 

Considered ....................................................................................................................G-15

G.3.3 Small Entity Analysis ...................................................................................................G-22

Appendix H. Additional Exposure-Related Data Elements ................................................................H-1

H.1 Estimated Number of Affected Entities.......................................................................................H-6

H.2 Industry Burden Estimate ............................................................................................................H-7

H.3 Industry Cost Estimate...............................................................................................................H-11

H.4 Agency Burden Estimate ...........................................................................................................H-15

H.5 Agency Cost Estimate................................................................................................................H-18

H.6 Small Entity Analysis ................................................................................................................H-22
vii

Appendix I. - Estimated Burden and Cost of a Section 8(a) Rule for Exposure-Related Data 

Elements.................................................................................................................................................... I-1

I.1 Estimated Number of Affected Entities.........................................................................................I-1

I.2 Industry Burden Estimate ..............................................................................................................I-2

I.3 Industry Cost Estimate...................................................................................................................I-4

I.4 Agency Burden Estimate ...............................................................................................................I-5

I.5 Agency Cost Estimate....................................................................................................................I-7

I.6 Small Entity Analysis ....................................................................................................................I-8
viii

List of Tables 

Table 4-1: Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates for the Private Manufacturing Sector (2008$) ..................4-2 

Table 4-2: Baseline First-Cycle Labor Burden per Form U, in Hours.......................................................4-4 

Table 4-3: Burden Percentages Attributed to Site-Limited Activity and Production Volume Questions..4-6 

Table 4-4: Mailing Submission Costs (December, 2009)..........................................................................4-6 

Table 4-5: Baseline First-Cycle Total Cost per Form U (2008$) ..............................................................4-8 

Table 4-6: Baseline Number of Reports and Sites...................................................................................4-10 

Table 4-7: Weighting Factors for Burden Estimates for Sites That Have Previously Submitted a Form U4-

11 

Table 4-8: Baseline Future-Cycle Labor Burden per Report, in Hours ...................................................4-12 

Table 4-9: Baseline Future-Cycle Total Cost per Report (2008$)...........................................................4-14 

Table 4-10: Total Baseline Cost and Burden to Industry (2011 Reporting Cycle)..................................4-16 

Table 4-11: Total Baseline Cost and Burden to Industry (Future Reporting Cycles)..............................4-16 

Table 4-12: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Modifying the Method for Determining Whether a 

Manufacturer is Subject to IUR Reporting Requirements ...............................................................4-18 

Table 4-13: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Modifying the Method for Determining Whether a 

Manufacturer is Subject to IUR Reporting Requirements ...............................................................4-19 

Table 4-14: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Eliminating the 300,000 lb. Threshold for 

Downstream Processing and Use Information Reporting................................................................4-20 

Table 4-15: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Eliminating the 300,000 lb. Threshold for 

Downstream Processing and Use Information Reporting................................................................4-21 

Table 4-16: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Eliminating the 25,000 lb. Threshold for Certain 

Regulated Chemicals .......................................................................................................................4-22 

Table 4-17: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Eliminating the 25,000 lb. Threshold for Certain 

Regulated Chemicals .......................................................................................................................4-22 

Table 4-18: Change in Industry Burden as Result of Making Chemicals Subject to ECAs Ineligible for 

Exemptions ......................................................................................................................................4-23 

Table 4-19: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Making Chemicals Subject to ECAs Ineligible for 

Exemptions ......................................................................................................................................4-24 

Table 4-20: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Exempting Manufactured Water from Reporting...

.........................................................................................................................................................4-25 

Table 4-21: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Exempting Manufactured Water from Reporting ..4-25 

Table 4-22: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Requiring the Reporting of Production Volume in 

all Non-Principal Reporting Years...................................................................................................4-27 

Table 4-23: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Requiring the Reporting of Production Volume in all 

Non-Principal Reporting Years........................................................................................................4-27 

Table 4-24: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Requiring the Reporting of Production Volume 

Used On-Site....................................................................................................................................4-28 

Table 4-25: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Requiring the Reporting of Production Volume 

Used On-Site....................................................................................................................................4-29 

Table 4-26: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Indicating Whether a Chemical is Physically at 

Reporting Site ..................................................................................................................................4-29 

Table 4-27: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Indicating Whether a Chemical is Physically at 

Reporting Site ..................................................................................................................................4-30 

Table 4-28: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Requiring Reporting of Volume Exported ........4-30 

Table 4-29: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Requiring Reporting of Volume Exported.............4-31 

Table 4-30: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Indicating Whether Chemical is Recycled, 

Remanufactured, Reprocessed, Reused, or Reworked.....................................................................4-32 
ix

Table 4-31: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Indicating Whether Chemical is Recycled, 

Remanufactured, Reprocessed, Reused, or Reworked.....................................................................4-32 

Table 4-32: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Modifying the Industrial Function Categories...4-33 

Table 4-33: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Modifying the Industrial Function Categories .......4-34 

Table 4-34: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Modifying the Consumer and Commercial Product 

Categories ........................................................................................................................................4-35 

Table 4-35: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Modifying the Consumer and Commercial Product 

Categories ........................................................................................................................................4-36 

Table 4-36: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Requiring the Number of Commercial Workers 

Reasonably Likely To Be Exposed..................................................................................................4-37 

Table 4-37: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Requiring the Number of Commercial Workers 

Reasonably Likely To Be Exposed..................................................................................................4-37 

Table 4-38: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Requiring Upfront Substantiation for Claiming 

Processing and Use Information as CBI ..........................................................................................4-38 

Table 4-39: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Requiring Upfront Substantiation for Claiming 

Processing and Use Information as CBI ..........................................................................................4-39 

Table 4-40: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Requiring Electronic Submission ......................4-40 

Table 4-41: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Requiring Electronic Submission...........................4-41 

Table 4-42: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Requiring CDX Registration for Secondary 

Submitters ........................................................................................................................................4-42 

Table 4-43: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Requiring CDX Registration for Secondary Submitters

.........................................................................................................................................................4-43 

Table 4-44: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Modifying the Reporting Frequency, over a 25-

Year Period ......................................................................................................................................4-44 

Table 4-45: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Modifying the Reporting Frequency, over a 20-Year 

Period ...............................................................................................................................................4-45 

Table 4-46: Change in the Number of Sites and Reports Submitted for All Amendments Combined....4-47 

Table 4-47: Change in the 2011 Reporting Cycle Burden for All Amendments Combined, by Labor 

Category...........................................................................................................................................4-50 

Table 4-48: Change in the Future Reporting Cycle Burden for All Amendments Combined, by Labor 

Category...........................................................................................................................................4-51 

Table 4-49: Total Industry Burden for All Amendments Combined.......................................................4-52 

Table 4-50: Total Industry Cost When All Amendments Are Combined................................................4-53 

Table 4-51: Average Number of Full and Partial Reports per Site..........................................................4-54 

Table 4-52: Average Total Burden per Site .............................................................................................4-55 

Table 4-53: Average Total Cost per Site .................................................................................................4-56 

Table 4-54: Industry Burden over a Period of 25 Years if All Proposed Amendments Are Implemented..4-

57 

Table 4-55: Industry Cost over a Period of 25 Years if All Proposed Amendments Are Implemented..4-58 

Table 5-1: Derivation of Loaded Agency Wage Rates (2008$).................................................................5-2 

Table 5-2: Derivation of Extramural Task Costs, per Reporting Cycle.....................................................5-2 

Table 5-3: Total Agency Cost under the Current IUR Requirements........................................................5-3 

Table 5-4: Baseline Agency Burden per Report ........................................................................................5-4 

Table 5-5: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Modifying the Method for Determining Whether a 

Manufacturer is Subject to IUR Reporting Requirements .................................................................5-5 

Table 5-6: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Modifying the Method for Determining Whether a 

Manufacturer is Subject to IUR Reporting Requirements .................................................................5-6 

Table 5-7: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Eliminating the 300,000 lb. Threshold for Processing 

and Use Reporting..............................................................................................................................5-6 

Table 5-8: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Eliminating the 300,000 lb. Threshold for Processing 

and Use Reporting..............................................................................................................................5-7 
x

Table 5-9: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Eliminating the 25,000 lb. Threshold for Certain 

Regulated Chemicals .........................................................................................................................5-7 

Table 5-10: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Eliminating the 25,000 lb. Threshold for Certain 

Regulated Chemicals .........................................................................................................................5-8 

Table 5-11: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Making Chemicals Subject to ECAs Ineligible for 

Exemptions ........................................................................................................................................5-8 

Table 5-12: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Making Chemicals Subject to ECAs Ineligible for 

Exemptions ........................................................................................................................................5-8 

Table 5-13: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of a Full Exemption for Manufactured Water...........5-9 

Table 5-14: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of a Full Exemption for Manufactured Water ...............5-9 

Table 5-15: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Reporting of Production Volume for Each of the 

Years since Last Principal Reporting Year ......................................................................................5-10 

Table 5-16: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Reporting of Production Volume for Each of the Years 

since Last Principal Reporting Year ................................................................................................5-11 

Table 5-17: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Reporting of Production Volume Used On-Site.5-11 

Table 5-18: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Reporting of Production Volume Used On-Site .....5-11 

Table 5-19: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Indicating Whether an Imported Chemical is 

Physically On-Site ...........................................................................................................................5-12 

Table 5-20: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Indicating Whether an Imported Chemical is 

Physically On-Site ...........................................................................................................................5-12 

Table 5-21: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Requiring the Reporting of Export Volume .......5-13 

Table 5-22: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Requiring the Reporting of Export Volume............5-13 

Table 5-23: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Indicating Whether Chemical is Recycled, 

Remanufacture, Reprocessed, Reused, or Reworked.......................................................................5-13 

Table 5-24: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Indicating Whether Chemical is Recycled, 

Remanufactured, Reprocessed, Reused, or Reworked.....................................................................5-14 

Table 5-25: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Revising the Industrial Function Categories.......5-14 

Table 5-26: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Revising the Industrial Function Categories...........5-15 

Table 5-27: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Revising the Consumer and Commercial Product 

Categories ........................................................................................................................................5-16 

Table 5-28: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Revising the Consumer and Commercial Product 

Categories ........................................................................................................................................5-16 

Table 5-29: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Designation of Consumer or Commercial Use...5-17 

Table 5-30: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Designation of Consumer or Commercial Use .......5-17 

Table 5-31: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Requiring the Number of Commercial Workers 

Reasonably Likely To Be Exposed..................................................................................................5-17 

Table 5-32: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Requiring the Number of Commercial Workers 

Reasonably Likely To Be Exposed..................................................................................................5-18 

Table 5-33: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Requiring Upfront Substantiation for CBI Claims 

...........................................................................................................................5-18 

Table 5-34: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Requiring Upfront Substantiation for CBI Claims..5-19 

Table 5-35: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Requiring Electronic Submission .......................5-19 

Table 5-36: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Requiring Electronic Submission............................5-20 

Table 5-37: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Modifying the Reporting Frequency ..................5-21 

Table 5-38: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Modifying the Reporting Frequency.......................5-22 

Table 5-39: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of All the Proposed IUR Modifications..................5-23 

Table 5-40: Total Agency Burden for All Amendments Combined........................................................5-24 

Table 5-41: Total Agency Cost of All Amendments Combined..............................................................5-24 

Table 5-42: Agency Burden per Report when All Amendments are Combined .....................................5-25 

Table 5-43: Agency Cost per Report When All Amendments are Combined.........................................5-26 

Table 5-44: Agency Cost per Report when All Amendments Are Combined.........................................5-26 
xi

Table 5-45: Agency Burden over a Period of 25 Years if All Proposed Amendments Are Implemented

........................................................................................................................................................5-27 

Table 5-46: Annual and Discounted Total Cost to the Agency of All Modifications .............................5-28 

Table 6-1: Change in Total Burden to Society If All Modifications Are Implemented ............................6-1 

Table 6-2: Change in Total Costs to Society if All Modifications Are Implemented ...............................6-2 

Table 8-1: Results of Dun & Bradstreet Analysis......................................................................................8-3 

Table 8-2: Estimated Number of Small Companies under the Proposed IUR Rule Amendments............8-4 

Table 8-3: Derivation of Cost-to-Sales Ratios for Small Companies under the Proposed IUR Rule 

Amendments ......................................................................................................................................8-5 

Table C-1: List of Current and Proposed Industrial Function Categories................................................. C-1 

Table D-1: List of Current and Proposed Consumer and Commercial Product Categories......................D-1 

Table F-1: Sensitivity Analysis of Industry Burden Estimates for Modifying the Method for Determining 

Whether the Threshold Is Met .......................................................................................................... F-2 

Table F-2: Sensitivity Analysis of Industry Cost Estimates for Modifying the Method for Determining 

Whether the Threshold Is Met .......................................................................................................... F-2 

Table F-3: Sensitivity Analysis of Agency Burden Estimates for Modifying the Method for Determining 

Whether the Threshold Is Met .......................................................................................................... F-3 

Table F-4: Sensitivity Analysis of Agency Cost Estimates for Modifying the Method for Determining 

Whether the Threshold Is Met .......................................................................................................... F-3 

Table F-5: Sensitivity Analysis of Industry Burden Estimates for Reporting Production Volume Used OnSite .................................................................................................................................................... F-4 

Table F-6: Sensitivity Analysis of Industry Cost Estimates for Reporting Production Volume Used OnSite .................................................................................................................................................... F-4 

Table F-7: Sensitivity Analysis of Agency Burden Estimates for Reporting Production Volume Used OnSite .................................................................................................................................................... F-5 

Table F-8: Sensitivity Analysis of Agency Cost Estimates for Reporting Production Volume Used OnSite .................................................................................................................................................... F-5 

Table F-9: Sensitivity Analysis of Industry Burden Estimates for Requiring Write-in Text for “Other” as 

an Industrial Function Category........................................................................................................ F-6 

Table F-10: Sensitivity Analysis of Industry Cost Estimates for Requiring Write-in Text for “Other” as an 

Industrial Function Category ............................................................................................................ F-6 

Table F-11: Sensitivity Analysis of Agency Burden Estimates for Requiring Write-in Text for “Other” as 

an Industrial Function Category........................................................................................................ F-7 

Table F-12: Sensitivity Analysis of Agency Cost Estimates for Requiring Write-in Text for “Other” as an 

Industrial Function Category ............................................................................................................ F-7 

Table F-13: Sensitivity Analysis of Industry Burden Estimates for Requiring Write-in Text for “Other” as 

a Consumer and/or Commercial Product Category .......................................................................... F-8 

Table F-14: Sensitivity Analysis of Industry Cost Estimates for Requiring Write-in Text for “Other” as a 

Consumer and/or Commercial Product Category ............................................................................. F-8 

Table F-15: Sensitivity Analysis of Agency Burden Estimates for Requiring Write-in Text for “Other” as 

a Consumer and/or Commercial Product Category .......................................................................... F-9 

Table F-16: Sensitivity Analysis of Agency Cost Estimates for Requiring Write-in Text for “Other” as a 

Consumer and/or Commercial Product Category ............................................................................. F-9 

Table F-17: Sensitivity Analysis of Industry Burden Estimates for Requiring Upfront CBI Substantiation

........................................................................................................................................................ F-10 

Table F-18: Sensitivity Analysis of Industry Cost Estimates for Requiring Upfront CBI Substantiation...

........................................................................................................................................................ F-10 

Table F-19: Sensitivity Analysis of Agency Burden Estimates for Requiring Upfront CBI Substantiation

........................................................................................................................................................ F-11 

Table F-20: Sensitivity Analysis of Agency Cost Estimates for Requiring Upfront CBI SubstantiationF-11 
xii

Table G-1: Industry Burden under the Alternative Option to Require Submitters to Submit Full Data 

Annually............................................................................................................................................G-1 

Table G-2: Industry Cost under the Alternative Option to Require Submitters to Submit Full Data 

Annually............................................................................................................................................G-2 

Table G-3: Agency Burden under the Alternative Option to Require Submitters to Submit Full Data 

Annually............................................................................................................................................G-2 

Table G-4: Agency Cost under the Alternative Option to Require Submitters to Submit Full Data 

Annually............................................................................................................................................G-3 

Table G-5: Industry Burden under the Alternative Option to Require Submitters to Submit Full Data 

Annually when all the Proposed Amendments are Considered ........................................................G-3 

Table G-6: Industry Cost under the Alternative Option to Require Submitters to Submit Full Data 

Annually when all the Proposed Amendments are Considered ........................................................G-4 

Table G-7: Agency Burden under the Alternative Option to Require Submitters to Submit Full Data 

Annually when all the Proposed Amendments are Considered ........................................................G-4 

Table G-8: Agency Cost under the Alternative Option to Require Submitters to Submit Full Data 

Annually when all the Proposed Amendments are Considered ........................................................G-5 

Table G-9: Derivation of Cost-to-Sales Ratios for Small Manufacturers for Collection of Annual 

Reporting...........................................................................................................................................G-6 

Table G-10: Annual Industry Burden under the Alternative Option of a Three-Year Reporting Cycle...G-7 

Table G-11: Industry Cost under the Alternative Option of a Three-Year Reporting Cycle....................G-7 

Table G-12: Burden to the Agency under the Alternative Option of a Three-Year Reporting Cycle ......G-8 

Table G-13: Agency Cost under the Alternative Option of a Three-Year Reporting Cycle.....................G-8 

Table G-14: Annual Industry Burden under the Alternative Option of a Three-Year Reporting Cycle when 

the All the Proposed Amendments are Considered...........................................................................G-9 

Table G-15: Industry Cost under the Alternative Option of a Three-Year Reporting Cycle when the All 

the Proposed Amendments are Considered ......................................................................................G-9 

Table G-16: Agency Burden under the Alternative Option of a Three-Year Reporting Cycle when the All 

the Proposed Amendments are Considered ....................................................................................G-10 

Table G-17: Agency Cost under the Alternative Option of a Three-Year Reporting Cycle when the All the 

Proposed Amendments are Considered ..........................................................................................G-10 

Table G-18: Derivation of Cost-to-Sales Ratios for Small Manufacturers for a Three-Year Reporting 

Cycle ...............................................................................................................................................G-12 

Table G-19: Number of Reports and Sites in 2002.................................................................................G-13 

Table G-20: Industry Burden as a Result of Changing the Threshold for Reporting to 10,000 lb. ........G-13 

Table G-21: Industry Cost as a Result of Changing the Threshold for Reporting to 10,000 lb..............G-14 

Table G-22: Change in Burden to the Agency as a Result of Changing the Threshold for Reporting to 

10,000 lb. ........................................................................................................................................G-14 

Table G-23: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Changing the Threshold for Reporting to 10,000 lb. 

 ...................................................................................................................G-15 

Table G-24: Change in the Number of Sites and Reports Submitted of All Amendments Combined with 

the 10,000 lb. Reporting Threshold ................................................................................................G-17 

Table G-25: Industry Burden as a Result of Changing the Threshold for Reporting to 10,000 lb. when All 

Proposed Amendments are Considered ..........................................................................................G-18 

Table G-26: Industry Cost as a Result of Changing the Threshold for Reporting to 10,000 lb. when All 

Proposed Amendments are Considered ..........................................................................................G-19 

Table G-27: Industry Burden under the Alternative Option of a Lowered Reporting Threshold and All 

Other Amendments when All Proposed Amendments are Considered ..........................................G-19 

Table G-28: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Changing the Threshold for Reporting to 10,000 lb. 

and All Other Amendments when All Proposed Amendments are Considered .............................G-20 

Table G-29: Agency Burden as a Result of Lowered Threshold Reporting and All Other Amendments 

when All Proposed Amendments are Considered...........................................................................G-20 
xiii

Table G-30: Agency Cost as a Result of Lowered Threshold Reporting and All Other Amendments when 

All Proposed Amendments are Considered ....................................................................................G-21 

Table G-31: Agency Burden under the Alternative Option of a Lowered Reporting Threshold and All 

Other Amendments when All Proposed Amendments are Considered ..........................................G-21 

Table G-32: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Changing the Threshold for Reporting to 10,000 lb. 

and All Other Amendments when All Proposed Amendments are Considered .............................G-22 

Table G-33: Derivation of Cost-to-Sales Ratios for Small Manufacturers for a 10,000 lb. Reporting 

Threshold ........................................................................................................................................G-23 

Table H-1: Description of Additional Data Elements...............................................................................H-1 

Table H-2: Change in Industry Burden to Manufacturers as a Result of Additional Exposure-Related 

 Data Elements ...................................................................................................................................H-8 

Table H-3: Schedule of Annual Industry Burden to Manufacturers if All Proposed Amendments Are 

Implemented .....................................................................................................................................H-9 

Table H-4: Change in Industry Burden to Processors as a Result of Additional Exposure-Related Data 

Elements............................................................................................................................................H-9 

Table H-5: Schedule of Annual Industry Burden to Processors .............................................................H-10 

Table H-6: Change in Industry Burden to Manufacturers and Processors as a Result of Additional 

Exposure-Related Data Elements....................................................................................................H-10 

Table H-7: Schedule of Annual Industry Burden to Manufacturers and Processors if All Proposed 

Amendments Are Implemented ......................................................................................................H-11 

Table H-8: Per-Report Cost for Additional Data Elements, based on PMN Burden..............................H-11 

Table H-9: Change in Industry Cost to Manufacturers as a Result of Additional Exposure-Related Data 

Elements..........................................................................................................................................H-12 

Table H-10: Annual Increase in Industry Cost to Manufacturers if All Proposed Amendments Are 

Implemented (2008$)......................................................................................................................H-12 

Table H-11: Change in Industry Cost to Processors as a Result of Additional Exposure-Related Data 

Elements..........................................................................................................................................H-13 

Table H-12: Annual Increase in Industry Cost to Processors if All Proposed Amendments Are 

Implemented (2008$)......................................................................................................................H-13 

Table H-13: Change in Industry Cost to Manufacturers and Processors as a Result of Additional 

Exposure-Related Data Elements....................................................................................................H-14 

Table H-14: Annualized Increase in Industry Cost to Manufacturers and Processors if All Amendments 

Are Implemented (2008$)...............................................................................................................H-14 

Table H-15: Change in Agency Burden to Process Manufacturer Data as a Result of Additional ExposureRelated Data Elements....................................................................................................................H-15 

Table H-16: Annual Increase in Agency Burden to Process Manufacturer Data if All Proposed 

Amendments Are Implemented ......................................................................................................H-16 

Table H-17: Change in Agency Burden to Process Processor Data as a Result of Additional ExposureRelated Data Elements....................................................................................................................H-16 

Table H-18: Annual Increase in Agency Burden to Process Processor Data if All Proposed Amendments 

Are Implemented ............................................................................................................................H-17 

Table H-19: Change in Agency Burden to Process Manufacturer and Processor Data as a Result of 

Additional Exposure-Related Data Elements..................................................................................H-17 

Table H-20: Annual Increase in Agency Burden to Process Data if All Proposed Amendments Are 

Implemented ...................................................................................................................................H-18 

Table H-21: Change in Agency Cost of Processing Manufacturer Data as a Result of Additional 

Exposure-Related Data Elements....................................................................................................H-18 

Table H-22: Annual Increase in Agency Cost to Process Manufacturer Data if All Proposed Amendments 

Are Implemented (2008$)...............................................................................................................H-19 

Table H-23: Change in Agency Cost to Process Processor Data as a Result of Additional ExposureRelated Data Elements....................................................................................................................H-20 
xiv

Table H-24: Annual Increase in Agency Cost to Process Processor Data if All Proposed Amendments Are 

Implemented (2008$)......................................................................................................................H-20 

Table H-25: Change in Agency Cost of Processing Manufacture and Processor Data as a Result of 

Additional Exposure-Related Data Elements..................................................................................H-21 

Table H-26: Annual Increase in Agency Cost to Process Manufacturer and Processor Data if All Proposed 

Amendments Are Implemented (2008$).........................................................................................H-22 

Table H-27. Derivation of Cost-to-Sales Ratios for Small Manufacturers for Collection of Additional Data 

Elements..........................................................................................................................................H-23 

Table H-28: Derivation of Cost-to-Sales Ratios for Small Processors for Collection of Additional Data 

Elements..........................................................................................................................................H-24 

Table I-1: Annual Industry Burden as a Result of a TSCA Section 8(a) Data Collection......................... I-3 

Table I-2: Schedule of Annual Industry Burden........................................................................................ I-3 

Table I-3: Per-Report Cost for Additional Data Elements, based on PMN Burden .................................. I-4 

Table I-4: Annual Industry Cost as a Result of a TSCA Section 8(a) Data Collection ............................. I-4 

Table I-5: Annual Increase in Industry Cost if All Amendments Are Implemented (2008$)) .................. I-5 

Table I-6: Per-Report Burden for Data Elements Similar to Those Included in a TSCA Section 8(a) Data 

Collection........................................................................................................................................... I-5 

Table I-7: Agency Burden to Process Data as a Result of a TSCA Section 8(a) Data Collection............ I-6 

Table I-8: Schedule of Annual Agency Burden......................................................................................... I-6 

Table I-9: Per-Report Cost for Data Elements Similar to Those Included in a TSCA Section 8(a) Data 

Collection........................................................................................................................................... I-7 

Table I-10: Agency Cost to Process Data as a Result of the TSCA Section 8(a) Data Collection ........... I-7 

Table I-11: Annual Increase in Agency Cost (2008$) ............................................................................... I-7 

Table I-12: Derivation of Cost-to-Sales Ratios for Small Manufacturers for Collection of ExposureRelated Data Elements....................................................................................................................... I-9 

Table I-13: Derivation of Cost-to-Sales Ratios for Small Processors for Collection of Exposure-Related 

Data Elements .................................................................................................................................. I-10 
xv

Executive Summary 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires manufacturers (including importers) of 

certain chemical substances to periodically report information to the Agency under reporting requirements 

known as the Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule. This information is collected based on EPA’s 

authority under section 8(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which requires EPA to compile 

and keep current a listing of chemicals in commerce in the United States. The data reported under the IUR 

rule are used to support many EPA and other federal agency health, safety, and environmental protection 

activities. Established in 1986, the IUR rule was amended extensively in 2003, and amended again in 

2005. 

Currently, the IUR rule requires companies to report information every five years on certain chemical 

substances listed on the TSCA Inventory, which is a listing of chemicals in commerce in the United 

States. For reportable substances a company manufactures or imports in volumes of 25,000 lb. or more at 

a plant site during the principal reporting year, a submitter is required to provide plant site, production 

volume, and manufacturing information. Sites must also provide processing and use information for 

chemicals manufactured (including imported) in volumes that meet or exceed a 300,000 lb. per year 

threshold. Submitters do not need to provide this processing and use information for chemicals below the 

300,000 lb. threshold, or chemicals that are “partially exempt,” such as specifically listed petroleum 

process streams, and listed chemical substances for which the IUR information is of low current interest. 

These chemicals are all referred to as “partially exempt” from reporting because companies must provide 

manufacturing information for them but not processing and use information. 

EPA now is proposing amendments to the IUR rule to modify the current IUR data reporting process 

in the following ways: 

• Technically modify the regulatory text to move various provisions to other sections, to increase 

clarity; 

• Consolidate the definitions currently found at §710.3 and §710.43 into the proposed §711.3, except 

where an appropriate definition is already in place in section 3 of TSCA or at §704.3, and delete the 

definition for “non-isolated intermediate” from §710.3; 

• Modify the definitions of “importer,” “manufacture,” “site,” “commercial use,” “consumer use,” 

“reporting year,” and “submission period” to increase clarity of these definitions and make them 

consistent with the proposed amendments to IUR requirements and with other regulations; 

• Add definitions for “manufacturer,” “Central Data Exchange (CDX),” “e-IURweb”, and “industrial 

function”; 

• For the reporting cycles subsequent to the 2011 reporting cycle, add requirement to report whether, 

for any calendar year since the previous IUR principal reporting year, the subject chemical was 

manufactured in production volumes of 25,000 lb. or greater per year; 

• Eliminate the 300,000 lb. reporting threshold for processing and use information , thereby requiring 

all reporters of non-excluded substances to report information in all parts of the IUR reporting form; 

• Eliminate the 25,000 lb. reporting threshold for certain regulated chemicals and require manufacturers 

(including importers) of such chemicals to report under the IUR rule, regardless of the production 

volume; 

• Make chemicals subject to Enforceable Consent Agreements (ECAs) ineligible for exemptions; 

• Exempt manufactured water from reporting requirements; 

• Remove fully exempt polymers from the partially exempt list; 

• Amend reportable data elements such as the company identification number, technical contact, and 

chemical identity; 

• Require submitters to report the chemical’s production volume for each of the five years since the last 

principal reporting year; 
xvi

• Require submitters to report separately production volume used on-site; 

• Require submitters of imported chemicals to indicate whether the chemical is physically at the 

reporting site; 

• Require submitters to report production volume exported; 

• Require submitters to indicate whether the chemical is to be recycled, remanufactured, reprocessed, 

reused, or reworked; 

• For downstream processing and use information: modify the set of industrial function categories, 

provide industrial sectors instead of NAICS codes, and modify the set of consumer and commercial 

product categories; 

• Require submitters to identify whether a use is a consumer use, a commercial use, or both; 

• Require submitters to report the total number of commercial workers, including those at sites not 

under the submitter’s control, that are reasonably likely to be exposed while using the reportable 

chemical substance, with respect to each commercial use; 

• Change the reporting standard for processing and use information from “readily obtainable” to 

“known to or reasonably ascertainable by”; 

• Require upfront substantiation for claims that processing and use data are confidential business 

information (CBI); 

• Restrict submitters from being able to claim not “known to or reasonably ascertainable by” data as 

CBI; 

• Require submitters to submit forms electronically using the e-IURweb software and EPA’s CDX; and 

• Change frequency of reporting from every five years to every four years. 

These amendments overall will increase IUR rule reporting costs. Over the first 25 years of the rule, 

EPA estimates the net present value of the rule modifications will be $570.41 million in social cost. 

Annualized costs are expected to be $21.58 million (at a three percent discount rate) and $19.93 million 

(at a seven percent discount rate).1

 EPA estimates all of the amendments combined would increase the 

burden to industry by approximately 1.39 million hours to 3.24 million hours, and increase the cost to 

industry by approximately $91.87 million to $198.84 million in total for the 2011 reporting cycle. EPA 

estimates in future reporting cycles, the industry burden will increase by 1.21 million hours to a total of 

2.64 million hours, and industry cost will increase by $79.27 million to $162.08 million. EPA further 

estimates over a 25-year period, industry burden will increase by 8.85 million hours. EPA estimates the 

net burden to society will increase by 8.85 million hours over a 25-year period because EPA will 

experience a small reduction in burden as a result of the proposed rule. The information gathered will 

enable the Agency to continue to target educational, regulatory, or enforcement activities to industries or 

chemicals posing the greatest potential risks and to target programs for population groups at the highest 

potential risk. 

With this better targeted information designed to better meet Agency needs, EPA will improve its 

ability to screen chemicals to identify whether additional risk assessment and management steps are 

needed. More complete reporting of the processing and use data, more careful consideration of 

confidentiality claims, and adjustments to specific data elements will help provide the needed data. By 

enhancing the data supplied to Agency risk-screening programs, EPA expects to more effectively and 

expeditiously reduce the risks posed by chemicals. The more EPA can base its decisions on actual data 

rather than on assumptions, the better EPA is able to tailor its risk management decisions to the level of 

actual risk, whether higher or lower than it would be if based only on assumptions. Ultimately, enhancing 

the risk screening process will have positive consequences for human and ecosystem health, and will use 

EPA’s and society’s resources more efficiently. Additional benefits will accrue from changes in reporting 

requirements that will improve consistency and compatibility with other EPA databases. EPA would have 

an increased ability to anticipate industry trends, particularly for chemicals for which EPA has concerns. 

 

1

 All values are in year 2008 dollars. 
1-1

1. Introduction 

This report assesses the costs and benefits EPA expects to result from its 2010 proposal to modify the 

Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) rule. The proposed amendments would provide information to better 

address Agency and public information needs, improve the usability and reliability of the reported data, 

and ensure data are available in a timely manner. This chapter provides background information on EPA’s 

statutory authority for collecting information through the IUR rule and a discussion of the regulatory 

history of the IUR rule. 

1.1 Statutory Authority 

EPA is required under TSCA section 8(b), 15 U.S.C. 2607(b), to compile and keep current an 

inventory of chemical substances manufactured or processed in the United States. This inventory is 

known as the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (the TSCA Inventory). TSCA section 8(a)(1) 

authorizes the EPA Administrator to promulgate regulations under which manufacturers and processors of 

chemical substances and mixtures must maintain such records and submit such information as the 

Administrator may reasonably require. TSCA section 8(a) generally excludes small manufacturers and 

processors of chemical substances from the reporting requirements established in TSCA section 8(a). 

However, EPA is authorized by TSCA section 8(a)(3) to require TSCA section 8(a) reporting from small 

manufacturers and processors with respect to any chemical substance that is the subject of a regulation 

proposed or promulgated under TSCA sections 4, 5(b)(4), or 6; that is the subject of an order under TSCA 

section 5(e); or that is the subject of relief that has been granted pursuant to a civil action under TSCA 

section 5 or 7. The standard for determining whether an entity qualifies as a small manufacturer for 

purposes of 40 CFR part 710 is found at 40 CFR 704.3. Processors currently are not subject to the 

regulations at 40 CFR part 710. 

1.2 Regulatory History 

When Congress passed TSCA, it granted EPA broad authority to collect information on chemical 

substances to help EPA and others assess the magnitude and extent of human and environmental exposure 

to chemicals used in commerce. Specifically, under §8 of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2607), EPA is authorized to 

promulgate regulations requiring manufacturers and processors of chemicals to report manufacturing 

(including importing), processing and use information on various types and classes of chemicals. In 1977, 

EPA used its authority under TSCA §8 to create the TSCA Chemical Substances Inventory, also known 

as the TSCA Inventory (42 FR 64572), which currently is codified at 40 CFR part 710 Subpart A. The 

TSCA Inventory lists all TSCA chemicals in commerce in the United States, thereby providing a listing 

of chemicals manufactured or processed in the United States. All chemicals are included, with the 

exception of pesticides, tobacco, nuclear material, firearms and ammunition, food and food additives, 

drugs, and cosmetics, which are not under the jurisdiction of TSCA. Chemicals are added to the TSCA 

Inventory after a company completes EPA’s New Chemicals review process and files a Notice of 

Commencement.2

 

In 1986, EPA used its authority under TSCA §8(a) to promulgate regulations requiring chemical 

manufacturers, including importers, to report data periodically to EPA on certain chemical substances 

listed in the TSCA Inventory (51 FR 21447). The IUR regulations applicable to the 1986 through 2002 

reporting cycles currently are codified at 40 CFR Part 710 Subpart B. These regulations are commonly 

called the TSCA Inventory Update Reporting rule, or IUR rule. Under this rule, EPA collected data every 

four years for organic chemicals produced in volumes of 10,000 lb. or more per site. (Inorganic 

 

2

 Currently, more than 83,000 chemicals are listed on the TSCA Inventory (EPA, 2008a). 
1-2

chemicals, polymers, microorganisms, and naturally occurring chemical substances were generally 

excluded from reporting.) From 1986 to 1998, an average of 9,200 individual chemicals was reported per 

reporting cycle. The IUR data provided a more up-to-date picture of a subset of the TSCA chemicals in 

commerce, generating data used to support TSCA risk management activities, as well as to provide 

support to other EPA and non-EPA program activities. 

In January 2003, EPA promulgated amendments to the IUR rule, referred to in this report as the 

“2003 Amendments” (68 FR 848). The amended IUR rule, applicable to the 2006 reporting cycle and 

beyond, currently is codified at 40 CFR Part 710 Subpart C. The 2003 Amendments required reporting 

for inorganic chemical substances; added new site and manufacturing data elements; required companies 

to provide basic additional manufacturing, processing, and use information related to potential chemical 

exposures; changed the period of coverage from corporate fiscal year to calendar year; and extended the 

recordkeeping period from four years to five years. The 2003 Amendments partially mitigated the 

industry burden increase by raising the reporting threshold to 25,000 lb.; creating a partial exemption 

from reporting processing and use information for inorganic chemicals for the 2006 IUR collection only, 

and for specifically-listed petroleum process streams and other specifically listed chemical substances for 

2006 and future reporting cycles; and by exempting from reporting certain natural gas substances. As part 

of the interagency review of the 2003 Amendments under Executive Order 12866, EPA agreed to propose 

a subsequent rulemaking to change the reporting frequency in an effort to further reduce industry 

reporting burden. In 2005, EPA promulgated further modifications to the IUR rule (70 FR 75059) 

(referred to in this report as the “2005 Amendments”), which extended the reporting cycle to five years, 

and made further changes to the rule that reduced industry burden and clarified rule requirements. 
2-1

2. Current IUR Requirements and Affected Entities 

2.1 Overview of Current IUR Requirements 

The IUR rule requires U.S. manufacturers (including importers) of chemicals listed on the TSCA 

Inventory to report to EPA every five years the identity of chemical substances manufactured (including 

imported) during the principal reporting year in quantities of 25,000 lb. or greater at any single site they 

own or control (see 40 CFR part 710, subpart C). The principal reporting year is defined as the calendar 

year in which full manufacturing, processing, and use activities associated with the data reported to EPA 

during an IUR submission period occur. IUR data was collected last in 2006. EPA uses the TSCA 

Inventory and data reported under the IUR rule to support many TSCA-related activities and to provide 

overall support for a number of EPA and other federal health, safety, and environmental protection 

activities. To the extent possible due to restrictions related to confidential business information (CBI), the 

Agency also makes the data available to the public. 

Persons manufacturing (including importing) chemical substances are required to report information 

related to company, site, and chemical identity and, for each reportable chemical substance, 

manufacturing exposure-related information (40 CFR §710.52). The 2006 submission year was the first 

time information on inorganic chemicals was required to be reported. The IUR rule generally exempts 

several groups of chemical substances from its reporting requirements, i.e., polymers, microorganisms, 

naturally occurring chemical substances, and certain natural gas substances (40 CFR §710.46). 

Manufacturers (including importers) of chemicals in larger volumes (i.e., 300,000 lb. or greater 

manufactured or imported during the principal reporting year at any single site) additionally are required 

to report exposure-related processing and use information (40 CFR §710.52(c)(4)). The IUR rule 

generally partially exempts specifically-listed petroleum process streams and other specifically-listed 

chemical substances, and manufacturers (including importers) of such substances were not required to 

report processing and use information for those substances. For the 2006 IUR only, inorganic chemicals 

were partially exempted. 

Form U, the tool used to collect the IUR information, is divided into three parts: Site Identification 

Information (Part I), Manufacturing Information (Part II), and Processing and Use Information (Part III). 

A copy of the 2006 IUR Form U is in Appendix A of this report. An overview of the information 

collected under the IUR rule in 2006 is as follows: 

• Company Reporting Number: An 8-digit alphanumeric number assigned by the submitter to each 

specific IUR submission (for electronic submissions only). 

• Certification statement. A form that must be signed by a company-authorized official, to certify the 

information provided is complete and accurate. 

• Company information. Includes the company name and Dun & Bradstreet number. 

• Plant site information. Includes the name, address, and Dun & Bradstreet number for the plant site 

reporting. 

• Technical contact information. Includes the name, address, telephone number, and email address 

for a technical contact. 

• Chemical identification. Includes both the specific chemical name and the Chemical Abstracts 

Service Registry Number (CASRN), or other identifying number, of the chemical substance. 

• Manufacturing information. Includes an indication of whether the chemical substance is 

manufactured or imported; whether it is site-limited (whether it is produced and used at the same site, 

and does not undergo packaging and shipping); and its manufactured and imported production 

volumes. Also contains the number of workers involved in manufacturing that are reasonably likely to 

be exposed to the chemical substance, the physical form(s) as the chemical leaves the site (including 

the percent of the production volume in each form), and the maximum concentration of the chemical 
2-2

as it leaves the site. Codes representing ranges are used to report these data. These data are reported to 

the extent they are “known to or reasonably ascertainable” by the submitter. 

• Industrial processing and use data. Includes the types of process or use for the chemical substance, 

the related North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes, and the industrial 

function categories. For each unique combination of process or use/NAICS/function, includes the 

percentage of production volume, the number of sites, and the number of workers attributable to each 

processing or use activity reported. These data are reported for up to ten uses with the largest 

production volume (by weight) for the chemical. The industrial function categories used in the 2006 

reporting are listed in Appendix C of this report. These data are reported to the extent they are 

“readily obtainable by” the submitter. 

• Consumer and commercial end-use data. Includes the relevant consumer and commercial product 

category, the percentage of the production volume in each product category, the maximum 

concentration of the chemical in each final product, and an indication of whether the chemical is in a 

product intended for use by children. The consumer and commercial product categories used in the 

2006 reporting are listed in Appendix D of this report. These data are reported to the extent they are 

“readily obtainable by” the submitter. 

• Confidential Business Information. CBI can be claimed for each data element reported. Submitters 

who claim the chemical identity or plant site identity as CBI must provide upfront substantiation of 

the need for such confidentiality. 

Non-confidential data, including both searchable and separately downloadable databases and a 2006 

IUR data summary report, are available for public use on the IUR website (http://www.epa.gov/iur). 

2.2 Overview of the Regulated Community

The regulated community for the IUR rule (i.e., those who potentially will be affected by the 

proposed amendments to the IUR rule) consists of companies manufacturing or importing chemicals in 

amounts of 25,000 lb. or more annually listed on the TSCA Inventory and regulated under TSCA §8. 

Manufacturers (including importers) of non-TSCA chemical substances (such as pesticides, tobacco, 

nuclear material, firearms and ammunition, food and food additives, drugs, and cosmetics) are not 

required to report information on those chemicals under the IUR rule. Some chemical substances might 

have both TSCA and non-TSCA uses. In that case, the production associated with the TSCA use must be 

reported. Companies engaged in chemical manufacturing (NAICS code 325) or petroleum refining 

(NAICS code 324110) are the most likely to report under the IUR rule. Chemical users and processors 

who may manufacture a byproduct chemical substance, e.g., utilities, paper manufacturers, primary metal 

manufacturers, , and semiconductor and other electronic component manufacturers (NAICS codes 22, 

322, 331, and 3344) also are likely to be subject to the rule. However, companies in any industry are 

subject to reporting if they manufacture or import listed chemicals at or above the reporting threshold. 

Companies must review the rule to determine whether they are required to report. 
3-1

3. Changes in Reporting Requirements under the Proposed 

IUR Modifications Rule 

The proposed amendments encompass several specific changes to the IUR. Each of these proposed 

amendments is described below. 

3.1 Technical Modifications to the Regulatory Text 

Currently, 40 CFR part 710 contains three subparts. Subpart A contains regulatory text associated 

with the original compilation of the TSCA Inventory; Subpart B contains regulatory text associated with 

the IUR rule covering the update reporting in 2002; and Subpart C contains the regulatory text associated 

with the IUR rule for 2006 and beyond. The chemicals covered by the IUR rule are on the Master 

Inventory File, which includes chemicals from the original Inventory compilation and those added 

subsequently through the notice requirements of section 5 of TSCA. Because the IUR rule applies to a list 

of chemicals included in the original Inventory plus additional chemicals added subsequently, and 

because the Agency from time to time has modified the IUR rule, the Agency believes the regulatory text 

associated with the IUR rule should be in its own section in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

distinct from both the original TSCA Inventory rules and from the TSCA section 5 requirements. 

3.1.1 Move the IUR Regulatory Text from 710 Subpart C to 711 and Eliminate Subpart Divisions 

Subpart C of 40 CFR part 710, §§ 710.43 to 710.59, contains the IUR regulatory text. EPA is 

proposing to move all of the Subpart C text from 40 CFR part 710 to a new 40 CFR part 711 and would 

add a new Scope and Compliance section (40 CFR 711.1). Specific sections would be moved as follows: 

§ 710.43 would become § 711.3; § 710.45 would become § 711.5; § 710.46 would become § 711.6; § 

710.48 would become § 711.8; § 710.49 would become § 711.9; § 710.50 would become § 711.10; § 

710.52 would become § 711.15; § 710.53 would become § 711.20; § 710.55 would become § 711.22; § 

710.57 would become § 711.25; § 710.58 would become § 711.30; and § 710.59 would become § 711.35. 

Because all of the text of Subpart C would be moved to 40 CFR part 711, 40 CFR part 710 would no 

longer have a Subpart C. Neither part 710 nor part 711 would have any subparts. 

3.1.2 Consolidation of Definitions 

As part of moving the regulatory text from 40 CFR part 710, subpart C to 40 CFR part 711, EPA is 

proposing to consolidate definitions copied from 40 CFR 710.3 and those currently found at 40 CFR 

710.43 into the new 40 CFR 711.3, except where an appropriate definition is already in place in section 3 

of TSCA or at 40 CFR 704.3, and an additional definition of the term in 40 CFR 711.3 would therefore be 

unnecessarily duplicative.. The definitions at §704.3 would be incorporated by reference into proposed 

§711.3, except insofar as proposed §711.3 provides a modified definition of a term also defined at §704.3. 

The term mixture is defined in both §710.3 and section 3 of TSCA. For purposes of the IUR rule, 

EPA is proposing to incorporate the definition of mixture from section 3 of TSCA. The TSCA mixture 

definition differs from the definition in §710.3 and §720.3, the regulations used to determine the 

chemicals listed on the Inventory, in that it does not specifically address hydrates. While hydrates are not 

addressed specifically in the definition, a hydrate is a mixture of water and an anhydrous chemical 

substance. As with mixtures in general, the individual components of the mixture may be separately 

reportable at the time of their manufacture or import. EPA believes, for purposes of the IUR rule, it is not 

necessary to include hydrates separately in the definition of mixture. The Agency would continue to 

include such a discussion in the Instructions. 
3-2

3.1.3 Delete “Non-isolated Intermediate” Definition from §710.3 

EPA added a definition to 40 CFR 710.43 for the term “non-isolated intermediate” as part of the 2003 

Amendments (68 FR 848, January 7, 2003). Subsequently, as part of the IUR Revisions Rule (70 FR 

75059, December 19, 2005), EPA erroneously moved the definition to 40 CFR 710.3 from 40 CFR 

710.43. EPA is proposing to delete the definition from 40 CFR 710.3 as this definition was not associated 

with the original Inventory, and therefore does not belong in 40 CFR 710.3. A definition of this term, 

codified elsewhere at 40 CFR 704.3, would be incorporated by reference into the IUR definitions at 

proposed 40 CFR 711.3. 

3.1.4 Delete Subpart B Text 

EPA is proposing to delete the regulatory text contained in 40 CFR part 710, §§ 710.23 to 710.39 

(subpart B). This text refers to IUR submission periods of 2002 and earlier and is obsolete. As noted in § 

710.1, the Agency expressed its intent to remove subpart B once the 2002 update was complete. 

3.1.5 Delete Superfluous Text Associated With Reporting Production Volumes 

EPA is proposing to delete the phrase “provided that the reported figures are within ±10% of the 

actual volume” from the production volume reporting requirements currently found in 40 CFR 

710.52(c)(3)(iv) (proposed 40 CFR711.15(b)(3)(iv)). The revised wording would be, “This amount must 

be reported to two significant figures of accuracy.” The deleted phrase is superfluous because any 

number reported accurately to two significant figures is within ten percent of the correct value. 

3.1.6 Correcting Text Associated With Reporting Number of Sites and Number of Workers 

EPA is proposing to replace the phrase “less than” with the phrase “fewer than” in the ranges used to 

report the number of workers currently found in the table in 40 CFR 710.52(c)(3)(v) (proposed 40 CFR 

711.15(b)(3)(vii)) and the number of sites currently found in the table in 40 CFR 710.52(c)(4)(i)(E) 

(proposed 40 CFR 711.15(b)(4)(i)(E). This proposed change would make the phrases describing the 

ranges grammatically correct. 

3.2 Modifications to Selected Definitions 

As part of developing the definition section for part 711, EPA is proposing to modify six definitions 

associated with the IUR rule and to add four new definitions. In §704.3 and §710.3, EPA is also 

proposing to modify the citation in the definition of importer by removing the citation to 19 CFR 11.1 to 

19 CFR 101.1. The citation, which would correctly read 19 CFR 101.1, is not needed for this definition 

because it does not add information to the definition of importer. 

3.2.1 Manufacture and Manufacturer 

In order to improve the information submitted through the IUR rule, EPA is proposing to modify the 

definition of manufacture by incorporating elements from the §720.3 definition for manufacturer. The 

proposed §711.3 definition of manufacture would allow persons contracting with a toll manufacturer to 

report the chemical physically manufactured at the toll manufacturer’s site. Under the proposed definition 

of site, the site information would reflect the toll manufacturer’s site. Adopting this definition would 

allow the person contracting for the manufacture of a chemical substance to report the information on the 

industrial processing and use of a chemical substance and on the consumer and commercial uses of a 

product containing the chemical substance. Information on the uses of a chemical substance is often 

unavailable to a toll manufacturer who produces a chemical substance for another person. EPA is 

proposing to modify the §711 definition of manufacture instead of adopting the definition of 

manufacturer from §720.3 because the IUR rule does not use the term manufacturer. In order to avoid 

any confusion with the definitions of these terms found at §704.3, the Agency is also proposing to add a 
3-3

simple definition for the term manufacturer to the proposed §711.3. In addition to the proposed change to 

the definition of manufacture, EPA is proposing to add a paragraph (c) to the proposed regulation at 

§711.22 to clarify the reporting relationship between the contracting company and the toll manufacturer. 

The contracting company is primarily responsible for the IUR reporting, but in the event the contracting 

company does not report, the toll manufacturer must report. Both the company and manufacturer are 

liable if no report is made. Note the contracting company and the toll manufacturer should confer with 

each other to avoid duplicate reporting 

 Under this proposal, the term manufacture therefore would be defined under the IUR rule to mean “to 

manufacture, produce, or import for commercial purposes. Manufacture includes the extraction, for 

commercial purposes, of a component chemical substance from a previously existing chemical substance 

or a complex combination of substances. When a substance, manufactured other than by import, is (1) 

produced exclusively for another person who contracts for such production, and (2) that other person 

specifies the identity of the substance and controls the total amount produced and the basic technology for 

the plant process, that substance is jointly manufactured by the producing manufacturer and the person 

contracting for such production.” Also with this proposal, the term manufacturer would be defined under 

the IUR rule to mean “a person who manufactures a chemical substance.” 

3.2.2 Site 

EPA is proposing to amend the definition of site to (1) clarify that the importer’s site must be a U.S. 

address, (2) accommodate manufacturing under contract, and (3) accommodate portable manufacturing 

units. The proposed 40 CFR 711.3 definition of manufacture would allow persons contracting with a toll 

manufacturer to report the chemical physically manufactured at the toll manufacturer’s site and the site 

identification information pertaining to the toll manufacturer’s site. 

EPA identified the need to accommodate portable manufacturing units during the 2006 IUR 

submission period. Two examples of portable manufacturing units are tanks used to manufacture calcium 

hydroxide slurry for use in building construction and road and highway projects, and tanks used to mix 

anhydrous ammonia and water to manufacture ammonium hydroxide prior to application to agricultural 

lands. EPA is interested in including chemical manufacturing that is, for instance, performed by road 

crews or is occurring at construction sites at which chemicals are mixed on site in such a manner to create 

a different chemical substance, e.g., asphalt emulsifiers. The site of physical manufacturing could change 

on a frequent basis. Manufacturers would report the aggregated production volume for all of the portable 

manufacturing units sent out to different locations from a single distribution center. The address of the 

distribution center would be reported as the site location. 

Under the proposal, the term site would be defined to mean “a contiguous property unit. Property 

divided only by a public right-of-way shall be considered one site. More than one plant may be located on 

a single site. For substances manufactured under contract, i.e., by a toll manufacturer, the site is the 

location where the chemical substance is physically manufactured. The site for an importer who imports a 

chemical substance described in §711.5 is the U.S. site of the operating unit within the person's 

organization directly responsible for importing the substance. The import site, in some cases, may be the 

organization's headquarters in the United States. If there is no such operating unit or headquarters in the 

United States, the site address for the importer is the U.S. address of an agent acting on behalf of the 

importer who is authorized to accept service of process for the importer. For portable manufacturing units 

sent out to different locations from a single distribution center, the distribution center shall be considered 

the site.” 

3.2.3 Electronic-Reporting Related Definitions 

EPA is proposing to add two new terms, Central Data Exchange (CDX) and e-IURweb. The Agency 

is adding these terms to provide clarity to the proposed requirement for electronic reporting of IUR data. 
3-4

The term CDX means “EPA’s centralized electronic document receiving system, or its successors, 

including associated instructions for registering to submit electronic documents.” The new definition 

would make the term consistent with the new Premanufacture Notice (PMN) definition. The term eIURweb means the “electronic, web-based IUR software provided by the EPA for the completion and 

submission of the IUR Form U report.” 

3.2.4 Processing and Use-Related Definitions 

EPA is proposing to amend the definitions of the terms commercial use and consumer use in 

order to make them more consistent with the definitions developed collaboratively by the United States 

and Canada. The proposed definitions for these two terms differ in wording from the Canadian version to 

ensure the use of terminology defined in IUR and related regulations, and EPA believes the basic 

application of these two terms would not differ from the basic application of the Canadian definitions. 

The term commercial use would mean “the use of a chemical substance or a mixture containing a 

chemical substance (including as part of an article) in a commercial enterprise providing saleable goods 

or services.” Examples included in the § 710.43 definition would be eliminated. The slightly modified 

definition of consumer use would be “the use of a chemical substance or a mixture containing a chemical 

substance (including as part of an article) when sold to or made available to consumers for their use.” The 

restrictions associated with where a consumer would use the product would be removed. 

EPA is proposing to add a definition for the term industrial function. For the 2006 IUR, EPA defined 

industrial use and did not define industrial function. The inclusion of both definitions provides clarity for 

the industrial processing and use reporting requirements and would make the Agency’s requirements 

consistent with those collaboratively developed with Canada. With this proposal, industrial function

would mean “the intended physical or chemical characteristic for which a chemical substance or mixture 

is consumed as a reactant; incorporated into a formulation, mixture, reaction product, or article; 

repackaged; or used.” 

3.2.5 Principal Reporting Year and Submission Period 

As described in Section 3.13, EPA is proposing to change the reporting cycle from every five years to 

every four years and to require the reporting of production volumes for each calendar year since the last 

principal reporting year. EPA is proposing to modify the terms reporting year and submission period to 

reflect these changes. 

The term reporting year would be modified to add the term “principal” and to replace the word 

“information” with “manufacturing, processing and use data.” These changes are to indicate the principal 

reporting year is the year in which most of the reported data are based. Under the current proposal, the 

principal reporting year is the latest complete calendar year proceeding the submission period. 

Additionally, EPA is proposing to remove the reference to “the calendar year at 5-year intervals 

thereafter” and to remove the reference to “calendar year 2005.” With these changes, the term principal 

reporting year would be defined as “the latest complete calendar year proceeding the submission period 

and in which manufacturing, processing, and use activities associated with the data reported to EPA 

during an IUR submission period occur. Production volume for manufacturing activities in other years of 

the reporting cycle may also be reportable during the submission period, but full manufacturing, 

processing, and use data are reported only for activities during the principal reporting year.” 

The term submission period would be modified by deleting the phrase “generated during the reporting 

year.” With this change, the definition of submission period would reflect that data for years in addition to 

the principal reporting year would be reported. The new definition of submission period would mean “the 

period in which manufacturing, processing and use data are submitted to EPA.” 
3-5

3.3 Modifications to Reporting Thresholds 

Reporting thresholds are used to determine when IUR reporting is required for a subject chemical at a 

manufacturing (including importing) site. Every person manufacturing (including importing) a nonexcluded substance at or above the 25,000 lb. threshold is required to report information in Parts I and II 

of the IUR Form U. Beginning with the 2006 IUR submission period, every person manufacturing 

(including importing) a non-excluded substance at or above the 300,000 lb. threshold was required to 

report information in Part III of Form U, unless the substance was partially exempt.. EPA is proposing 

three changes related to the reporting thresholds: (1) determination of whether you meet the 25,000 lb. 

threshold, (2) elimination of the 300,000 lb. threshold for reporting information in Part III, and (3) 

elimination of the 25,000 lb. threshold requirement for certain chemicals. 

3.3.1 Method for Determining Whether a Manufacturer is Subject to IUR Reporting Requirements 

Currently, a one-year “snapshot” of manufacturing (including importing) is used to determine the 

need to report for the IUR rule. The method used to make the reporting determination involves 

determining that an entity manufactured (including imported) a chemical substance listed on the TSCA 

Inventory during the principal reporting year (e.g., 2005 for the 2006 IUR reporting cycle); the chemical 

substance was not otherwise exempt; and the associated production volume (domestically manufactured 

plus imported volumes) met or exceeded the 25,000 lb. threshold for the principal reporting year (e.g., 

2005 for the 2006 IUR reporting cycle). EPA is not proposing to change the method for determing 

whether a manufacturer (including importer) is subject to IUR reporting requirements for the 2011 

submission period. 

EPA is proposing to modify the method used to determine whether a person is subject to IUR 

reporting for submission periods subsequent to the 2011 submission period. The proposed method for 

submission periods subsequent to 2011 would be to determine whether, for any calendar year since the 

last principal reporting year, a chemical was manufactured (including imported) at a site in production 

volumes of 25,000 lb. or greater. For example, assume the next submission period occurs in 2015. The 

principal reporting year for the 2011 submission period is calendar year 2010. Therefore, for the 2015 

submission period, it would be necessary to examine the annual production volumes for the years 2011 to 

2014 for the site. If the production volume for a reportable chemical substance were 25,000 lb. or greater 

for any calendar year during that four-year period, then it would be necessary to report the chemical 

substance, unless it is otherwise exempt. For instance, a subject chemical with production volumes of 

5,000 lb. in 2014 and 35,000 lb. in 2012 would be reported for the 2015 IUR. Regardless of the 2014 

production volume, in this example scenario the 2015 IUR submission would contain detailed 

information based on manufacturing during the 2014 calendar year and production volume information 

only for the years 2011 through 2013. 

3.3.2 Eliminate 300,000 lb. Threshold for Processing and Use Information 

EPA is proposing to eliminate the 300,000 lb. threshold for processing and use information, thereby 

requiring all reporters of non-excluded substances to report information in all parts of the IUR Form U. 

EPA is proposing to eliminate this reporting threshold in order to collect information necessary to 

complete screening-level exposure characterizations for all IUR reportable chemicals. The exposure 

information is an essential part of developing risk evaluations and, based on its experience in using this 

information, the Agency believes collecting this exposure information is critical to its mission of 

characterizing exposure, identifying potential risks, and noting uncertainties for these lower production 

volume chemicals. In addition, this change will provide the public with information on a greater number 

of chemicals. In the 2003 Amendments final rule (68 FR 848, January 7, 2003), EPA acknowledged the 

value of information for chemical substances manufactured in lower volumes and stated if the Agency 

were to find it necessary in the future, it would collect information on chemical substances at reporting 

thresholds below the thresholds that were introduced in that action (i.e., 25,000 lb. and 300,000 lb.). 
3-6

The Agency explored setting the threshold for reporting processing and use information at an 

alternate level between 25,000 lb. and 300,000 lb. for this action (EPA, 2008c). However, the need to 

complete characterizations for chemicals manufactured (including imported) in volumes of 25,000 lb. to 

300,000 lb. in any year led the Agency to believe it would be best to eliminate the upper threshold and 

collect full information for all reported chemicals. 

3.3.3 Eliminate the 25,000 lb. Threshold for Certain Regulated Chemicals 

EPA is proposing to eliminate the 25,000 lb. reporting threshold for certain chemical substances that 

are the subject of particular TSCA rules and/or orders and to require manufacturers (including importers) 

of such chemicals to report under the IUR rule, regardless of the production volume. This provision will 

ensure the availability of current information if EPA has expressed a concern in the form of regulatory 

action on those chemical substances, regardless of the production volume. EPA is proposing to eliminate 

the 25,000 lb. threshold for those chemicals that are: (1) the subject of a rule promulgated under section 

5(a)(2), 5(b)(4), or 6 of TSCA; (2) the subject of an order issued under section 5(e) or 5(f) of TSCA; or, 

(3) the subject of relief that has been granted under a civil action under section 5 or 7 of TSCA. 

3.4 Changes to Substances Subject to the IUR Rule 

3.4.1 Make Chemicals Subject to Enforceable Consent Agreements (ECAs) Ineligible for 

Exemptions

EPA may enter into an enforceable consent agreement (ECA), pursuant to procedures at 40 CFR part 

790, with a manufacturer of a chemical substance, to obtain testing where a consensus exists among EPA, 

affected manufacturers and/or processors, and interested members of the public concerning the need for 

and scope of testing. Chemicals covered by ECAs are of demonstrated high interest to EPA. The Agency 

has an interest in identifying the manufacturing, processing, and use of substances under such agreements, 

and therefore is proposing to require such substances be reported for IUR purposes, regardless of whether 

the substance otherwise meets the requirements listed in 40 CFR §710.46 (proposed 40 CFR §711.6) as 

an exempt or partially exempt chemical substance. This provision will ensure the availability of current 

information if EPA has expressed a concern in the form of an ECA on any substance otherwise excluded 

from the IUR rule. For example, EPA could use the IUR data associated with these regulated chemicals to 

monitor chemical production and compliance with the agreements. EPA is therefore proposing to make 

chemical substances that are the subject of an ECA ineligible for IUR exemptions. 

With this proposal, chemicals that are the subject of an ECA would be included in the list of 

chemicals ineligible for an IUR exemption, in the introductory paragraph of 40 CFR 710.46 (proposed 40 

CFR 711.6) listing the other chemicals likewise not eligible for an IUR exemption. The paragraph would 

state a chemical “is not exempted from any of the reporting requirements of this part if that substance is 

the subject of a rule proposed or promulgated under section 4, 5(a)(2), 5(b)(4), or 6 of the Act, or is the 

subject of a consent agreement developed under the procedures of 40 CFR Part 790, or is the subject of an 

order issued under section 5(e) or 5(f) of the Act, or is the subject of relief that has been granted under a 

civil action under section 5 or 7 of the Act.” 

3.4.2 Full Exemption for Manufactured Water 

Naturally occurring water is excluded from reporting under the IUR rule, but manufactured water, 

which is not naturally occurring, is a reportable substance. EPA is proposing to fully exempt all (both 

naturally occurring and manufactured) water (CASRN 7732-18-5) and to remove water from the 

petroleum streams partial exemption (40 CFR §710.46(b)(1)). 
3-7

3.4.3 Remove Fully Exempt Polymers from the Partially Exempt List 

Polymers are a class of chemical substances for which IUR reporting is not required (40 CFR 

§710.46(a)(1)). However, three polymers are listed in the partially exempt list of chemicals at 

§710.46(b)(2)(iv): Starch (CASRN 9005-25-8), Dextrin (CASRN 9004-53-9), and Maltodextrin (CASRN 

9050-36-6). Improperly including substances meeting the IUR definition of a polymer in the partially 

exempt list of chemicals may be confusing to submitters and may lead to unnecessary reporting for these 

substances. EPA is proposing to amend the partially exempt list of chemicals at §710.46(b)(2)(iv) to 

remove these three chemical substances which, as polymers, are fully exempt from reporting. 

3.5 Modifications to Reportable Data Elements 

3.5.1 Parent Company and Site Identity 

Manufacturers (including importers) are required to report the company name and Dun & Bradstreet 

(D&B) number to identify the company associated with the plant site, and also to report the site name, 

address, and D&B number. If the company associated with the plant site does not have a D&B number, 

the manufacturer must obtain a D&B number for the company. Likewise, if the plant site does not have a 

D&B number, the manufacturer must obtain a D&B number for the site. EPA is clarifying what is meant 

by company name, by proposing to require the company name provided be the ultimate domestic parent 

company name. EPA believes this change will reduce confusion by making this reporting requirement 

consistent with the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) requirements for parent company name. The 

requirement that the ultimate domestic parent company name be reported under the IUR rule does not 

affect the determination of small business status, which is not limited to domestic companies. Persons 

subject to the IUR rule should continue to base small business determinations on the ultimate parent 

company, regardless of whether that company is domestic or foreign. 

3.5.2 Technical Contact 

Manufacturers (including importers) are required to provide a technical contact for their IUR 

submission. The technical contact must be a person who can answer questions EPA may have about the 

reported chemical substance and should be a person located at the manufacturing site. Based on EPA’s 

experience with contacting the reported technical contact with follow-up questions concerning 2006 IUR 

submissions, submitters often provide the names of individuals who are not directly connected to the 

reporting site, and therefore, are not knowledgeable about either the chemical or the submission. EPA has 

also seen situations where the technical contact is a contracted employee who is able to address 

subsequent concerns only if he or she remains under contract. EPA therefore is requesting comment on 

whether it should allow reporting of multiple technical contacts on a chemical-by-chemical basis. 

3.5.3 Chemical Identity 

Chemical Name. EPA is proposing to require reporting of the Chemical Abstracts (CA) Index Name 

currently used to list the substance in the Inventory as the chemical name reported for IUR. Currently, 

submitters are required to report a specific chemical name, with no further elaboration in the regulatory 

text. The Instructions for Reporting currently state manufacturers should use CA Index Names or, if CA 

Index Names are not available, manufacturers should use nomenclature that completely and accurately 

describes the chemical substance. 

Manufacturers (including importers) will be allowed to supply an alternate chemical name, and in the 

case of importers, a trade name, in those instances where a supplier will not disclose to the submitter the 

specific chemical name of the imported Inventory substance or a reactant used to manufacture the 

Inventory substance. In these cases, the manufacturer (including importer) and the supplier report the 

information required in this part in a joint submission (See Section 3.12).
3-8

Chemical Identifying Number. As part of the chemical identity, submitters provide a chemical 

identifying number associated with the correct CA Index Name. For most chemicals, the chemical 

identifying number is the CASRN correctly corresponding to the reported CA Index Name. If the 

CASRN number is not available because the chemical substance is listed on the confidential portion of 

the Inventory and a CASRN does not already exist for that substance, the submitter currently could report 

either the associated TSCA Accession or PMN number. 

EPA is proposing to allow submitters to report only the CASRN as a chemical identifying number or, 

in the case of confidential chemical substances, the accession number. Note in cases where a CASRN 

exists for a confidential chemical, it can be reported instead of the accession number and claimed as 

confidential for purposes of the IUR submission. EPA is proposing to remove the PMN number as an 

allowed chemical identifying number because each Inventory substance has either (or both) a CASRN or 

a TSCA Accession Number, which are likely to be already known to the submitter. Furthermore, the 

Agency spends considerably more time and effort to access and review reported information identified 

only by a PMN case number. 

3.5.4 Report Production Volume for Each of the Years since the Last Principal Reporting Year 

EPA is proposing to require reporting of production volume for each year since the last principal 

reporting year. Thus, for the 2011 IUR submission period, manufacturers (including importers) of a 

subject chemical who determine they are subject to IUR reporting requirements as described in Section 

3.3.1 would report the production volume of that chemical for the following calendar years: 2006, 2007, 

2008, 2009, and 2010. Collecting the production volume for multiple years would provide EPA with 

more accurate and up-to-date information than what is provided under the current, once-every-five-years 

snapshot. 

3.5.5 Volume of Chemical Substance Used On-Site 

EPA is proposing to require submitters to report the volumes of a manufactured (including imported) 

chemical substance used at the reporting site. The requirement to report the volume used on-site is 

replacing the requirement to indicate the chemical is site-limited. Under this proposal, either domestically 

manufactured or imported chemicals could be reported as used at the reporting site, whereas, under the 

current reporting requirements, only domestically manufactured chemicals, consumed entirely at the site 

of manufacture, should be reported as site-limited. 

3.5.6 Indicate Whether Imported Chemicals Are Physically at Reporting Site

EPA is proposing to add a requirement to indicate whether an imported chemical is physically at the 

reporting site. Often, the site reporting an imported chemical never physically receives the chemical, but 

instead ships it directly to another location such as a warehouse, a processing or use site, or a customer’s 

site. Identifying whether the chemical is physically at the reporting site provides more accurate 

information for screening-level analyses and other uses of the IUR data. 

3.5.7 Report Production Volume Exported 

EPA is proposing to add a requirement to report the production volume directly exported and not 

domestically processed or used. This would allow EPA to better identify the proportion of the production 

volume included in the use reporting, given that downstream reporting is not required for exported 

substances. 

3.5.8 Identify Whether a Chemical Is To Be Recycled, Remanufactured, Reprocessed, Reused, 

or Reworked 

EPA is proposing to add a requirement to indicate via a check-box whether a manufactured chemical, 

such as a byproduct, is to be recycled, remanufactured, reprocessed, reused, or reworked. Submitters 
3-9

would identify their manufactured chemical, which otherwise would be disposed of as a waste, is being 

removed from the waste stream and has a commercial purpose (i.e., it is being recycled, remanufactured, 

reprocessed, reused, or reworked). EPA believes such information will help the Agency identify where 

these activities are already occurring, and can be used to encourage such activities. Collecting information 

on whether a chemical is being recycled, remanufactured, reprocessed or reused and is not entering the 

waste stream provides valuable information to EPA and others regarding trends in chemical 

manufacturing. This information also can be used to help determine the effectiveness of various 

programs, such as EPA’s Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC) Program. EPA launched the RCC in 

2002, implementing Congress’ instruction to prevent pollution and conserve natural resources and energy 

by managing materials more efficiently. The RCC Program’s goals include promoting reuse and recycling 

and reducing chemicals of national concern in products and waste. Indicating a manufactured chemical, 

such as a byproduct, is to be recycled, remanufactured, reprocessed, reused, or reworked does not affect 

the reporting requirements associated with any substance manufactured from the byproduct. 

3.6 Concentration Ranges 

EPA is proposing to eliminate gaps in the ranges used to report concentration in §710.52(c)(3) and (4) 

by changing the ranges to: 1) less than one percent by weight, 2) at least one percent but less than 30 

percent by weight, 3) at least 30 percent but less than 60 percent by weight, 4) at least 60 percent but less 

than 90 percent by weight, and 5) at least 90 percent by weight. 

3.7 Industrial Processing and Use Information Reporting 

In 2003, EPA added industrial processing and use data to the information collected through the IUR 

rule for chemical substances manufactured in quantities of 300,000 lb. or greater during the principal 

reporting year. The industrial processing and use information included industrial function categories and 

North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes. EPA foundthat knowing these two data 

elements for a chemical substance was useful in selecting a scenario characterizing the frequency, route, 

and duration of exposure to a chemical substance during manufacture, processing, and use of the 

substance. These data are also useful when EPA characterizes the quantity of the chemical substance in 

wastes and emissions entering the environment and for anticipating the environmental media into which 

wastes will be released. The Agency now is proposing to revise the list of industrial function categories 

and to replace the NAICS codes with industrial sector categories. 

3.7.1 Revise Industrial Function Categories 

EPA is proposing to revise the list of industrial function categories by combining categories leading 

to common exposure scenarios and adding categories where the Agency believes the existing categories 

do not adequately describe potential uses. EPA worked with Environment Canada and Health Canada to 

develop the proposed set of categories, which would be used by both the United States and Canada for 

Inventory reporting. Harmonization of the categories for reporting the industrial functions of chemical 

substances would facilitate the exchange of information between EPA and Canadian agencies and could 

serve as a model to be used by Mexico in developing an inventory of chemical substances. In addition, the 

harmonized categories would facilitate consistent reporting of chemical use information by industry in the 

United States and Canada. 

EPA is proposing to add eight new industrial function categories and to delete six existing categories 

from the current list; the total number of industrial function categories would increase to 35. Also, EPA is 

proposing to rename several of the industrial function categories to provide a more informative 

description of the function of the chemical substances that should be reported in that category. Lastly, 

EPA is proposing to require that if a submitter selects the category “Other,” the submitter must provide its 
3-10

own description of the industrial function of the chemical substance. Appendix C lists both the existing 

and proposed sets of industrial function categories. 

3.7.2 Revise Industrial Sectors 

EPA is proposing to replace the five-digit North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 

codes with 48 Industrial Sectors (IS). The sectors were adapted from the European Union’s (EU’s) 

“Guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment.” The Industrial Sectors chosen 

divide the entire range of NAICS codes into sectors so there is a sector corresponding to any NAICS 

code. The Agency believes this change would provide several benefits. First, the sectors would reduce 

reporting burden because submitters would not have to look up the NAICS code. Second, it would 

encourage more complete reporting by using terms already familiar to industry. Third, the sectors would 

reduce the likelihood of errors that result from the selection of miscellaneous or inappropriate NAICS 

codes. Fourth, it would reduce the number of codes that could apply to one substance. Appendix E of this 

report provides a list of the proposed industrial sectors. 

When the category chosen for the Industrial Sector code is “Other,” a written description of the use of 

the chemical substance, which may include the NAICS code, also must be provided. 

3.8 Consumer and Commercial Use Reporting 

In the 2003 Amendments, EPA added a reporting requirement for submitters to include information 

about the consumer and commercial uses of chemicals they reported under the IUR rule. For the 2006 

IUR, manufacturers (including importers) of subject chemicals manufactured in quantities of 300,000 lb. 

or more during calendar year 2005 were required to select up to ten consumer and commercial product 

categories from a list of 20 categories corresponding to the actual use of the chemical substance they were 

reporting. 

3.8.1 Revise Consumer and Commercial Product Categories 

EPA is proposing to revise the list of consumer and commercial product categories by combining 

categories leading to common exposure scenarios and adding categories not adequately described in the 

initial set of categories. EPA worked with Environment Canada and Health Canada to develop the 

proposed categories. The proposed list includes 33 product categories, including “Other.” Examples of 

new categories thathave been added include explosive materials, building/construction products not 

covered elsewhere, and air care products. The glass and ceramic products category had relatively few IUR 

submissions in 2006 and overlaps with proposed new categories, and so has been proposed for 

elimination. Also, several of the consumer and commercial product categories would be renamed to better 

describe the products that should be reported in those categories. See Appendix D of this report for a list 

of the new categories. 

3.8.2 Designation of Consumer or Commercial Use 

EPA is proposing to require submitters to designate via a checkbox whether the use is a consumer use 

or a commercial use, or both. The Agency’s experience using the 2006 IUR data identified a need to 

distinguish between potentially exposed consumer and commercial populations. The designation of 

consumer or commercial use, or both, would allow EPA to complete a better characterization of the 

potentially exposed populations. 

3.8.3 Number of Commercial Workers Reasonably Likely To Be Exposed 

EPA is proposing to require submitters to report the total number of commercial workers, including 

those at sites not under the submitter’s control, that are reasonably likely to be exposed while using the 

reportable chemical substance, with respect to each commercial use. The approximate number of workers 
3-11

would be reported using the same definitions and ranges used for manufacturing and industrial processing 

and use workers, required by 40 CFR 710.52. The proposed ranges are: 1) fewer than 10 workers, 2) at 

least 10 but fewer than 25 workers, 3) at least 25 but fewer than 50 workers, 4) at least 50 but fewer than 

100 workers, 5) at least 100 but fewer than 500 workers, 6) at least 500 but fewer than 1,000 workers, 7) 

at least 1,000 but fewer than 10,000 workers, and 8) at least 10,000 workers. 

3.9 Changes to Standard for the Reporting of Processing and Use Information 

In order to collect more complete information regarding the industrial processing and industrial, 

commercial, and consumer use of chemicals, EPA is proposing in § 711.15(c)(4) to replace the “readily 

obtainable” reporting standard used for reporting under 40 CFR 710.52(c)(4) in 2006 with the “known to 

or reasonably ascertainable by” reporting standard set forth under TSCA for this type of TSCA reporting. 

TSCA section 8(a)(2) authorizes EPA to require persons to report information “known to or reasonably 

ascertainable by” the submitter. This is the same standard that currently applies to the reporting of 

information described in the regulations at §§ 710.52(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3), and this standard would 

continue to apply to the reporting of such information under proposed §§ 711.15(c)(1), (c)(2), and (c)(3). 

It covers all information in a person’s possession or control, plus all information a reasonable person 

similarly situated might be expected to possess, control, or know. The “known to or reasonably 

ascertainable by” reporting standard was the only standard used for IUR reporting purposes prior to the 

2006 IUR submission period. 

EPA is proposing this change to the reporting standard because reporting under the “readily 

obtainable” reporting standard did not generate sufficiently complete processing and use information, 

which limited the usefulness of the 2006 IUR processing and use data for screening level reviews. EPA 

believes the “readily obtainable” reporting standard was a major reason for the small amount of reporting 

processing and use data. 

3.10 Modifications to Confidential Business Information (CBI) Claims 

Submitters may currently claim certain information reported under the IUR as confidential business 

information (CBI) in accordance with 40 CFR part 2 and IUR rules at §710.38 (proposed 40 CFR 

711.30). Submitters must assert claims of confidentiality at the time information is submitted to EPA. 

EPA’s procedures for handling information claimed as confidential are set forth at 40 CFR part 2, subpart 

B. 

To claim information as confidential, a submitter must indicate its claim by checking the appropriate 

box and signing the certification statement on the reporting form. A submitter must indicate its claims at 

the time the information is submitted. If a submitter fails to follow these procedures, EPA may release the 

information to the public without further notice to the submitter. By signing the certification statement, 

the submitter attests to the secrecy and value of the information for which confidentiality claims have 

been asserted. EPA expects the proposed changes to the method for claiming information as CBI would 

reduce the number of unjustifiable CBI claims. Reducing the number of CBI claims would increase the 

amount of information available to the public and improve the timeliness of its public availability. As a 

result, the Agency would be able to publicly discuss and explain its risk management actions and 

decisions more clearly. 

3.10.1 Chemical Identity CBI Claims 

Under the IUR, a submitter may assert a claim of confidentiality for data associated with the identity 

of the reported chemical substance when the chemical is listed on the confidential portion of the Master 

Inventory File and when the submitter provides the required substantiation at the time the submitter 

makes the confidentiality assertion. See 40 CFR 710.58(b) (proposed 40 CFR 711.30(b)). At times a 
3-12

submitter will assert a claim of confidentiality for the chemical identity of a substance listed on the public 

portion of the Master Inventory File. Where the identity of a chemical substance is already provided on 

the public portion of the TSCA Chemical Substances Inventory, which is publicly available from the 

National Technical Information Service, EPA's website and other sources, EPA believes the identity 

itself, even assuming it might otherwise be CBI, as well as any information that might be derived from it 

about processes or portions, has already been disclosed. EPA is proposing, when this occurs, the Agency 

may make the information available to the public without further notice to the submitter. See the proposed 

regulatory text at 40 CFR 711.30(e). 

3.10.2 Upfront Substantiation for Processing and Use Information CBI Claims 

Under the IUR rule, a submitter may assert a claim of confidentiality for data associated with the 

processing and use of its chemical if the submitter has reason to believe release of the information would 

reveal trade secrets or confidential commercial or financial information, as provided by section 14 of 

TSCA and 40 CFR part 2. During the 2006 IUR, submitters made confidentiality claims for 25 to 50 

percent of the reported processing and use information. While the Agency does not 

questionconfidentiality claims are sometimes necessary, it encourages submitters to consider carefully 

whether such claims are in fact necessary before asserting them. The Agency has identified instances in 

which submitters have claimed the processing and use data as confidential, yet similar if not identical 

information was found in publicly available sources, such as company websites, published Material 

Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs), or information submitted to the Agency and posted on the Agency’s HPVIS 

website. EPA can take steps to challenge or verify confidentiality claims, but the Agency believes 

companies should limit their CBI claims to those they are capable of adequately substantiating. For the 

2006 IUR, submitters were not required to provide upfront substantiation of CBI claims for processing 

and use data. In these amendments to the IUR rule, EPA is proposing to require upfront substantiation for 

CBI claims for this information. 

Under the proposed rule, in order to submit a claim of confidentiality for processing and use 

information data elements, the submitter would be required to both check the appropriate box on the 

reporting form and substantiate the claim in writing by answering certain questions provided in§ 

711.30(d) of the proposed rule. Where a submitter fails to substantiate the processing and use CBI claim 

in accordance with the applicable rules (i.e., the submitter does not provide an answer to the required 

questions), EPA would consider the information not subject to a confidentiality claim and may make the 

information available to the public without further notice to the submitter. 

3.10.3 Limitation on Confidentiality Claims for Data Elements Identified as “Not Known or 

Reasonably Ascertainable” 

Under the IUR rule, submitters provide information on the industrial processing and use, and 

consumer and commercial uses of the IUR reportable chemicals they manufacture (including import). For 

the 2011 and future IUR collections, EPA is proposing submitters be required to report this information to 

the extent it is known to or reasonably ascertainable by them. For the 2006 IUR collection, submitters 

reported the processing and use information to the extent it was readily obtainable, and were permitted to 

identify when such information was not readily obtainable by entering “NRO.” EPA has observed, on 

occasion, processing and use information has been claimed as confidential when a submitter determined 

the information was not readily obtainable. 

3.11 Method of Submission 

EPA accepted 2006 IUR submissions in several ways. Submissions could be completed and delivered 

electronically via the Internet and CDX, or submissions could be completed on paper or electronic media 

(i.e., as a file on a CD) and delivered by mail or a delivery service. Approximately one-third of the 
3-13

submissions were made electronically, and EPA was able to immediately process and quickly begin to use 

the information from those electronic submissions. Submissions sent as a file on a CD were printed and, 

along with paper submissions, scanned by EPA into an electronic system. Due mostly to the time and 

resources needed to review and correct submitter- and scanning-related errors associated with nonelectronic submissions, EPA required more than two years to validate and process the data from the 2006 

IUR. 

EPA is proposing to require the mandatory use of Agency-provided reporting software (e-IURweb) to 

complete the IUR Form U and the CDX to submit the completed Form U to the Agency. CDX users are 

required to register with CDX and to submit an authorized signature agreement. 

3.11.1 Updated e-IUR Reporting Software

EPA developed e-IUR reporting software for use in preparing and submitting reports electronically 

during the 2006 IUR reporting cycle (http://www.epa.gov/iur/tools/software.html). For the 2011 

submission period, EPA will provide a free, web-based application in place of the 2006 downloadable 

software. The 2011 e-IURweb software features several enhancements over the 2006 e-IUR software, 

such as a sophisticated validation system, which would alert users when a required field on the form is 

either missing information or contains certain kinds of potentially incorrect information. Other updates 

are expected to include automated chemical identity checks, automated company and site identity checks, 

and the facilitation of joint submissions and amendments. 

3.11.2 Require Electronic Submissions over the Internet 

EPA is proposing to require manufacturers (including importers) to submit their IUR reports to the 

Agency through CDX via the Internet. EPA would require all submissions to be generated using eIURweb reporting software. Electronic submissions would ensure IUR data will have completed a basic 

validation check, could be incorporated quickly into a database and be ready for immediate Agency use, 

and would not be subject to subsequent data entry errors. Furthermore, EPA believes the required use of 

e-IURweb and CDX would reduce the reporting burden on industry by reducing both the cost and the 

time required to review, edit and transmit data to the Agency. After the final rule’s effective date, EPA 

would no longer accept paper submissions or electronic media (i.e., as a file on a CD) for any IUR 

submission. 

3.11.3 Electronic Signature Process

In order to submit electronically to EPA via CDX, individuals acting on behalf of the submitter 

must first register with CDX. CDX registration is a requirement for all electronic submissions using CDX 

and is not being introduced with this proposal. During the 2006 IUR, submitters were required to 

complete an electronic signature agreement (ESA) and to submit the agreement in hard copy with a wet 

ink signature to EPA in order to complete the CDX registration. There was confusion among some 

submitters regarding the correct identity of the individual eligible to register for CDX and the individual 

required to sign the ESA. 

EPA is making changes to the registration process in order to address problems identified during the 

2006 IUR electronic reporting. For 2011 IUR reports, EPA is modifying the 2006 ESA to identify more 

clearly the individual(s) required to sign the agreement. The Agency is developing an ESA process 

similar to that planned for New Chemicals Program electronic submissions. Each IUR submission must 

have an authorized official associated with the submission, who is the person signing the certification 

statement and submitting the IUR report via CDX. The authorized official would need to complete both 

an ESA and the CDX registration process 
3-14

3.12 Modifications Specifically Affecting Importers 

Submitters report IUR data on chemicals they manufacture domestically and import into the United 

States. Current IUR regulations require the site responsible for reporting for imported chemicals to be the 

site of the operating unit directly responsible for importing the substance and controlling the import 

transaction. In some cases, the import site may be the organization’s headquarters in the United States. 

The regulations defining the site for importer reporting are found in both the definition for site in §710.3 

and in paragraph §710.48(b). 

EPA is proposing to eliminate unnecessary duplication in the IUR regulation by moving the 

additional information regarding the importer site from §710.48(b) into a revised definition for site, and 

eliminating paragraph §710.48(b). 

In addition, EPA has observed submitters occasionally use a foreign address as the site address for the 

importer. EPA now is proposing to require submitters to report a U.S. site address, by modifying the 

definition for site to state specifically the site must be a U.S. site. The U.S. address of an agent acting on 

behalf of the importer, and authorized to accept service of process for the importer, may be reported as the 

importer’s site address if the operating unit directly responsible for importing the substance and controls 

the import transaction has no U.S. address. The Agency expects all importers will have a U.S. site, as 

defined in the proposed § 711.3 definition for site because, under Customs regulations at §141.18, a nonresident corporation is not permitted to enter merchandise for consumption unless it has a resident agent 

in the State where the port of entry is located, who is authorized to accept service of process against the 

corporation. 

For purposes of IUR, currently submitters are allowed to report the IUR information jointly with the 

foreign manufacturer of the chemical. Importers may not know the specific chemical identity of a 

substance because the foreign supplier chooses to keep it confidential. In such a situation, the importer is 

still responsible for ensuring the IUR information is submitted to EPA and may do so by submitting a 

joint report. To do so, the U.S. importer, as the primary submitter, completes the majority of the required 

information, but supplies a trade name or other designation to identify the chemical substance. In 

addition, the primary submitter provides technical contact information for the foreign supplier. The 

primary submitter then contacts the foreign supplier, as the secondary submitter, to notify it of the need to 

report the specific chemical identity information to EPA. In addition to the chemical identity, the 

secondary submitter supplies its technical contact and company information but provides the primary 

submitter’s site information. The secondary submitter should also provide the upfront substantiation 

required for any confidentiality claims for chemical identity. 

Under the proposed rule, the process would be the same, except submitters would be required to use 

CDX and e-IURweb for preparation and submission of joint submissions. Previously, joint submissions 

could not be made electronically. In order to submit electronically to EPA via CDX, individuals must first 

register with CDX. Therefore, the authorized officials of the jointly submitting companies would need to 

register in order to submit their reports to EPA. The secondary submitter (e.g., a foreign supplier or 

manufacturer) would have to register as someone authorized by the primary submitter’s (e.g., the 

importer’s) authorized official to send joint submissions to EPA. 

For joint submissions to be submitted electronically, the primary submitter would use e-IURweb to 

identify the need to submit a joint report and would identify itself as a primary submitter. The primary 

submitter would then complete his or her portion of the report and provide the secondary submitter's 

company information, along with select information on the chemical substance(s) manufactured using a 

chemical substance made by the secondary submitter. The primary submitter reports only the volume that 

it used. A secondary submitter would also need to use e-IURweb to identify the need to submit a joint 

report and would identify itself as a secondary submitter. It would provide the primary submitter’s 

company information and its own technical contact information, and would identify the chemical 

substance(s) in its product, including the percentages. This information would be saved by the reporting 
3-15

tool and both submissions would be matched based upon company and chemical information. Once the 

forms were matched, the joint submission would be ready to be processed by EPA. The Agency is 

currently developing the process to submit joint reports electronically and welcomes any comments 

concerning this process. 

For the 2006 IUR reporting cycle, EPA set aside joint submissions until both were received and 

matched. EPA often had no way to determine whether a submission was a “joint” submission, which 

increased the time required for manual processing of the data. EPA anticipates the use of the reporting 

tool would help to make joint IUR reporting easier for industry and streamline EPA processing of the IUR 

information submitted in the 2011 reporting cycle. 

3.13 Modify Reporting Frequency 

Prior to the 2003 Amendments, the IUR collection occurred every four years. EPA reduced the 

reporting frequency from every four years to every five years starting with the 2006 IUR to reduce the 

burden associated with the amended IUR. The Agency now has determined reporting every five years is 

too infrequent, and is proposing to return to reporting every four years. 

While the less frequent reporting does reduce burden, EPA now believes reporting every five years 

does not provide data sufficiently current to meet Agency and public needs. The Agency has been 

criticized for using outdated information. EPA, therefore, is considering increasing the frequency of 

reporting to every three years, or possibly to annual reporting. The Agency believes efficiencies are 

gained with more frequent reporting, both for the submitter and for EPA. With more frequent reporting, 

companies would be able to establish standard systems and practices to collect the required information.
4-1

4. Industry Burden and Cost Estimates 

4.1 Methodology for Compliance Cost and Burden Analysis 

This chapter analyzes the changes in industry compliance burden and cost associated with the 

proposed amendments to the IUR rule. EPA calculates the incremental burden and cost, or savings, of the 

amendments by comparing the burden and cost of complying with the proposed amendments to the 

burden and cost industry would incur to comply with current IUR requirements in the 2011 reporting 

cycle absent the amendments (the baseline). The methodology for estimating the change in industry 

burden and cost can be summarized as follows: 

• Step 1: Identify the tasks sites perform to comply with reporting requirements for both the current 

IUR requirements and the proposed IUR amendments. 

• Step 2: Determine the unit burden and cost for all activities identified in Step 1, based on labor 

requirements for managerial, technical, and clerical staff; current wage rates; and other current costs. 

• Step 3: Determine the expected number of sites and reports filed under both the current IUR 

requirements and the proposed IUR amendments. 

• Step 4: Multiply the burden and cost per form by the number of forms to determine the estimated 

total burden and cost of compliance for the current IUR and the proposed IUR amendments. 

• Step 5: Subtract the compliance burden and cost after the proposed IUR amendments from the burden 

and cost under the current IUR requirements to calculate the incremental additional burden and cost 

or savings attributable to the amendments. 

A chemical company may own many sites, each of which may manufacture (including import) 

multiple chemicals. Each site must submit a Form U if it exceeds the 25,000 lb. threshold for at least one 

chemical not exempt from reporting. A site will submit one Form U Part I, and either a full or partial 

report for each chemical that meets or exceeds the reporting threshold. Each report is submitted for a 

unique chemical/site combination. The activities under these tasks are as follows: 

• Compliance Determination: To determine whether it must submit a Form U, a site must determine 

whether (1) it manufactures or imports any chemicals not falling into one of the categories exempt 

from reporting; (2) the annual production or import volume of the chemical is at or above the 

reporting threshold; and (3) the company meets the small business criteria set forth in the TSCA §8(a) 

Small Manufacturer Exemption Rule (40 CFR §704.3). For simplicity, the cost for compliance 

determination is considered to be incurred once per site, and not to vary with the number of chemicals 

at the site. A portion of the compliance determination cost depends on the number of chemicals, but 

for most chemicals this component of the burden will be extremely small. The majority of the time 

required for this task involves identifying the requirements and reviewing information to determine 

whether the site must submit a Form U. 

• Rule Familiarization: Once a site has determined it must submit a Form U, staff must familiarize 

themselves with the requirements of the rule. Sites reporting previously must become familiar with 

new requirements, and sites new to reporting must become familiar with all requirements. This entails 

reading the rule, understanding the various reporting and administrative requirements, and 

determining the manner in which the reporting requirements will be met. 

• Preparation and Submission of Reports: Once a site has determined it must submit a Form U for a 

chemical and has become familiar with the rule, the required information must be collected and a 

Form U covering all of the reportable chemicals at that site must be completed, reviewed, and 

submitted to EPA. This task involves any research necessary to identify the correct information to 

report, the act of completing Form U (technical and clerical burden), managerial review, and any 

mailing or other submission costs. 
4-2

• Recordkeeping: Submitters must keep records supporting their submissions for five years. 

More information on estimating compliance costs under the current IUR rule can be found in the 

economic analyses for the 2003 Amendments, Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update 

Rule (EPA, 2002a) and for the 2005 Amendments (EPA, 2005). 

4.2 Industry Unit Burden and Cost Estimates 

The industry reporting burden and cost are calculated based on estimates of wage rates, labor hours, 

and the numbers of sites and reports. This section describes the specific data used to develop these 

estimates. 

4.2.1 Estimates of Wage Rates 

Standard wage rates for managerial, technical, and clerical levels were developed from information 

published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and a method outlined in the document Wage Rates for 

Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (EPA, 2002b). Average wage data for the 

three major occupational groups are published quarterly by the BLS in the Employer Costs for Employer 

Compensation (ECEC) reports. Managerial, technical, and clerical wage rates are taken from the 

“Management, Business, and Financial”, “Professional and Related”, and “Office and Administrative 

Support” occupational groups, respectively. Wage data for the three occupational categories was gathered 

for manufacturing industries from Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables: 

Historical Data December 2006 – December 2008 (BLS, 2009).

Fringe benefits costs, such as health insurance and vacation, for each labor category are taken from 

the same ECEC series. Following the methodology outlined in EPA, 2002b, fringe benefits are calculated 

as a percentage of total wages for each category. An additional 17 percent is added to the wages in each 

category to account for overhead, based on information provided by the chemical industry and chemical 

industry trade associations in the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: 

Final Report (EPA, 2002a). The wages for each of the three categories are then multiplied by benefits and 

overhead factors to estimate loaded, annual salaries in 2008 dollars. Table 4-1 contains the loaded wage 

rates for the managerial, technical and clerical occupation categories. 

Table 4-1: Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates for the Private Manufacturing Sector (2008$) 

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)*(e) 

Managerial $43.22 $19.46 48.37% 17% 1.62 $70.03 

Technical $35.29 $17.55 47.58% 17% 1.67 $58.84 

Clerical $17.22 $8.33 45.03% 17% 1.65 $28.48 

Notes: 

1 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables: Historical Data December 2006 – December 2008, US 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 12, 2009 (BLS, 2009).

2

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

Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPA, 2002a).

4.2.2 Estimates of Baseline Labor Hours (Burden) 

As mentioned earlier, the reporting tool for the IUR rule is Form U. (See Appendix A for a copy of 

the current Form U). Each site must determine whether it must comply with the IUR rule. Sites that 
4-3

arerequired to report then must become familiar with the rule’s reporting requirements. The costs 

associated with these tasks are calculated per site, and do not vary with the number of chemicals reported 

by the site. Each reporting site is required to file only one Part I of Form U, regardless of the number of 

reportable chemicals it manufactures or imports. The information required in Part I, such as site and 

company identification, are common to all chemicals produced at a single site; therefore, this information 

need only be reported once. For each reportable chemical, a site must prepare and submit Part II and, if 

applicable, Part III of Form U. For the purpose of this analysis, a “report” can be either a partial report 

(Parts I and II of Form U) or a full report (Parts I, II, and III of Form U), submitted for one chemical. 

Submission costs, in the baseline, consist of mailing costs, and are calculated per-site. Recordkeeping 

costs are calculated as per-report costs (so total reporting and recordkeeping costs vary with the number 

of chemicals reported). 

In summary, compliance costs are determined as follows: 

• Compliance Determination: per-site basis; 

• Rule Familiarization: per-site basis; 

• Preparation of Part I: per-site basis; 

• Preparation of Parts II and III: per-report basis; 

• Submission: per-site basis; and 

• Recordkeeping: per-report basis. 

The baseline estimates of the labor hours required for the various tasks are taken from the economic 

analyses from the 2002 and 2005 IUR rule Amendments (EPA, 2002a and EPA, 2005). An industry 

survey conducted for the 2002 economic analysis provides estimates of the burden to complete each 

section and subsection of Form U. Compliance determination, rule familiarization, and recordkeeping 

burdens are also taken from the 2002 economic analysis. The economic analysis for the 2005 

Amendments assumed a 15 percent reduction in burden for the completion of Part III because submitters 

no longer were required to report use and downstream processing information for exports.3

 Therefore, 

this 15 percent reduction was applied to all of the 2002 burden estimates in Part III of the form, to 

estimate the current baseline. 

The 2002 economic analysis presents low and high estimates for each burden element; for simplicity, 

this report uses the midpoints of these ranges. Table 4-2 contains the burden estimates, per site, to 

complete and submit a Form U (one report for one chemical). 

 

3

 In the 2005 economic analysis, EPA estimated that 15 percent of the production volume at an average site is 

exported. Because processing and use information was no longer required for this percentage of production volume, 

the effort to collect and report this information would decrease accordingly. 
4-4

Table 4-2: Baseline First-Cycle Labor Burden per Form U, in Hours 

Clerical 

Burden 

Technical 

Burden 

Managerial 

Burden 

Form U Section and Activity 

(a) (b) (c) 

Compliance Determination (Total Burden for Form U Compliance Determination) 0.00 2.50 0.00 Rule Familiarization  (Total Burden for Form U Submission) 0.00 19.00 9.00 Recordkeeping (Total Burden for Form U Recordkeeping) 1.50 3.00 1.50 Submission (Total Burden for Form U Submission) 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 Mailing Burden 0.00 0.00 0.00 Part I. Site Identification Information (Total Burden for Part I) 0.76 0.95 1.05 1 Certification 0.68 0.85 1.01 2 Company Information 

Company Name, Technical Contact, Address, D&B Number, Mailing Address 0.04 0.04 0.02 

3 Plant Site Identification 

Plant Name, D&B Number, Address, Mailing Address 0.05 0.06 0.02 

Part II. Manufacturing Information (Total Burden for Part II) 1.55 8.78 3.49 1 Chemical Identification 2 (Other) Manufacturing Information  Site-Limited, Activity, Production Volume (lb.) 0.52 2.28 0.56  Chemical Identification Upfront CBI Substantiation 0.26 1.45 0.67  Plant Site Upfront Substantiation 0.12 0.83 0.51  Total Number of Workers 0.21 1.43 0.59 
4-5

Clerical 

Burden 

Technical 

Burden 

Managerial 

Burden 

Form U Section and Activity 

(a) (b) (c) 

Maximum Concentration, Physical Form, Percent Volume of Production 0.44 2.79 1.07 

Part III Processing and Use Information (Total Burden for Part III) 7.94 45.31 16.66 1 Industrial Processing and Use Exposure-Related Data  Determination of Applicability 0.13 1.01 0.28  Industrial Function Category 2.11 4.41 2.07  Function Code 0.19 0.94 0.40  Percent of Production Volume 1.23 10.00 5.27  Total Number of Processing and Use Sites 1.57 9.14 3.52  Total Number of Potentially Exposed Workers 2.10 15.43 3.83 2 Consumer and Commercial Use Exposure-Related Data  Determination of Applicability 0.14 0.94 0.25 

Identification of Production Category/Use by Children 0.14 0.84 0.25 

 Percent of Production Volume 0.20 1.26 0.45  Maximum Concentration by Category 0.11 1.36 0.34 Total Burden for Report Preparation and Submission Partial Report (Parts I, II, Recordkeeping and Submission Burden) 3.81 34.23 15.04 Full Report (Parts I, II, III, Recordkeeping and Submission Burden) 11.74 79.54 31.70 Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding. Source: Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPA, 2002a). 
4-6

The survey conducted for the economic analysis for the Final TSCA IUR rule 2003 Amendments 

(EPA, 2002a) estimated a single burden for reporting site-limited activity and production volume. This 

burden is estimated to be 3.36 hours per site (see Table 4-3) and covers four separate activities: 

• Answering a yes/no question to indicate whether the volume is site-limited volume; 

• Indicating whether the chemical is manufactured or imported; 

• Providing the manufactured production volume; and 

• Providing the imported production volume. 

Several of the proposed amendments are expected to create burdens similar to one of the above 

activities, but none are expected to generate a burden equivalent to all four questions combined. To 

estimate more accurately the burden of several proposed amendments, EPA used its best professional 

judgment and estimated the percent burden each activity contributed to the total burden of 3.36 hours. 

These burdens are found in Table 4-3. 

Table 4-3: Burden Percentages Attributed to Site-Limited Activity and Production Volume 

Questions 

Activity Percent of Total 

Burden 

Burden 

(hours) 

Answering a yes/no question to indicate whether the volume is site-limited 

volume 5% 0.17 

Indicating whether the chemical is manufactured or imported 5% 0.17 

Providing the manufactured production volume 45% 1.51 

Providing the imported production volume 45% 1.51 

Total 100% 3.36 

Source: Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPA, 2002a).

4.2.3 Estimates of Baseline Submission (Mailing) Costs 

As noted above, the baseline scenario in this analysis is the total cost a site would incur to comply 

with the current IUR rule, absent any of the proposed amendments. Therefore, the Agency estimated the 

cost of a mail-in submission of Form U, using data from the United States Postal Service website. 

Following the mailing requirements outlined in the Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use 

Rules for 56 Chemical Substances (EPA, 2008b), a mail-in submission is assumed to consist of mailing a 

document via first class registered mail with a return receipt. The cost is estimated to be $13.78 per report 

and is itemized in Table 4-4. 

Table 4-4: Mailing Submission Costs (December, 2009) 

USPS Service Cost (2008$) 

Registered mail, regular, with $0 declared value1 $10.60 

Return receipt, requested at time of mailing (receive by mail)1 $2.30 

Postage, First Class Mail for larger envelopes, up to 1 ounce2 $0.88 

Total $13.78 

Source: USPS, 2009 
4-7

4.2.4 Estimates of Baseline Cost per Report 

EPA estimated the baseline cost to industry of completing and submitting Form U, using the loaded 

wages rates in Section 4.2.1, the estimated labor hours in Section 4.2.2, and the mail-in submission costs 

derived in Section 4.2.3. The burden hours for each occupation category are multiplied by the 

corresponding wage rate to calculate the baseline cost per site of completing each section of Form U. EPA 

estimates the total cost per site of submitting and completing a partial report (Parts I, II, recordkeeping 

and submission costs) for the first time is $3,188. EPA estimates the cost to a site of submitting and 

completing a full report (Parts I, II, III, recordkeeping and submission costs) for the first time is $7,247, 

for one chemical. Table 4-5 contains the submission costs by section for first-time submitters, including 

the costs for compliance determination, rule familiarization, report preparation, report submission, and 

recordkeeping costs. 
4-8

Table 4-5: Baseline First-Cycle Total Cost per Form U (2008$) 

Clerical Cost Technical Cost Managerial C

Form U Section and Activity (a) (b) (c) 

Compliance Determination (Total Burden for Form U Compliance Determination) $0.00 $147 $0.00 Rule Familiarization  (Total Burden for Form U Submission) $0.00 $1,118 $630 Recordkeeping (Total Cost for Form U Recordkeeping) $42.72 $177 $104 Submission (Total Cost for Form U Submission) 

 Mailing Cost Part I. Site Identification Information (Total Cost for Part I) $21.50 $54.08 $73.53 1 Certification $19.22 $50.01 $70.73 2 Company Information 

Company Name, Contact, Address , D&B Number, Mailing Address $1.00 $2.35 $1.40 

3 Plant Site Identification 

Plant Name, D&B Number, Address, Mailing Address $1.28 $1.71 $1.40 

Part II. Manufacturing Information (Total Burden for Part II) $44.14 $516.61 $244.40 1 Chemical Identification 2 (Other) Manufacturing Information  Site-Limited, Activity, Production Volume (lb.) $14.81 $134.15 $39.22  Chemical Identification Upfront CBI Substantiation $7.40 $85.32 $53.57  Plant Site Upfront Substantiation $3.42 $48.84 $35.57  Total Number of Workers $5.98 $84.14 $40.97 
4-9

Clerical Cost Technical Cost Managerial C

Form U Section and Activity (a) (b) (c) 

Maximum Concentration, Physical Form, Percent Volume of Production $12.53 $164.16 $74.93 

Part III Processing and Use Information (Total Cost for Part III) $226.08 $2,666 $1,167 1 Industrial Processing and Use Exposure-Related Data  Determination of Applicability $3.63 $59.27 $19.94  Industrial Function Category $60.15 $259.57 $144.64  Function Code $5.33 $55.01 $27.68  Percent of Production Volume $35.10 $588.41 $369.34  Total Number of Processing and Use Sites $44.78 $537.89 $246.72  Total Number of Potentially Exposed Workers $59.91 $907.74 $268.15 2 Consumer and Commercial Use Exposure-Related Data  Determination of Applicability $4.11 $55.01 $17.56 

Identification of Production Category/Use by Children $4.11 $49.26 $17.56 

 Percent of Production Volume $5.81 $74.02 $31.55  Maximum Concentration by Category $3.15 $80.02 $24.11 Total Cost for Report Preparation and Submission Partial Report (Parts I, II, Recordkeeping and Submission Costs) $108 $2,012 $1,053 Full Report (Parts I, II, III, Recordkeeping and Submission Costs) $334 $4,678 $2,220 Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding. Source: Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPA, 2002a).
4-10

4.2.5 Estimates of the Number of Sites and Reports 

The baseline number of reports EPA is expecting, and the number of sites submitting those reports, 

were calculated based on 2006 IUR submissions to EPA. Because there is a cost difference between the 

two types of reports, the total number of reports is broken down into sites that filed full reports and sites 

that filed partial reports. The number of reports EPA is expecting was estimated using data compiled from 

EPA’s 2006 IUR Database (EPA, 2008c). The database contains information collected under the IUR rule 

for previous reporting cycles and was used to generate estimated numbers of expected reports. The 

Agency assumes because of the low company turnover rate within the chemical manufacturing industry, 

the baseline number of sites submitting Form U in 2011 will be equivalent to the number of sites 

submitting Form U in 2006. In addition, for the purposes of this analysis, EPA assumes the baseline 

number of reports submitted will not change from the 2006 submissions. In 2006, a total of 4,085 sites 

completed 25,896 reports as shown in Table 4-6 

Table 4-6: Baseline Number of Reports and Sites 

Number of 

 Partial Reports 

Number of 

 Full Reports Total 

Number of Sites 568 3,517 4,085 

Number of Reports 8,821 17,075 25,896 

Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Information Management Division 2006 IUR Database Statistics 

for IUR Modifications Rule. Washington, DC. December 17, 2008 (EPA, 2008c). 

Limitations of Analysis. Due to inconsistencies and limitations in the data collected in 2002 and 

2006, including the amendment requiring reports for inorganic chemicals for the first time in 2006 and the 

change in the reporting threshold from 10,000 lb. to 25,000 lb., it was not possible for EPA to compare 

records to determine whether the number of sites and reports submitted for a consistent set of chemicals 

had changed significantly between the two reporting cycles. Such an analysis potentially could provide 

support for EPA’s assumption the number of sites and reports will remain relatively unchanged in the 

next reporting cycle. Therefore, to the extent changes in the chemical industry unrelated to the proposed 

IUR rule amendments could affect the number of site and reports submitted, this analysis may under- or 

overestimate costs and burden. 

4.2.6 Estimates of Future Reporting Cycles’ Labor Hours (Burden) 

EPA assumes sites that previously have submitted a Form U will incur a reduced burden for 

processing and submitting Form U in future reporting cycles. All sites will incur a higher reporting cost in 

the first reporting cycle after the rule amendments are finalized, due to the need tobecome familiar with 

the revised requirements. However, the Agency assumes unit costs for report preparation and submission 

in future reporting cycles will be lower than the unit costs attributed to reporting in the first reporting 

cycle because of efficiencies achieved through the establishment of compliance processes (EPA, 2002a). 

Furthermore, after a site’s first reporting cycle, the availability of data from previous reporting cycles and 

familiarity with reporting requirements will expedite the process for submitters who have previously 

submitted a Form U. The burden estimates for these sites are weighted to reflect this decreased burden 

(EPA, 2002a). Table 4-7 contains the weighting factors for each section of the form. Table 4-8 contains 

the baseline, future reporting cycle, per-report burden estimates, which are calculated using the weights in 

Table 4-7 and the first reporting cycle burden estimates in Table 4-2. Table 4-9 contains the baseline 

future reporting cycle costs per report, which are calculated using the wage rates in Table 4-1 and the 

hourly burden estimates from Table 4-8. 
4-11

Table 4-7: Weighting Factors for Burden Estimates for Sites That Have Previously Submitted a 

Form U 

Section of Form U Percent of Initial Burden 

Incurred 1 

Part I. Site Identification 

 Certification 100% 

Section A Company Information 20% 

Section B Plant Site Identification 20% 

Section C Technical Contact 20% 

Part II. Manufacturing Information 

Section A Chemical Identification 20% 

Section B (Other) Manufacturing Information 80% 

Part III. Processing and Use Information 

Section A Industrial Processing and Use Exposure 

Related Data 80% 

Section B Industrial Processing and Use Exposure 

Related Data 80% 

1

 Weighting factors are from the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPA, 

2002a), pp. 3-17. 
4-12

Table 4-8: Baseline Future-Cycle Labor Burden per Report, in Hours 

Clerical 

Burden 

Technical 

Burden 

Managerial 

Burden 

Form U Section and Activity 

(a) (b) (c) 

Compliance Determination (Total Burden for Form U Compliance Determination) 0.00 2.50 0.00 Rule Familiarization  (Total Burden for Form U Submission) 0.00 2.00 2.00 Recordkeeping (Total Burden for Form U Recordkeeping) 1.50 3.00 1.50 Submission (Total Burden for Form U Submission) 0.00 0.00 0.00 

 Mailing Burden 0.00 0.00 0.00 Part I. Site Identification Information (Total Burden for Part I) 0.69 0.87 1.02 1 Certification 0.68 0.85 1.01 2 Company Information 

Company Name, Technical Contact, Address, D&B Number, Mailing Address 0.01 0.01 0.00 

3 Plant Site Identification 

Plant Name, D&B Number, Address, Mailing Address 0.01 0.01 0.00 

Part II. Manufacturing Information (Total Burden for Part II) 1.24 7.02 2.79 1 Chemical Identification 2 (Other) Manufacturing Information  Site Limited, Activity, Production Volume (lbs.) 0.42 1.82 0.45 

Chemical Identification Upfront CBI Substantiation 0.21 1.16 0.61 

 Plant Site Upfront Substantiation 0.10 0.66 0.41 
4-13

Clerical 

Burden 

Technical 

Burden 

Managerial 

Burden 

Form U Section and Activity 

(a) (b) (c) 

 Total Number of Workers 0.17 1.14 0.47 

Maximum Concentration, Physical Form, Percent Volume of Production 0.35 2.23 0.86 

Part III Processing and Use Information (Total Burden for Part III) 6.35 36.25 13.33 1 Industrial Processing and Use Exposure-Related Data  Determination of Applicability 0.10 0.81 0.23  Industrial Function Category 1.69 3.53 1.65  Function Code 0.15 0.75 0.32  Percent of Production Volume 0.99 8.00 4.22  Total Number of Processing and Use Sites 1.26 7.31 2.82  Total Number of Potentially Exposed Workers 1.68 12.34 3.06 2 Consumer and Commercial Use Exposure-Related Data  Determination of Applicability 0.12 0.75 0.20 

Identification of Production Category/Use by Children 0.12 0.67 0.20 

 Percent of Production Volume 0.16 1.01 0.36  Maximum Concentration by Category 0.09 1.09 0.28 

Total Burden for Report Preparation and Submission 

Partial Form (Parts I, II, Recordkeeping and Submission Burden) 3.43 15.39 7.31 Full Form (Parts I, II, III, Recordkeeping and Submission Burden) 9.78 51.64 20.64 Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding. 
4-14

Table 4-9: Baseline Future-Cycle Total Cost per Report (2008$) 

Clerical Cost Technical Cost Managerial C

Form U Section and Activity (a) (b) (c) 

Compliance Determination (Total Cost for Form U Compliance Determination) $0.00 $147 $0.00 Rule Familiarization  (Total Cost for Form U Submission) $0.00 $118 $140 Recordkeeping and Submission Costs (Total Cost for Form U Recordkeeping) $42.72 $176.52 $105.04 Submission (Total Cost for Form U Submission) 

 Mailing Cost Part I. Site Identification Information (Total Cost for Part I) $19.68 $51.19 $71.29 1 Certification $19.22 $50.01 $70.73 2 Company Information 

Company Name, Technical Contact, Address, D&B Number, Mailing Address $0.20 $0.47 $0.28 

3 Plant Site Identification 

Plant Name, D&B Number, Address, Mailing Address $0.26 $0.71 $0.28 

Part II. Manufacturing Information (Total Cost for Part II) $35.31 $413.29 $195.52 1 Chemical Identification 2 (Other) Manufacturing Information  Site Limited, Activity, Production Volume (lbs) $11.85 $107.32 $31.37 

Chemical Identification Upfront CBI Substantiation $5.92 $68.25 $42.86 

 Plant Site Upfront Substantiation $2.73 $39.07 $28.57  Total Number of Workers $4.78 $67.31 $32.77 
4-15

Clerical Cost Technical Cost Managerial C

Form U Section and Activity (a) (b) (c) 

Maximum Concentration, Physical Form, Percent Volume of Production $10.02 $131.33 $59.94 

Part III Processing and Use Information (Total Burden for Part III) $180.87 $2,132.97 $933.56 1 Industrial Processing and Use Exposure-Related Data 

Determination of Applicability $2.90 $47.41 $15.95 Industrial Function Category $48.12 $207.66 $115.71 

 Function Code $4.26 $44.01 $22.14 

Percent of Production Volume $28.08 $470.73 $295.47 Total Number of Processing and Use Sites $35.82 $430.32 $197.38 Total Number of Potentially Exposed Workers $47.93 $726.19 $214.52 

2 Consumer and Commercial Use Exposure-Related Data 

Determination of Applicability $3.29 $44.01 $14.05 Identification of Production Code/Use by Children $3.29 $39.41 $13.81 

Percent of Production Volume $4.65 $59.22 $25.24 

Maximum Concentration by Category $2.52 $64.02 $19.29 

Total Cost for Report Preparation and Submission 

Partial Form (Parts I, II, Recordkeeping and Submission Costs) $97.71 $906 $512 Full Form (Parts I, II, III, Recordkeeping and Submission Costs) $279 $3,039 $1,446 Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding. 
4-16

4.3 Total Baseline IUR Industry Compliance Burden and Costs 

The estimated wage rates, burden hours, and number of sites were combined to estimate the total 

baseline costs to comply with the current IUR rule in the 2011 reporting cycle. Costs were aggregated 

either per site or per report, depending on how the costs are incurred. Compliance determination and rule 

familiarization were estimated on a per-site basis; the costs for completing Part I of Form U were 

estimated on a per-site basis. The cost of completing Parts II and III of Form U were calculated on a perreport basis, and submission and recordkeeping were estimated on a per-report basis. 

Table 4-10 shows the total burden and cost to industry under the current baseline. The current IUR 

rule would cost industry approximately 1.84 million hours and $106.97 million during the 2011 reporting 

cycle. 

Table 4-10: Total Baseline Cost and Burden to Industry (2011 Reporting Cycle) 

Burden and Cost 

for All Part Is, 

Rule 

Familiarization, 

Compliance 

Determination 

and Submission 

Burden and 

Cost for All Part 

IIs and 

Recordkeeping 

Burden and Cost 

for All Part IIIs 

Total Burden and Cost 

Under the Current 

IUR Requirements 

Burden in Hours 135,847 513,259 1,193,829 1,842,934 

Cost (2008$) $8,407,651 $29,247,454 $69,311,707 $106,966,812 

Table 4-11 contains the total annual baseline costs to industry for future reporting cycles – that is, the 

burden and cost to industry for reporting cycles after the 2011 cycle, in the absence of the proposed 

amendments. The baseline for future reporting cycles is different than the baseline for the first reporting 

cycle due to efficiency gains. EPA assumes costs for report preparation and submission in future reporting 

cycles will be lower than costs in the first reporting cycle because of efficiencies achieved through the 

establishment of compliance processes, the availability of data from previous reporting cycles, and 

familiarity with reporting requirements (EPA, 2002a). The weighting factors found in Table 4-7 were 

applied to the baseline burden estimates found in Table 4-2 and Table 4-5. In all future reporting cycles, 

EPA estimated the baseline burden to industry to be approximately 1.43 million hours and $82.82 million. 

Table 4-11: Total Baseline Cost and Burden to Industry (Future Reporting Cycles) 

Burden and Cost 

for all Part Is, 

Rule 

Familiarization, 

Compliance 

Determination 

and Submission 

Burden and Cost 

for all Part IIs 

and 

Recordkeeping 

Burden and Cost 

for all Part IIIs 

Total Burden and 

Cost Under the 

Current IUR 

Requirements 

Burden in Hours 37,088 441,682 955,063 1,433,833

Cost (2008$) $2,290,736 $25,077,449 $55,449,366 $82,817,550

Limitations of Analysis. As described in Section 4.2.5, due to inconsistencies and limitations in the 

IUR data collected in 2002 and 2006, it was not possible for EPA to compare records to determine 

whether there was a significant change in the number of sites and reports submitted for a consistent set of 

chemicals between the two reporting cycles. Such an analysis potentially could provide support for EPA’s 

assumption the number of sites and reports will remain relatively unchanged in the next reporting cycle. 
4-17

Therefore, to the extent changes in the chemical industry unrelated to the proposed IUR rule amendments 

could affect the number of site and reports submitted, the baseline burden and cost may be under- or 

overestimated. 

4.4 Changes in Industry Burden and Costs Due to the Proposed IUR 

Modifications Rule 

The expected cost and burden impacts of each of the proposed amendments to the IUR rule are 

outlined below. See Section 3. for more detailed information about each of these proposed amendments. 

In each of the following sections, the burden estimates for each amendment are calculated 

independently of the other amendments. See Section 4.5 for an estimate of the aggregated impact of all 

proposed amendments. 

4.4.1 Technical Modifications to the Regulatory Text 

EPA is proposing to reorganize certain existing rule text and to delete obsolete text. These 

amendments do not substantively affect the rule text, so EPA assumes this amendment will not affect 

industry burden or cost. 

4.4.2 Modifications to Selected Definitions 

EPA is proposing to modify the definitions of “importer,” “manufacture,” “site,” “commercial use,” 

“consumer use,” “reporting year,” and “submission period,” and to add definitions for “manufacturer,” 

“Central Data Exchange (CDX),” “e-IURweb,” and “industrial function,” as described in Section 3. These 

changes are clarifications only; EPA is clarifying in rule text what has been previously explained through 

outreach with the regulated community. Therefore, EPA does not expect changes to definitions to impact 

industry burden or cost.

4.4.3 Method for Determining Whether a Manufacturer is Subject to IUR Reporting Requirements 

Under the current IUR rule requirements, a submitter completes a report only if its chemical 

production has met or exceeded the 25,000 lb. reporting threshold during the principal reporting year. 

EPA is proposing to modify the timeframe for reporting, so chemical manufacturers (including importers) 

will be subject to the IUR rule if a chemical’s production volume has exceeded the threshold in any 

calendar year since the last principal reporting year. This modification would not take effect until after 

the first post-amendment reporting cycle (2011); for the first reporting cycle, submitters would still 

consider production volume for only the principal reporting year. 

EPA believes this proposed amendment will cause an increase in the numbers of submitters and 

reports in future reporting cycles. Because data on the production volume of chemicals reportable under 

the IUR rule during non-principal reporting years currently is not available, the actual percentage increase 

in these numbers is unknown. The Agency, using its best professional judgment, estimates for the purpose 

of this analysis, the amendment will increase the number of submitters and reports in future reporting 

cycles by approximately five percent. 

Using an estimated five percent increase over the baseline number of sites and reports (baseline 

presented in Table 4-6), EPA estimates204 additional sites will submit reports in future reporting cycles. 

EPA further estimates those sites will submit an additional 854 full reports and 441 partial reports, for a 

total of 1,295 additional reports for each future reporting cycle. 

As described in Section 4.1, sites need to complete Part I of Form U only once, and complete Part II 

and Part III (as applicable) for each chemical manufactured or imported. Taking this allocation of 

activities into consideration, and using the baseline unit burden estimates as shown in Table 4-2 and Table 

4-8, Table 4-12 shows the industry burden estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. The Agency 
4-18

estimates the amendment will not cause a change in industry burden during the 2011 reporting cycle, but 

will generate an increase of approximately 71,700 hours during all future reporting cycles. 

Table 4-12: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Modifying the Method for Determining 

Whether a Manufacturer is Subject to IUR Reporting Requirements 

Burden for 

Compliance 

Determination, 

Rule 

Familiarization, 

Submission and 

to Prepare 

 Part I 

 (hours per site) 

Number 

of Sites 

Burden for 

Recordkeeping 

and to Prepare 

Part II 

 (hours per 

report) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

Burden 

to 

Prepare 

Part III 

(hours 

per 

report) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

with 

Part III 

Industry 

Burden 

(hours) 

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) 

(g) = 

(a*b)+ 

(c*d)+(e*f) 

First Cycle, 

Baseline 33.26 4,085 19.82 25,896 69.92 17,075 1,842,934 

First Cycle, 

PostAmendment 

33.26 4,085 19.82 25,896 69.92 17,075 1,842,934 

Change from 

the Baseline, 

First Cycle 

0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0 

Future Cycle 

Baseline 9.08 4,085 17.06 25,896 55.93 17,075 1,433,833 

Future Cycle, 

PostAmendment 

9.08 4,289 17.06 27,191 55.93 17,929 1,505,524 

Change from 

the Baseline, 

Future Cycles 

0.00 204 0.00 1,295 0.00 854 71,692 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value. 

The cost of the amendment was calculated using the unit costs shown in Table 4-5 and Table 4-9. 

Table 4-13 shows the industry cost estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. EPA estimates the 

amendment will not cause a change in industry cost in the first reporting cycle, but will increase costs by 

$4.14 million in all future reporting cycles. 
4-19

Table 4-13: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Modifying the Method for Determining Whether 

a Manufacturer is Subject to IUR Reporting Requirements 

Cost for 

Compliance 

Determination, 

Rule 

Familiarization, 

Submission and 

to Prepare 

 Part I 

(2008$ per site) 

Number 

of Sites 

Cost for 

Recordkeeping 

and to Prepare 

Part II 

(2008$ per 

report) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

Cost to 

Prepare 

Part III 

(2008$ 

per 

report) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

with 

 Part III 

Industry 

Cost 

(millions 

2008$) 

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) 

(g) = 

(a*b)+ 

(c*d)+(e*f) 

First Cycle, 

Baseline $2,058 4,085 $1,129 25,896 $4,059 17,075 $106.97 

First Cycle, 

PostAmendment 

$2,058 4,085 $1,129 25,896 $4,059 17,075 $106.97 

Change from 

the Baseline, 

First Cycle 

$0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0.00 

Future Cycle 

Baseline $561 4,085 $968 25,896 $3,247 17,075 $82.82 

Future Cycle, 

PostAmendment 

$561 4,289 $968 27,191 $3,247 17,929 $86.96 

Change from 

the Baseline, 

Future Cycles 

$0 204 $0 1,295 $0 854 $4.14 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Limitations of Analysis. To the extent the change in method for determining whether a manufacturer 

is subject to the IUR reporting requirements causes an increase in numbers of sites and reports submitted 

that is higher or lower than five percent, this analysis may under- or overestimate the total burden and 

cost increase. A sensitivity analysis is performed in Appendix F.1. 

In the proposal, EPA also requested comment on returning to the previous, lower reporting threshold 

of 10,000 lb. Appendix G. contains an analysis of the cost and burden of this lower threshold. 

4.4.4 Eliminate the 300,000 lb. Threshold for Processing and Use Reporting 

EPA is proposing to eliminate the 300,000 lb. threshold for processing and use reporting, thereby 

requiring all reporters of non-excluded substances to report information in all parts of the IUR Form U. 

Eliminating this threshold will increase industry burden by requiring more sites to complete Part III of 

Form U (Part III contains the downstream processing and use information). 

This proposed amendment affects only the burden and costs associated with completing Part III; it 

would not cause an increase in the number of sites submitting reports. The baseline number of partial 

reports submitted (that is, forms with only Part I and Part II completed) is 8,821 (see Table 4-6). 

However, several of these reports are submitted for partially exempt chemicals. Under the proposed 

amendment, submitters of partially exempt chemicals still will not be required to submit a Part III. In 

2006, EPA received a total of 618 partial reports (EPA, 2009a) on the 712 partially exempt chemicals 

(EPA, 2006a) currently on the partially exempt list. 
4-20

Using the baseline unit burden estimate as shown in Table 4-2 and Table 4-8, Table 4-14 shows the 

industry burden estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. The Agency estimates the amendment 

will cause an increase in industry burden of approximately 573,500 hours during the first reporting cycle, 

and 458,800 hours during all future reporting cycles. 

Table 4-14: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Eliminating the 300,000 lb. Threshold for 

Downstream Processing and Use Information Reporting 

Burden per Report 

(Part III) 

(hours) 

Total Number of Reports 

with Part III 

Total Industry 

Burden 

(hours) 

First Cycle, Baseline 69.92 17,075 1,193,829 

First Cycle, PostAmendment 69.92 25,278 1,767,356 

Change from the Baseline, 

First Cycle 0 8,203 573,527 

Future Cycle Baseline 55.93 17,075 955,063 

Future Cycle, PostAmendment 55.93 25,278 1,413,884 

Change from the Baseline, 

Future Cycles 0 8,203 458,822 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

The cost of the amendment was calculated using the unit costs shown in Table 4-5 and Table 4-9. 

Table 4-15 shows the industry cost estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. EPA estimates the 

industry cost will increase by $33.3 million in the 2011 reporting cycle and by $26.64 million in all future 

reporting cycles. 

EPA also explored the possibility of lowering the threshold for processing and use reporting to 

various levels below 300,000 lb., but greater than 25,000 lb. (e.g., not eliminating the threshold entirely) 

(EPA, 2008c). The current 300,000 lb. threshold applies to each chemical produced at each individual 

reporting site, and was selected with the intention exposure-related processing and use information would 

be collected for High Production Volume (HPV) chemicals. However, the uncertainty that thresholds 

lower than 300,000 lbs. would capture substantially more of the HPV chemicals, coupled with the need to 

complete characterizations for chemicals manufactured (including imported) in volumes of 25,000 lb. to 

300,000 lb., led the Agency to believe it would be best to eliminate the 300,000 lb. threshold altogether 

and collect full information for the all reported chemicals.
4-21

Table 4-15: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Eliminating the 300,000 lb. Threshold for 

Downstream Processing and Use Information Reporting 

Cost per Report 

(Part III) 

(2008$) 

Number of Reports 

with Part III 

Total Industry Cost 

(millions 2008$) 

First Cycle, Baseline $4,059.25 17,075 $69.31 

First Cycle, PostAmendment $4,059.25 25,278 $102.61 

Change from the Baseline, 

First-Year $0.00 8,203 $33.30 

Future Cycle Baseline $3,247.40 17,075 $55.45 

Future Cycle, PostAmendment $3,247.40 25,278 $82.09 

Change from the Baseline, 

Future Cycles $0.00 8,203 $26.64 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Limitations of Analysis. EPA is assuming each partially exempt chemical is produced at four 

different sites. To the extent this is not the case, this analysis may over- or underestimate the number of 

additional Part IIIs. 

4.4.5 Eliminate the 25,000 lb. Threshold for Certain Regulated Chemicals 

EPA is proposing to eliminate the 25,000 lb. threshold for chemicals that are: (1) the subject of a 

regulation promulgated under section 5(a)(2), 5(b)(4), or 6 of the Act; (2) the subject of an order issued 

under section 5(e) or 5(f) of the Act, or (3) the subject of relief that has been granted under a civil action 

under section 5 or 7 of the Act. The manufacturers (including importers) of these chemicals would be 

required to report under the IUR rule, regardless of the production volume. 

To determine how many chemicals this proposed amendment would affect, EPA referred to Appendix 

C of the Instructions for Reporting for the 2006 Partial Updating of the TSCA Chemical Inventory 

Database (EPA, 2006a), which lists chemical substances that are the subject of certain TSCA orders, 

proposed or final TSCA rules, or relief granted under civil actions. A count of all the chemical substances, 

listed by CASRN, that are subject to a regulation proposed or promulgated under sections 5(a)(2), 5(b)(4), 

or 6 of the Act, subject of an order issued under section 5(e) or 5(f) of the Act, or the subject of relief that 

has been granted under a civil action under section 5 or 7 of the Act, identified 1,131 chemicals. Because 

the proposed amendment would affect only chemicals subject to a promulgated rule, this figure is an 

overestimate. CASRN numbers were provided for 740 of these chemicals, and an additional 391 

chemicals were listed by accession numbers (EPA, 2006a). Of the 740 chemicals with CAS numbers, no 

reports were filed for 652 chemicals, or 88 percent (EPA, 2009e). EPA also assumes no reports were filed 

for 88 percent of the 391 chemicals with accession numbers, or 345 chemicals. In addition, Form Us were 

submitted voluntarily for eight chemicals with production volume levels below the 25,000 lb. threshold 

during the 2006 reporting cycle (EPA, 2009a). EPA estimatesreports will now be filed for approximately 

1,005 additional chemicals for which reports are not currently required (652+345+8 = 1,005). 

Based on the data provided in the 2006 IUR reporting cycle (EPA, 2008c), on average, each chemical 

is produced at approximately four sites; therefore, EPA expects 4,018 additional reports (Part IIs) to be 

submitted for these chemicals. The Agency also assumes the reports generated by this amendment would 

be for production volumes lower than 25,000 lb. (therefore, lower than 300,000 lb.), so, as a result of this 

amendment alone, submitters would not be required to complete Part III (see Section 4.5 for an estimate 

of the aggregated impact of all proposed amendments). In addition, the Agency is assuming 

manufacturers (including importers) of these chemicals already would be submitting reports for other 
4-22

non-exempt chemicals; so, therefore, the number of sites would not increase from the baseline as a result 

of this amendment. 

Using the baseline unit burden estimate for completion of Part II as shown in Table 4-2 and Table 

4-8, Table 4-16 presents the estimated increase in industry burden as a result of this proposed amendment. 

The Agency estimates the amendment will cause an increase in industry burden of approximately 79,600 

hours during the first reporting cycle and 68,500 hours during all future reporting cycles. 

Table 4-16: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Eliminating the 25,000 lb. Threshold for 

Certain Regulated Chemicals 

Burden for Recordkeeping 

and to Prepare Part II 

(hours per report) 

Number of 

Reports 

Industry Burden 

 (hours) 

First Cycle, Baseline 19.82 25,896 513,259 

First Cycle, Post-Amendment 19.82 29,914 592,896 

Change from the Baseline, First Cycle 0.00 4,018 79,637 

Future Cycle Baseline 17.06 25,896 441,682 

Future Cycle, Post-Amendment 17.06 29,914 510,213 

Change from the Baseline, Future 

Cycles 0.00 4,018 68,531 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

The cost of the amendment was calculated using the unit costs shown in Table 4-5 and Table 4-9. 

Table 4-17 shows the industry cost estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. The cost to industry 

is expected to increase by $4.54 million during the 2011 reporting cycle and $3.89 million during all 

future reporting cycles. 

Table 4-17: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Eliminating the 25,000 lb. Threshold for Certain 

Regulated Chemicals 

Cost for Recordkeeping 

and to Prepare Part II 

(2008$ per report) 

Number of 

Reports 

Industry Cost 

(millions 2008$) 

First Cycle, Baseline $1,129 25,896 $29.25 

First Cycle, Post-Amendment $1,129 29,914 $33.79 

Change from the Baseline, First Cycle $0 4,018 $4.54 

Future Cycle Baseline $968 25,896 $25.08 

Future Cycle, Post-Amendment $968 29,914 $28.97 

Change from the Baseline, Future 

Cycles $0 4,018 $3.89 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Limitations of Analysis. The number of additional reports EPA receives as a result of this amendment 

may be an overestimate to the extent manufacturers (including importers) already are submitting reports 

for these chemicals. That is, to the extent some portion of these chemicals already are subject to IUR 

reporting because they are produced in volumes of 25,000 lb. or greater, the Agency is overestimating the 

number of additional reports it would receive as a result of the amendment. Furthermore, to the extent 

manufacturers (including importers) of these chemicals do not already submit reports for other chemicals, 

EPA is underestimating the number of sites would increase from the baseline as a result of this 

amendment. 
4-23

4.4.6 Make Chemicals Subject to Enforceable Consent Agreements (ECAs) Ineligible for 

Exemptions

Chemicals subject to enforceable consent agreements (ECAs) are of demonstrated interest to the 

Agency. For instance, EPA will use the IUR data associated with these regulated chemicals to monitor 

chemical production and compliance with the agreements. Therefore, EPA proposes to make these 

chemicals ineligible for reporting exemptions. Manufacturers (including importers) of these chemicals no 

longer would be partially exempt, and so must complete Part III of Form U. 

EPA publishes and updates on its website a list of TSCA Section 4 Federal Register Enforceable 

Consent Agreements (http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/4eca.html) (EPA, 2009f). Since 1985, the 

Agency has entered into enforceable consent agreements for 67 chemicals. Six of the 67 chemicals were 

composite substances developed for the sole purpose of conducting testing under ECAs, and were never 

listed on the TSCA Inventory. Eliminating those six substances leaves a total of 61 chemicals subject to 

ECAs. 

EPA also maintains a table showing the sunset date and status for chemicals subject to section 4 

actions, including ECAs (http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/sunset.html) (EPA, 2009g). Only two 

of the 61 chemicals were identified as currently being subject to an ongoing ECA. Therefore, only two 

chemicals would lose the partial exemption under the proposed amendment, and so would need to 

complete Part III of Form U. In addition, EPA is assuming an additional two chemicals could be under 

ECAs in future reporting cycles. Therefore, EPA is estimating the proposed amendment would cause 

submitters of a total of four chemicals to complete Part III of Form U. Based on data from the 2006 IUR 

reporting cycle, the Agency estimates approximately four sites produce each chemical (EPA, 2008c); 

therefore, a total of 16 Part IIIs would be submitted for the first time for chemicals subject to an ECA. 

Using the baseline unit burden estimate for completion of Part III as shown in Table 4-2 and Table 

4-8, Table 4-18 shows the industry burden estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. The Agency 

estimates the amendment will cause an increase in industry burden of approximately 1,100 hours during 

the first reporting cycle, and 900 hours during all future reporting cycles. 

Table 4-18: Change in Industry Burden as Result of Making Chemicals Subject to ECAs Ineligible 

for Exemptions 

Burden per Report 

(Part III) 

(hours) 

Total Number of Reports 

with Part III 

Total Industry Burden 

(hours) 

First Cycle, 

Baseline 69.92 17,075 1,193,829 

First Cycle, PostAmendment 69.92 17,091 1,194,947 

Change from the 

Baseline, First 

Cycle 

0 16 1,119 

Future Cycle 

Baseline 55.93 17,075 955,063 

Future Cycle, PostAmendment 55.93 17,091 955,958 

Change from the 

Baseline, Future 

Cycles 

0 16 895 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

The cost of the amendment was calculated using the unit costs shown in Table 4-5 and Table 4-9. 

Table 4-19 shows the industry cost estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. EPA estimates the 
4-24

industry cost will increase by $64,900 during the 2011 reporting cycle and by approximately $52,000 

during all future reporting cycles. 

Table 4-19: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Making Chemicals Subject to ECAs Ineligible 

for Exemptions 

Cost per Report (Part III) 

(2008$) 

Number of Reports 

with Part III 

Total Industry Cost 

(2008$) 

First Cycle, Baseline $4,059 17,075 $69,311,707 

First Cycle, PostAmendment $4,059 17,091 $69,376,655 

Change from the Baseline, 

First Cycle $0 16 $64,948 

Future Cycle Baseline $3,247 17,075 $55,449,366 

Future Cycle, PostAmendment $3,247 17,091 $55,501,324 

Change from the Baseline, 

Future Cycles $0 16 $51,958 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Limitations of Analysis. EPA is assuming each of these chemicals is produced at four different sites. 

To the extent this is not the case, this analysis may over- or underestimate the number of additional Part 

IIIs. In addition, some of these chemicals may be produced in volumes of 300,000 lb. or greater, and 

therefore would already be required to submit a full report. To the extent this is the case, this analysis 

overestimates the total number of additional Part IIIs. Finally, to the extent additional chemicals become 

subject to ECAs in the future, this analysis may underestimate the total number of additional Part IIIs.

4.4.7 Full Exemption for Manufactured Water 

Under the current IUR regulations, manufactured water is partially exempt from reporting; therefore, 

facilities producing manufactured water only need to complete Parts I and II of Form U. The Agency is 

proposing to grant a full exemption for manufactured water. In 2006, a total of 43 partial reports were 

submitted for manufactured water (EPA, 2008c). EPA assumes manufactured water is a byproduct of 

chemical production. Therefore, sites submitting a report for manufactured water will continue to submit 

reports for other chemicals. Thus the burden reduction for this proposed amendment would be the result 

of 43 fewer Part IIs being submitted. 

Using the baseline unit burden estimate as shown in Table 4-2 and Table 4-8, Table 4-20 shows the 

reduction in industry burden estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. The Agency estimates the 

amendment will cause a decrease in industry burden of approximately 850 hours during the first reporting 

cycle, and 700 hours during all future reporting cycles. 
4-25

Table 4-20: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Exempting Manufactured Water from 

Reporting 

Burden for 

Recordkeeping and to 

Prepare Part II 

 (hours per report) 

Number of 

Reports 

Total Industry 

Burden (hours) 

First Cycle, Baseline 19.82 25,896 513,259 

First Cycle, Post-Amendment 19.82 25,853 512,406 

Change from the Baseline, First Cycle 0 -43 -852 

Future Cycle Baseline 17.06 25,896 441,682 

Future Cycle, Post-Amendment 17.06 25,853 440,949 

Change from the Baseline, Future Cycles 0 -43 -733 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

The cost savings due to the amendment were determined using the unit costs shown in Table 4-5 and 

Table 4-9. Table 4-21 shows the industry cost estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. EPA 

estimates the industry cost will decrease by approximately $48,600 in the first reporting cycle and 

$41,600 in all future reporting cycles. 

Table 4-21: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Exempting Manufactured Water from Reporting 

Cost for Recordkeeping 

and to Prepare Part II 

(2008$ per report) 

Number of 

Reports 

Total Industry 

Cost (2008$) 

First Cycle, Baseline $1,129 25,896 $29,247,454 

First Cycle, Post-Amendment $1,129 25,853 $29,198,889 

Change from the Baseline, First Cycle $0 -43 -$48,565 

Future Cycle Baseline $968 25,896 $25,077,449 

Future Cycle, Post-Amendment $968 25,853 $25,035,808 

Change from the Baseline, Future Cycles $0 -43 -$41,641 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Limitations of Analysis. EPA is assuming the sites producing manufactured water are also producing 

other chemicals above the reporting threshold, and will continue to submit a Form U, which may not be 

the case for all sites. In that case, the above estimate would underestimate the savings to the industry. 

4.4.8 Remove Fully-Exempt Polymers from the Partially-Exempt List 

EPA is proposing to amend the partially-exempt list of chemicals to remove three chemical 

substances: Starch (CASRN 9005-25-8), Dextrin (CASRN 9004-53-9), and Maltodextrin (CASRN 9049-

76-7). These chemicals, as polymers, are already fully exempt from reporting. EPA expects this proposed 

amendment will not impact industry burden or costs, because these substances currently are fully exempt 

from reporting and therefore no submitters currently are required to submit reports for them. That is, this 

amendment is a clarification only and EPA assumes it will not change the behavior of the regulated 

community. 

4.4.9 Parent Company and Site Identity 

EPA is proposing submitters provide the name, address, and D&B number of their ultimate domestic 

parent company, as well as for the site. This information was required as part of Form U prior to the 2006 

amendments, so the 2002 economic analysis, on which these burden estimates are based, already included 
4-26

the cost of providing the information for the ultimate domestic parent company. The proposed rule will 

now be consistent with the 2002 analysis, and EPA assumes the burden estimate will not change from the 

baseline. Furthermore, for companies that already may not have a D&B number, there is no cost to obtain 

one. 

4.4.10 Technical Contact 

Manufacturers (including importers) are required to provide a technical contact for their IUR 

submission. EPA is proposing to amend the IUR rule to require the technical contact be a person who 

works on-site, and is knowledgeable about the chemical. Because submitters already are required to 

identify a technical contact, EPA assumes this amendment will not cause an increase in burden. 

4.4.11 Chemical Identity 

EPA is proposing to require IUR submitters to report the Chemical Abstracts (CA) Index Name 

currently used to list the substance in the Inventory. Currently, submitters are required to report a specific 

chemical name, with no further elaboration in the regulatory text. EPA is also proposing to allow 

submitters to report only the CASRN as a chemical identifying number or, in the case of confidential 

chemical substances, the accession number. Note in cases where a CASRN exists for a confidential 

chemical, it can be reported instead of the accession number and claimed as confidential for purposes of 

the IUR submission. EPA is proposing to remove the PMN number as an allowed chemical identifying 

number because each Inventory substance has either or both a CASRN or a TSCA Accession Number, 

which are likely to be already known to the submitter. 

The Agency assumes all manufacturers (including importers) know or can easily obtain the CA Index 

Names and CASRN numbers for the chemicals they produce. Therefore, EPA assumes no additional 

burden will be incurred by requiring submitters to report the CA Index Name and CASRN as the 

chemical identity instead of whichever unique identifier they currently use. 

4.4.12 Report Production Volume for Each of the Years since Last Principal Reporting Year 

EPA is proposing to require submitters to report production volume for each of the five years since 

the last IUR principal reporting year. Thus, for the 2011 IUR, manufacturers (including importers) of 

subject chemicals would report the production volume for the calendar years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 

2010. While sites will still submit data to EPA only in the submission year, EPA assumes there will be an 

increase in burden as the result of gathering data and reporting production volumes for an additional four 

years. 

According to the baseline burden estimate, a site spends approximately 3.36 hours to gather 

production volume and site-limited activity (see Table 4-3). EPA estimates approximately 45 percent of 

these 3.36 hours (i.e., 1.51 hours) is attributed to gathering production volume information. (See Table 

4-3 for an explanation of this percentage breakdown.) Therefore, the Agency estimates a site would spend 

an additional 6.05 hours (i.e., 1.51 x 4) to gather the production volume information for the four 

additional non-principal reporting years. 

Table 4-22 shows the increase in industry burden as a result of this proposed amendment. The 

Agency estimates the amendment will cause a total increase in industry burden of approximately 156,600 

hours in the first reporting cycle and 125,300 hours in all future reporting cycles. 
4-27

Table 4-22: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Requiring the Reporting of Production 

Volume in all Non-Principal Reporting Years 

Burden to Report 

Production Volume 

(hours per report) 

Number of 

Reports 

Industry Burden

(hours) 

First Cycle, Baseline 1.51 25,896 39,155 

First Cycle, Post-Amendment 7.56 25,896 195,774 

Change from the Baseline, First 

Cycle 6.05 0 156,619 

Future Cycle Baseline 1.21 25,896 31,324 

Future Cycle, Post-Amendment 6.05 25,896 156,619 

Change from the Baseline, Future 

Cycles 4.84 0 125,295 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

The cost of the amendment was calculated using the unit costs shown in Table 4-5 and Table 4-9. 

Table 4-23 shows the industry cost estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. EPA estimates the 

industry cost will increase by $8.77 million in the 2011 reporting cycle and $7.02 million in all future 

reporting cycles. 

Table 4-23: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Requiring the Reporting of Production Volume 

in all Non-Principal Reporting Years 

Cost to Report 

Production 

Volume 

 (2008$ per 

report) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

Industry Cost 

 (millions 2008$) 

First Cycle, Baseline $84.68 25,896 $2.19 

First Cycle, Post-Amendment $423.40 25,896 $10.96 

Change from the Baseline, First Cycle $338.72 0 $8.77 

Future Cycle Baseline $67.74 25,896 $1.75 

Future Cycle, Post-Amendment $338.72 25,896 $8.77 

Change from the Baseline, Future Cycles $270.98 0 $7.02 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Limitations of Analysis. This analysis is based on an assumption about the percentage breakdown of 

burden estimated to gather production volume and site-limited activity. To the extent the actual burden is 

higher or lower than estimated, this analysis under- or overestimates the burden and cost of this 

amendment. 

4.4.13 Volume of Chemical Substance Used On-Site 

Previous Form Us have required submitters to indicate whether a chemical was site-limited, referring 

to a chemical substance manufactured and/or processed only within a site and not distributed for 

commercial purposes as a substance or as part of a mixture or article outside the site. A chemical used offsite is one that does not meet this definition; for example, a chemical produced as an end product. EPA is 

proposing the removal of the site-limited data element and requiring submitters to report the production 

volume used on-site. 

The Agency expects the burden to the submitter of reporting the production volume used on-site to be 

similar to the burden to report the total production volume, given that the activities to identify the 
4-28

necessary information are similar. EPA estimates it will take a submitter 1.51 hours to provide the 

production volume (see Table 4-3). 

EPA expects an increase in the number of submitters who would report volume used on-site, due to 

the way this information would be reported, under the amendment. In the data submitted to EPA for the 

2006 reporting year, about 14.8 percent of reports include a site-limited volume (EPA 2008c); therefore, 

EPA assumes this is the minimum number of reports that would be affected. 

Site-limited chemicals are those not distributed (either as the chemical substance itself or in a 

mixture) outside the plant site for commercial purposes. Therefore, EPA assumes all chemicals used onsite must be chemical intermediates. According to data from the 2006 IUR database (EPA, 2008c), 

approximately 24 percent of all reports containing downstream processing and use information included 

chemicals used as intermediates. Therefore, EPA assumes 24 percent of all reports is the maximum 

percentage of reports that would be affected. Not all chemicals produced as intermediates are used onsite; they may be shipped for use at another site. EPA used 19.4 percent, which is the midpoint of 14.8 

and 24, to estimate the increase in the number of reports with chemicals used on-site, i.e., 5,024 reports. 

Table 4-24 shows the industry burden estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. The Agency 

estimates the amendment will cause a total increase in industry burden of approximately 7,600 hours 

during the first reporting cycle and 6,100 hours during all future reporting cycles. 

Table 4-24: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Requiring the Reporting of Production 

Volume Used On-Site 

Burden to Report 

Production Volume 

Used On-Site 

(hours) 

Number of Reports 

with Production 

Volume Used OnSite Information 

Total Industry 

Burden 

(hours) 

First Cycle, Baseline 0.00 0 0 

First Cycle, Post-Amendment 1.51 5,024 7,596 

Change from the Baseline, First Cycle 1.51 5,024 7,596 

Future Cycle Baseline 0.00 0 0 

Future Cycle, Post-Amendment 1.21 5,024 6,077 

Change from the Baseline, Future Cycles 1.21 5,024 6,077 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

The cost of the amendment was calculated using the unit costs shown in Table 4-5 and Table 4-9. 

Table 4-25 shows the industry cost estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. EPA estimates the 

total industry cost will increase by $425,400 during the first reporting cycle and $340,300 during all 

future reporting cycles. 
4-29

Table 4-25: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Requiring the Reporting of Production Volume 

Used On-Site 

Cost to Report 

Production Volume 

Used On-Site 

 (2008$) 

Number of Reports 

with Production 

Volume Used OnSite Information 

Total Industry 

Cost 

(2008$) 

First Cycle, Baseline $0.00 0 $0.00 

First Cycle, Post-Amendment $84.68 5,024 $425,416 

Change from the Baseline, First Cycle $84.68 5,024 $425,416 

Future Cycle Baseline $0.00 0 $0.00 

Future Cycle, Post-Amendment $67.74 5,024 $340,333 

Change from the Baseline, Future Cycles $67.74 5,024 $340,333 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Limitations of Analysis. To the extent the burden of reporting the production volume used on-site is 

different from the burden to report the total production volume, this analysis may over- or underestimate 

the burden and cost of this amendment. Furthermore, to obtain the maximum number of reports that may 

be affected, EPA assumes the percentage of reports containing downstream processing and use 

information that included chemicals used as intermediates would be the same as the percentage of all 

reports that include chemicals used as intermediates (that is, that the percentage of chemicals used as 

intermediates is consistent whether a submitter completed Part III or not.) To the extent this is not the 

case, the analysis may over- or underestimate the number of reports affected. 

4.4.14 Indicate Whether Chemical Is Physically at Reporting Site

EPA is proposing to require submitters to indicate whether an imported chemical is physically at the 

reporting site. Under the current IUR requirements, a submitter must state whether the site’s chemical is 

manufactured or imported. The Agency estimates providing this information requires 0.17 hours per 

report (see Table 4-3). EPA assumes the burden to indicate whether a chemical is physically on-site will 

be similar to the burden incurred to indicate whether a chemical is manufactured or imported, given the 

similarity of these activities to identify the necessary information. Table 4-26 shows the industry burden 

estimates as a result of this proposed amendment. The Agency estimates the amendment will cause a total 

increase in industry burden of approximately 4,400 hours for the 2011 reporting cycle, and 3,500 for all 

future reporting cycles. 

Table 4-26: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Indicating Whether a Chemical is Physically 

at Reporting Site 

Burden to Indicate 

Whether Chemical is at 

the Reporting Site 

(hours) 

Number of 

Reports 

Industry Burden 

(hours) 

First Cycle, Baseline 0.00 25,896 0 

First Cycle, Post-Amendment 0.17 25,896 4,351 

Change from the Baseline, First Cycle 0.17 0 4,351 

Future Cycle Baseline 0.00 25,896 0 

Future Cycle, Post-Amendment 0.13 25,896 3,480 

Change from the Baseline, Future Cycles 0.13 0 3,480 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the 

post-amendment value.
4-30

The cost of the amendment was calculated using the unit costs shown in Table 4-5 and Table 4-9. 

Table 4-27 shows the industry cost estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. EPA estimates the 

total industry cost will increase by approximately $243,700 in the first reporting cycle and $194,900 in all 

future reporting cycles. 

Table 4-27: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Indicating Whether a Chemical is Physically at 

Reporting Site 

Cost to Indicate 

Whether Chemical is 

Physically at Reporting 

Site (2008$) 

Number of 

Reports 

Industry Cost 

(2008$) 

First Cycle, Baseline $0.00 25,896 $0 

First Cycle, Post-Amendment $9.41 25,896 $243,652 

Change from the Baseline, First Cycle $9.41 0 $243,652 

Future Cycle Baseline $0.00 25,896 $0 

Future Cycle, Post-Amendment $7.53 25,896 $194,921 

Change from the Baseline, Future Cycles $7.53 0 $194,921 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Limitations of Analysis. To the extent the burden of indicating whether a chemical is physically at the 

reporting site is different from the burden to report whether a chemical is manufactured or imported, this 

analysis may over- or underestimate the burden and cost of this amendment. Furthermore, this 

requirement may apply only to importers; the number of reports affected, therefore, is likely to be an 

overestimation. 

4.4.15 Report Production Volume Exported 

EPA is proposing to add a requirement for submitters to report the production volume directly 

exported and not domestically processed or used. The Agency assumes the burden to the submitter to 

report the volume exported would be similar to the burden to report the production volume, given the 

similarity of the activities. EPA estimates it will take a submitter 1.51 hours to provide the volume 

exported (see Table 4-3). 

Using the baseline unit burden estimate as shown in Table 4-2 and Table 4-8, Table 4-28 shows the 

industry burden estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. The Agency estimates the amendment 

will increase industry burden by approximately 39,200 hours for the 2011 reporting cycle, and 31,300 

hours for all future reporting cycles. 

Table 4-28: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Requiring Reporting of Volume Exported 

 

Burden to Report 

Export Volume 

(hours) 

Number of 

Reports 

 Industry 

Burden 

 (hours) 

First Cycle, Baseline 0.00 25,896 0 

First Cycle, Post-Amendment 1.51 25,896 39,155 

Change from the Baseline, First Cycle 1.51 0 39,155 

Future Cycle Baseline 0.00 25,896 0 

Future Cycle, Post-Amendment 1.21 25,896 31,324 

Change from the Baseline, Future Cycles 1.21 0 31,324 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the 

post-amendment value.
4-31

The cost of the amendment was calculated using the unit costs shown in Table 4-5 and Table 4-9. 

Table 4-29 shows the industry cost estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. EPA estimates the 

industry cost will increase by $2.19 million during the first reporting cycle and $1.75 million during all 

future reporting cycles. 

Table 4-29: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Requiring Reporting of Volume Exported 

Cost to Report 

Export Volume 

(2008$) 

Number of 

Reports 

Industry 

Cost 

(millions 

2008$) 

First Cycle, Baseline $0.00 25,896 $0.00 

First Cycle, Post-Amendment $84.68 25,896 $2.19 

Change from the Baseline, First Cycle $84.68 0 $2.19 

Future Cycle Baseline 0 25,896 $0.00 

Future Cycle, Post-Amendment $67.74 25,896 $1.75 

Change from the Baseline, Future Cycles $67.74 $0.00 $1.75 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Limitations of Analysis. To the extent the burden of reporting the volume exported is different from 

the burden to report the total production volume, this analysis may over- or underestimate the burden and 

cost of this amendment. 

4.4.16 Identify Whether a Chemical Is To Be Recycled, Remanufactured, Reprocessed, Reused, 

or Reworked 

EPA is proposing to add a requirement to indicate via a checkbox whether a manufactured chemical, 

such as a byproduct, is being recycled, remanufactured, reprocessed, reused, or reworked. Given the 

similarity in activities to research records and identify the appropriate information, the Agency estimates 

this activity will generate the same burden as indicating whether a chemical is used on-site. As shown in 

Table 4-3, EPA estimated this burden to be approximately 0.17 hours. 

Using the baseline unit burden estimate as shown in Table 4-2 and Table 4-8, Table 4-30 shows the 

industry burden estimates as a result of this proposed amendment. The Agency estimates the amendment 

will cause a total increase in industry burden of approximately 4,400 hours in the first reporting cycle and 

approximately 3,500 hours during all future reporting cycles. 
4-32

Table 4-30: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Indicating Whether Chemical is Recycled, 

Remanufactured, Reprocessed, Reused, or Reworked 

Burden for Completing a 

Checkbox to Indicate 

Whether a Chemical is 

Recycled, Remanufactured, 

Reprocessed, Reused, or 

Reworked (hours) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

Industry 

Burden 

(hours) 

First Cycle, Baseline 0.00 25,896 0 

First Cycle, Post-Amendment 0.17 25,896 4,351 

Change from the Baseline, First Cycle 0.17 0 4,351 

Future Cycle Baseline 0.00 25,896 0 

Future Cycle, Post-Amendment 0.13 25,896 3,480 

Change from the Baseline, Future Cycles 0.13 0 3,480 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

The cost of the amendment was calculated using the unit costs shown in Table 4-5 and Table 4-9. 

Table 4-31 shows the industry cost estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. EPA estimates the 

cost to industry will increase by $243,700 for the 2011 reporting cycle and $194,900 for all future 

reporting cycles. 

Table 4-31: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Indicating Whether Chemical is Recycled, 

Remanufactured, Reprocessed, Reused, or Reworked 

 

Cost for Completing a 

Checkbox to Indicate 

Whether a Chemical is 

Recycled, Remanufactured, 

Reprocessed, Reused, or 

Reworked (2008$) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

Industry Cost 

(millions 

2008$) 

First Cycle, Baseline $0.00 25,896 $0 

First Cycle, Post-Amendment $9.41 25,896 $243,652 

Change from the Baseline, First Cycle $9.41 0 $243,652 

Future Cycle Baseline $0.00 25,896 $0 

Future Cycle, Post-Amendment $7.53 25,896 $194,921 

Change from the Baseline, Future Cycles $7.53 0 $194,921 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Limitations of Analysis. To the extent the burden of indicating whether a chemical is recycled, 

remanufactured, reprocessed, reused, or reworked is different from the burden to report whether a 

chemical is site-limited, this analysis may over- or underestimate the burden and cost of this amendment.

4.4.17 Concentration Ranges 

EPA is proposing to amend the ranges used to report concentration in §710.52(C)(3) and (4) by 

changing the ranges to: 1) less than one percent by weight, 2) at least one percent but less than 30 percent 

by weight, 3) at least 30 percent but less than 60 percent by weight, 4) at least 60 percent but less than 90 

percent by weight, and 5) at least 90 percent by weight. 

This is a technical correction to eliminate gaps in the ranges as previously listed in the IUR rule. 

Therefore, EPA assumes it will have no impact on industry burden or cost. 
4-33

4.4.18 Revise Industrial Function Categories 

EPA is proposing to modify the current industrial function categories (found in Part III, Section A of 

Form U), deleting six current categories and adding eight new categories. In addition, EPA is proposing 

to require submitters to write in a free-text descriptor when they select “Other”. 

EPA anticipates a small additional burden for submitters to familiarize themselves with the eight new 

categories; based on best professional judgment, EPA estimates 15 minutes of technical labor burden. 

EPA also estimates it would take three minutes of clerical burden, and six minutes of technical burden to 

write in the text description if the submitter selects “Other”. According to 2006 IUR data (EPA, 2008a), 

the response “Other” was selected in 1,206 reports. Using its best professional judgment, EPA expects the 

new categories proposed in the IUR modifications rule will reduce by half the number of submitters 

selecting “Other” as an industrial function category. Therefore, EPA estimates this amendment would 

affect 603 reports. 

Using the baseline unit burden estimates as shown in Table 4-2 and Table 4-8, Table 4-32 shows the 

industry burden estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. The Agency estimates the amendment 

will cause a total increase in industry burden in the first reporting cycle of approximately 4,400 hours. In 

future reporting cycles, submitters will no longer need to familiarize themselves with the new industrial 

function categories, and EPA estimates the industry burden to be approximately 70 hours. 

Table 4-32: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Modifying the Industrial Function Categories 

Burden for Rule 

Familiarization 

of Additional 

Categories 

(hours) 

Number of 

Reports with 

Function 

Categories 

Burden to 

Write in 

Text for 

"Other" 

(hours) 

Number of 

Reports with 

"Other" as a 

Function 

Category 

Total 

Industry 

Burden 

(hours) 

First Cycle, Baseline 1.52 17,075 0.00 0 25,907 

First Cycle, PostAmendment 1.77 17,075 0.15 603 30,266 

Change from the Baseline, 

First Cycle 0.25 0 0.15 603 4,359 

Future Cycle Baseline 1.21 17,075 0.00 0 20,726 

Future Cycle, PostAmendment 1.21 17,075 0.12 603 20,798 

Change from the Baseline, 

Future Cycles 0.00 0 0.12 603 72 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

The cost of the amendment was calculated using the unit costs shown in Table 4-5 and Table 4-9. 

Table 4-33 shows the industry cost estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. EPA estimates the 

industry cost will increase by approximately $255,600 in the first reporting cycle and $3,500 in the 

following reporting years. 
4-34

Table 4-33: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Modifying the Industrial Function Categories 

Cost for Rule 

Familiarization 

of Additional 

Categories 

(2008$) 

Number of 

Reports with 

Industrial 

Function 

Categories 

Cost to 

Write in 

Text for 

"Other" 

(2008$) 

Number of 

Reports 

with Text for 

"Other" 

Total 

Industry 

Cost 

(2008$) 

First Cycle, Baseline $88.02 17,075 $0.00 0 $1,502,913 

First Cycle, PostAmendment $102.73 17,075 $7.31 603 $1,758,490 

Change from the Baseline, 

First Cycle $14.71 0 $7.31 603 $255,577 

Future Cycle Baseline $70.41 17,075 $0.00 0 $1,202,331 

Future Cycle, PostAmendment $70.41 17,075 $5.85 603 $1,205,856 

Change from the Baseline, 

Future Cycles $0.00 0 $5.85 603 $3,525 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Limitations of Analysis. EPA estimates submitters will use 15 minutes of technical labor burden to 

become familiar with the new categories; this may be an over- or underestimate. EPA is assuming the 

number of submitters selecting “Other” as an industrial function category will be reduced by half; this 

may be an over- or underestimate. In addition, EPA assumes there is no burden for rule familiarization 

with the new industrial function categories during future reporting cycles. This may not be the case if sites 

have different employees complete Form U from reporting year to reporting year, or for sites submitting a 

Form U for the first time.

4.4.19 Revise Industrial Sectors 

EPA is proposing to replace the five-digit North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 

codes with 48 Industrial Sectors (IS). The industrial sectors are based on those used in the European 

Union’s REACH program. The Agency believes this change may reduce the reporting burden slightly 

because submitters would not need to look up NAICS codes, and the new industrial sectors would be 

more intuitive. However, because the submitter still would be required to look up some type of code, EPA 

assumes the burden reduction would be negligible and does not estimate it here. 

4.4.20 Revise Consumer and Commercial Product Categories 

EPA is proposing to revise the list of consumer and commercial use categories by combining 

categories leading to common exposure scenarios and adding categories not adequately described in the 

current set of codes. The resultant proposed list includes 34 use categories, including “Other.” Several of 

the existing consumer and commercial use categories have been renamed to better describe the products 

that should be reported under that category. EPA anticipates the burden for submitters to familiarize 

themselves with the new categories will increase the burden for completing the consumer and commercial 

product categories by 0.84 hours. This is the burden for the technical employee to identify the consumer 

and commercial uses of a product (see Table 4-2). This burden will occur only during the first reporting 

cycle. 

EPA is also proposing to require that if the product category “Other” is reported, a descriptor for the 

consumer and commercial use of the chemical substance also be reported. Using its best professional 

judgment, EPA estimates it would take three minutes of clerical burden and six minutes of technical 

burden to write in the text description. 
4-35

According to 2006 IUR data (EPA, 2008c), “Other” was listed as a consumer or commercial product 

category in 1,207 reports. Based on best professional judgment, EPA expects the new categories proposed 

in this rule will reduce by half the number of submitters selecting “Other” as a consumer and commercial 

product category. Therefore, EPA assumes this amendment would affect 604 reports. 

Using the baseline unit burden estimate as shown in Table 4-2 and Table 4-8, Table 4-34 shows the 

industry burden estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. The Agency estimates the amendment 

will cause a total increase in industry burden of approximately 14,400 hours during the first reporting 

cycle. In future reporting cycles, submitters no longer will need to familiarize themselves with the new 

industrial function categories, so the industry burden is estimated at approximately 70 hours to write in 

text for “Other” responses. 

Table 4-34: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Modifying the Consumer and Commercial 

Product Categories 

Burden for Rule 

Familiarization 

for Additional 

Categories 

(hours) 

Number of 

Reports with 

Industrial 

Function 

Categories 

Burden to 

Write in 

Text for 

"Other" 

(hours) 

Number of 

Reports with 

"Other" as a 

Function 

Category 

Total 

Industry 

Burden 

(hours) 

First Cycle, Baseline 1.23 17,075 0.00 0 20,972 

First Cycle, PostAmendment 2.07 17,075 0.15 604 35,359 

Change from the Baseline, 

First Cycle 0.84 0 0.15 604 14,387 

Future Cycle Baseline 0.98 17,075 0.00 0 16,778 

Future Cycle, PostAmendment 0.98 17,075 0.12 604 16,850 

Change from the Baseline, 

Future Cycles 0.00 0 0.12 604 72 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value

The cost of the amendment was calculated using the unit costs shown in Table 4-5 and Table 4-9. 

Table 4-35 shows the industry cost estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. EPA estimates the 

industry cost will increase by approximately $845,600 in the first reporting cycle, and $3,500 during all 

future reporting cycles. 
4-36

Table 4-35: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Modifying the Consumer and Commercial 

Product Categories 

Cost for Rule 

Familiarization 

for Additional 

Categories 

(2008$) 

Number of 

Reports with 

Function 

Categories 

Cost to 

Write in 

Text for 

"Other" 

(2008$) 

Number of 

Reports with 

"Other" as a 

Function 

Category 

Total 

Industry 

Cost 

(2008$) 

First Cycle, Baseline $70.64 17,075 $0.00 0 $1,206,177 

First Cycle, PostAmendment $119.90 17,075 $7.31 604 $2,051,756 

Change from the Baseline, 

First Cycle $49.26 0 $7.31 604 $845,579 

Future Cycle Baseline $56.51 17,075 $0.00 0 $964,942 

Future Cycle, PostAmendment $56.51 17,075 $5.85 604 $968,470 

Change from the Baseline, 

Future Cycles $0.00 0 $5.85 604 $3,528 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Limitations of Analysis. EPA estimates submitters will need 0.84 hours of technical labor to become 

familiar with the new codes; this may be an over- or underestimate. EPA is assuming the number of 

submitters selecting “Other” as a consumer and commercial use code will be reduced by half; this may be 

an over- or underestimate. In addition, EPA assumes there is no burden for rule familiarization with the 

new use categories during the future reporting cycles. This may not be the case if sites have different 

employees complete Form U from reporting year to reporting year, or for sites submitting a Form U for 

the first time.

4.4.21 Designation of Consumer or Commercial Use 

EPA is proposing to require submitters to indicate whether the downstream use of their chemical is a 

consumer or a commercial use, or both. The Agency’s experience using the 2006 IUR data identified a 

need to distinguish between potentially exposed consumers versus commercial populations. The 

indication of consumer or commercial use will allow EPA to complete a better characterization of the 

potentially exposed populations. 

EPA anticipates the submitter would indicate whether a use is a consumer or commercial use as part 

of the activity involved in selecting the correct consumer and commercial use categories, as described 

above. The burden to fill in a checkbox for the correct use would be negligible. Therefore, EPA assumes 

this amendment does not cause any additional burden beyond that estimated in Section 4.4.20. 

4.4.22 Number of Commercial Workers Reasonably Likely To Be Exposed 

EPA is proposing to require submitters to report the total number of commercial workers, including 

those at sites not under the submitter’s control, reasonably likely to be exposed while using the reportable 

chemical substance, with respect to each commercial use. EPA would provide a set of ranges of numbers 

of workers for the submitter to choose from. The Agency expects this reporting burden to be similar to the 

burden for providing the number of workers potentially exposed when using the chemical with respect to 

its industrial use, which is already required, because of the similarity of the required data. This burden is 

approximately 21.36 hours (see Table 4-2) or $1,236 (See Table 4-5) per report. EPA assumes the number 

of submitters will not change from the baseline under this amendment. 

Using the baseline unit burden estimate as shown in Table 4-2 and Table 4-8, Table 4-36 shows the 

industry burden estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. The Agency estimates the amendment 
4-37

will cause a total increase in industry burden of approximately 364,700 hours in the first reporting cycle 

and 291,800 during all future reporting cycles. 

Table 4-36: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Requiring the Number of Commercial 

Workers Reasonably Likely To Be Exposed 

 

Burden to Provide the 

Number of Commercial 

Workers (hours) 

Number of 

Reports 

Burden 

(hours) 

First Cycle, Baseline 0 17,075 0 

First Cycle, Post-Amendment 21.36 17,075 364,731 

Change from the Baseline, First Cycle 21.36 0 364,731 

Future Cycle Baseline 0 17,075 0 

Future Cycle, Post-Amendment 17.09 17,075 291,784 

Change from the Baseline, Future Cycles 17.09 0 291,784 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

The cost of the amendment was calculated using the unit costs shown in Table 4-5 and Table 4-9. 

Table 4-37 shows the industry cost estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. EPA estimates 

the industry cost will increase by $21.10 million for the 2011 reporting cycle, and $16.88 million during 

all future reporting cycles. 

Table 4-37: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Requiring the Number of Commercial Workers 

Reasonably Likely To Be Exposed 

Cost to Provide the 

Number of Commercial 

Workers (2008$) 

Number of 

Reports 

Cost 

(millions 

2008$) 

First Cycle, Baseline $0 17,075 $0 

First Cycle, Post-Amendment $1,236 17,075 $21.10 

Change from the Baseline, First Cycle $1,236 0 $21.10 

Future Cycle Baseline $0 17,075 $0 

Future Cycle, Post-Amendment $989 17,075 $16.88 

Change from the Baseline, Future Cycles $989 0 $16.88 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Limitations of Analysis. EPA is assuming burden to report the number of commercial workers 

reasonably likely to be exposed is equivalent to reporting the number of industrial workers likely to be 

exposed. However, this is likely an underestimate of the burden for several reasons. There may be more 

commercial uses for a product, and more workers exposed than the submitter is aware of. The commercial 

uses may be difficult for manufacturers (including importers) to identify (see “NRO” discussion 

responses in Section 3.9); therefore, the number of workers exposed may be even more difficult to 

identify.

4.4.23 Changes to the Standard for the Reporting of Processing and Use Information 

EPA is proposing to eliminate the “not readably obtainable” (NRO) standard and replace it with the 

more stringent “known to or reasonably ascertainable by” standard. EPA assumes this amendment will 

increase the reporting burden. However, all burden estimates in this economic analysis are based on an 

industry survey conducted for the 2002 IUR EA (EPA, 2002a). At the time of the survey, EPA required 

the higher reporting standard of “reasonably ascertainable” information. The proposed rule will now be 
4-38

consistent with the higher standard of information used by the survey, therefore, the burden estimates will 

not change. 

4.4.24 Chemical Identity CBI Claims 

EPA is proposing, when a submitter asserts a claim of confidentiality for the chemical identify of a 

substance listed on the public portion of the Master Inventory File, the Agency may make the information 

available to the public without further notice to the submitter. This will not reveal any data to the public 

that is actually confidential and will not incur any cost or burden on the manufacturer.

4.4.25 Upfront Substantiation for Processing and Use Information CBI Claims 

EPA is proposing to require an upfront substantiation when a submitter claims processing and use 

information as Confidential Business Information (CBI). Upfront substantiation involves providing a 

written response to a set of questions provided in the proposed rule, for each individual item to be claimed 

as CBI. 

In 2002, when EPA first required upfront substantiation for claiming the plant site ID as CBI, the 

Agency saw a 64 percent reduction in the number of CBI claims. The Agency expects the number of 

processing and use CBI claims to decrease by the same amount as a result of this proposed amendment. 

According to 2006 IUR data (EPA, 2008c), a total of 8,133 reports had claimed processing and use 

information was CBI, with an average of three processing and use information CBI claims per report. 

EPA estimates the number of reports with processing and use CBI claims will be reduced to 2,928 as a 

result of the proposed amendment. 

For the purposes of this analysis, EPA assumes the per-item burden to complete this substantiation 

will be similar to the burden estimated to complete the substantiation questions when a submitter makes a 

plant site identity CBI claim and must answer the two questions in 40 CFR §710.58(c)(1). As shown in 

Table 4-2 and Table 4-4, this is a burden of 1.46 hours and cost of $87.34 per CBI claim. Assuming an 

average of three processing and use CBI claims per report, EPA estimates submitters will incur 4.38 

additional hours of burden per report as a result of the amendment. 

Table 4-38 shows the industry burden estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. The Agency 

estimates the amendment will cause a total increase in industry burden of approximately 12,800 hours in 

the first reporting cycle and 10,300 hours in all future reporting cycles. 

Table 4-38: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Requiring Upfront Substantiation for 

Claiming Processing and Use Information as CBI 

Burden for Upfront CBI 

Substantiation for CBI 

Claims in Part III 

(hours) 

Number of Reports 

with Upfront 

Substantiation for 

CBI Claims 

in Part III 

Industry 

Burden 

(hours) 

First Cycle, Baseline 0 0 0 

First Cycle, Post-Amendment 4.38 2,928 12,824 

Change from the Baseline, First Cycle 4.38 2,928 12,824 

Future Cycle Baseline 0 0 0 

Future Cycle, Post-Amendment 3.50 2,928 10,259 

Change from the Baseline, Future Cycles 3.50 2,928 10,259 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

The cost of the amendment was calculated using the unit costs shown in Table 4-5 and Table 4-9. 

Table 4-39 shows the industry cost estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. EPA estimates the 
4-39

industry cost will increase by approximately $772,700 in the first reporting cycle and $618,100 in future 

reporting cycles. 

Table 4-39: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Requiring Upfront Substantiation for Claiming 

Processing and Use Information as CBI 

Cost for Upfront CBI 

Substantiation for CBI 

Claims in Part III 

Number of Reports 

with Upfront 

Substantiation for 

CBI Claims in Part 

III 

Industry 

Cost 

(2008$) 

First Cycle, Baseline $0 0 $0 

First Cycle, Post-Amendment $263.90 2,928 $772,678 

Change from the Baseline, First Cycle $263.90 2,928 $772,678 

Future Cycle Baseline $0 0 $0 

Future Cycle, Post-Amendment $211.12 2,928 $618,143 

Change from the Baseline, Future Cycles $211.12 2,928 $618,143 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Limitations of Analysis. EPA assumes the percent reduction in CBI claims for processing and use 

information will be the same as the percent reduction when upfront substantiation was required for plant 

site identification. However, to the extent the actual burden differs, this analysis may over- or 

underestimate the burden and cost of this amendment. 

4.4.26 Limitation on the Confidentiality Claims for Data Elements Identified as “Not Known or 

Reasonably Ascertainable” 

Under the proposed rulemaking, IUR submitters would be unable to enter a claim of confidentiality if 

“not known or reasonably ascertainable” is selected for the industrial processing and use or consumer and 

commercial use information. EPA assumes this amendment will not impact industry burden because 

submitters are not being required to do anything additional (e.g., gather information or provide a written 

response); they are simply prohibited from claiming “not known or reasonably ascertainable” data items 

as CBI. 

4.4.27 Require Electronic Submissions over the Internet 

EPA is proposing to require electronic submissions of all Form Us over the Internet using e-IURweb 

and EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). The Agency’s cost estimates were calculated following the 

methodology outlined in the economic analysis for the e-PMN rule (EPA, 2009b), where EPA is requiring 

TSCA section 5 pre-manufacturing notices be submitted electronically. The costs and savings of this IUR 

amendment will be realized on a per-site basis, as well as per report. 

Following the methodology outlined in the economic analysis for the e-PMN rule (EPA, 2009b) the 

clerical burden used in the preparation of Parts I, II and III of Form U will be eliminated with this 

proposed amendment. Specifically, the Agency assumes the burden savings associated with electronic 

reporting and submission via CDX are due to the reduction or elimination of clerical/administrative time. 

The baseline time estimate for clerical burden (approximately six percent of the burden) was assumed to 

approximate the amount of clerical/administrative time involved in filling out and submitting the paper 

IUR Form U. This estimate of potential form completion and submission savings is in line with the 

estimated savings in switching from paper to electronic submissions as estimated in the Cross-Media 

Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) Cost Benefit Analysis of 10 percent (EPA, 2004). 
4-40

The technical burden to gather and organize data, and managerial burden for review and approval, 

will not change from the baseline. Overall, this proposed amendment would decrease the burden to 

prepare Parts I, II, and III. 

In addition, estimates developed in the CROMERR report were used to develop estimates of burdens 

to register with EPA’s CDX, and to complete electronic signature agreements. These burdens are incurred 

on a per-site basis. EPA estimated these costs in the economic analysis for the e-PMN rule, which used 

CROMERR to develop estimates of burden from CDX registration and electronic signature agreements, 

to be a total of 0.93 hours of managerial burden and 1.73 hours of technical time per site (EPA, 2009b; 

EPA, 2004). Based on the e-PMN EA, recordkeeping costs will be halved because of the efficiencies in 

creating and storing documents electronically (EPA, 2009b), reducing overall burden per report by three 

hours. 

Table 4-40 shows the industry burden estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. The Agency 

estimates the amendment will cause a total decrease in industry burden of approximately 245,600 hours in 

the first reporting cycle and 210,200 hours in all future reporting cycles. 

Table 4-40: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Requiring Electronic Submission 

Burden for 

Report, 

Compliance 

Determination, 

Rule 

Familiarization, 

Submission and 

Part I (per site) 

(hours) 

Number 

of Sites 

Burden for 

Recordkeeping 

and Part II 

(hours per 

report) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

Burden per 

Part III 

(hours) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

with 

Part III 

Industry 

Burden 

(hours) 

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) 

(g) = 

(a*b) + 

(c*d) + 

(e*f) 

First Cycle, 

Baseline 33.26 4,085 19.82 25,896 69.92 17,075 1,842,934 

First Cycle, 

PostAmendment 

35.17 4,085 15.27 25,896 61.98 17,075 1,597,358 

Change from 

the Baseline, 

First Cycle 

1.91 0 -4.55 0 -7.94 0 -245,576 

Future Cycle 

Baseline 9.08 4,085 17.06 25,896 55.93 17,075 1,433,833 

Future Cycle, 

PostAmendment 

11.05 4,085 12.82 25,896 49.58 17,075 1,223,658 

Change from 

the Baseline, 

Future 

Cycles 

1.98 0 -4.24 0 -6.35 0 -210,175 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

EPA calculated the cost savings of the amendment using the unit costs shown in Table 4-5 and Table 

4-9. Table 4-41 shows the industry cost estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. EPA estimates 
4-41

the industry cost will decrease by $9.02 million during the 2011 reporting cycle and by $8.01 million 

during all future reporting cycles. 

Table 4-41: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Requiring Electronic Submission 

Cost for 

Report, 

Compliance 

Determination, 

Rule 

Familiarization, 

Submission and 

Part I (per site) 

(2008$) 

Number 

of Sites 

Cost for 

Recordkeeping 

and Part II 

(2008$ per 

report) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

Cost per 

Part III 

(2008$) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

with 

Part III 

Industry 

Cost 

(millions 

2008$) 

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) 

(g) = 

(a∗ b) + 

(c∗d) + 

(e*f) 

First Cycle, 

Baseline $2,058 4,085 $1,143 25,896 $4,059 17,075 $107.32 

First Cycle, 

PostAmendment 

$2,190 4,085 $923 25,896 $3,833 17,075 $98.30 

Change from 

the Baseline, 

First Cycle 

$132 0 -$220 0 -$226 0 -$9.02 

Future Cycle 

Baseline $561 4,085 $982 25,896 $3,247 17,075 $83.17 

Future Cycle, 

PostAmendment 

$695 4,085 $771 25,896 $3,067 17,075 $75.16 

Change from 

the Baseline, 

Future Cycles 

$134 0 -$211 0 -$181 0 -$8.01 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Limitations of Analysis. EPA assumes the clerical burden will decrease by percentages similar to the 

decrease estimated for the e-PMN rule. To the extent any differences exist (given the differences in the 

two rules), this analysis may over- or underestimate the burden and cost of this amendment. 

4.4.28 Updated e-IUR Reporting Software

EPA developed the e-IUR reporting software for use in preparing and submitting reports 

electronically during the 2006 IUR reporting cycle. For the 2011 submission period, EPA will provide a 

free, web-based application in place of the 2006 downloadable software. The updated e-IURweb 

reporting tool would feature several improved capabilities over the previous e-IUR reporting tool. This 

amendment is not expected to change industry burden, other than as described in Section 4.4.27. 

4.4.29 Electronic Signature Process 

In order to submit Form U electronically via EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX), individuals acting 

on behalf of the submitter must first register with CDX. This process involves completing an Electronic 

Signature Agreement form along with a signature and date, having the form notarized, and mailing it back 

to EPA. The burden of the electronic signature agreement, one hour per submission, was included in the 

burden reduction estimate used in the economic analysis for the e-PMN rule (EPA, 2009b). The burden 
4-42

and cost reduction estimates for electronic submission, as shown in Section 4.4.27, include the cost of the 

electronic signature process because they are based on the estimates used in the economic analysis for the 

e-PMN rule. 

4.4.30 Modifications Specifically Affecting Importers 

For purposes of IUR, importers currently are allowed to report the IUR information jointly with the 

foreign manufacturer of the chemical. Importers, or primary submitters, may not know the specific 

chemical identity of a substance because the foreign supplier, or secondary submitter, chooses to keep it 

confidential. In such a situation, the importer is still responsible for ensuring the IUR information is 

submitted to EPA and may do so by submitting a joint report. Overall, the amount of information 

submitted via Form U for primary and secondary submitters would not change as a result of this proposed 

amendment, although EPA plans to revise the Form U for joint submitters. Under the proposed 

amendment, the foreign manufacturer must now register with CDX and submit its report electronically. 

Previously, joint submissions could not be made electronically. 

As described in Section 4.4.27, submission costs to register with EPA’s CDX, and complete the 

Electronic Signature Agreement forms are incurred on a per-site basis. EPA estimated these costs in the 

economic analysis for the e-PMN rule to be a total of 0.93 hours of managerial burden and 1.73 hours of 

technical time per site (EPA, 2009b). Based on previous IUR submissions, EPA estimates between 10 and 

20 sites were importers, and therefore, the same approximate number were secondary submitters (EPA, 

2009h). For this analysis, EPA uses the conservative upper-bound of 20 secondary submitter sites. 

Table 4-42 shows the industry burden estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. The Agency 

estimates the amendment will cause an increase in industry burden of approximately 53.3 hours in the 

first reporting cycle. Future reporting cycles are assumed to the similar to the first reporting cycle. 

Table 4-42: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Requiring CDX Registration for Secondary 

Submitters 

Burden for CDX 

Registration (per site) 

(hours)

Number of Sites Industry Burden 

 (hours)

First Cycle, Baseline 0.00 0 0.00 

First Cycle, PostAmendment 2.67 20 53.3 

Change from the 

Baseline, First Cycle 2.67 20 53.3 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Table 4-43 shows the industry cost estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. EPA estimates 

the industry cost will increase by approximately $3,300 during the 2011 and future reporting cycles. 
4-43

Table 4-43: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Requiring CDX Registration for Secondary 

Submitters 

Cost for CDX 

Registration (per site) 

(2008$) 

Number of Sites Industry Cost 

(2008$) 

First Cycle, Baseline $0 0 $0 

First Cycle, PostAmendment $167 20 $3.347 

Change from the 

Baseline, First Cycle $167 20 $3.347 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

4.4.31 Modify Reporting Frequency 

The Agency is proposing to modify the IUR reporting cycle from a five-year reporting frequency to a 

four-year reporting frequency. While the industry burden for the principal reporting year will not change, 

the longer-term industry burden will increase because reporting will become more frequent; therefore, 

EPA estimated the annual reporting burden to industry over a 25-year period. A 25-year period allows 

EPA to analyze a set of complete reporting cycles under both the baseline and post-amendment scenarios. 

Under the baseline, a five-year reporting cycle is used, and the cost of five complete cycles is presented. 

Under the post-amendment scenario, reporting occurs every four years, and the cost of six complete 

cycles is presented. (Note the 2011 reporting cycle covers a 5-year period, under either scenario). For 

more information on the distribution of burden over a reporting cycle, see the discussion in Section 4.6. 

The baseline industry burden in the 2011 reporting cycle was calculated in Table 4-10 as 1.84 million 

hours. As shown in Table 4-11, the industry reporting burden in future reporting cycles is reduced to 1.43 

million hours because EPA assumes sites have submitted Form U previously incur a lower burden for 

processing and submitting the Form, as these firms have become more familiar with reporting and may be 

more efficient at the compliance process. Table 4-11 contains the total annual baseline costs to industry 

for future reporting cycles – that is, the burden and cost to industry for reporting cycles after the 2011 

cycle, in the absence of the proposed amendments. EPA assumes costs for report preparation and 

submission in future reporting cycles will be lower than costs in the first reporting cycle because of 

efficiencies achieved through the establishment of compliance processes, the availability of data from 

previous reporting cycles, and familiarity with reporting requirements (EPA, 2002a). The weighting 

factors found in Table 4-7 were applied to the baseline burden estimates found in Table 4-2 and Table 

4-5, to estimate in all future reporting cycles, the baseline burden to industry is approximately 1.43 

million hours. 

As shown in Table 4-44, EPA estimates the industry burden will increase by 1.43 million hours over 

a 25-year period as a result of this amendment. 
4-44

Table 4-44: Change in Industry Burden as a Result of Modifying the Reporting Frequency, over a 

25-Year Period 

Baseline Burden Post-Amendment 

Burden Change in Burden Reporting Cycle1 Year(s) 

(millions of hours) (millions of hours) (millions of hours) 

1 2007 to 2011 1.84 1.84 0.00 

2012 to 2016 1.43 -- 2 

2012 to 2015 -- 1.43 0.00 

2017 to 2021 1.43 -- 3 2016 to 2019 -- 1.43 0.00 

2022 to 2026 1.43 -- 4 

2020 to 2023 -- 1.43 0.00 

2027 to 2031 1.43 -- 5 2024 to 2027 -- 1.43 

0.00 

6 2028 to 2031 -- 1.43 1.43 

Total 7.58 9.01 1.43 

Annual Average 0.30 0.36 0.06 1

 The non-italicized reporting cycles are baseline, five-year cycles, and the italicized reporting cycles are proposed, four-year cycles.

As shown in Table 4-10, the total industry cost in the baseline first reporting cycle is approximately 

$106.97 million, and as shown in Table 4-11, the baseline cost is $82.82 million in all future reporting 

cycles. 4-45 shows the annual industry cost estimate as a result of this amendment. In total, EPA 

estimates the proposed amendment will increase the cost to industry by $82.82 million over a 25-year 

period. 

In the proposal, EPA is requesting comment on increasing the frequency of reporting to annual 

reporting of all data; biennial reporting; and reporting once every three years, with processing and use 

data (Part III) reported only in the principal reporting year. EPA conducted a preliminary analysis of the 

cost and burden of increasing the frequency of reporting to annually, and every three years. The results of 

the analysis are presented in Appendix G. 
4-45

Table 4-45: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Modifying the Reporting Frequency, over a 25-

Year Period 

Baseline Cost Post-Amendment Cost Change in Cost 

Reporting Cycle1 Year(s) 

(millions of 

2008$) (millions of 2008$) (millions of 2008$) 

1 2007 to 2011 $106.97 $106.97 $0.00 

2012 to 2016 $82.82 -- 2 2012 to 2015 -- $82.82 $0.00 

2017 to 2021 $82.82 -- 3 2016 to 2019 -- $82.82 $0.00 

2022 to 2026 $82.82 -- 4 

2020 to 2023 -- $82.82 $0.00 

2027 to 2031 $82.82 -- 5 2024 to 2027 -- $82.82 $0.00 

6 2028 to 2031 -- $82.82 $82.82 

Total $438.24 $521.05 $82.82 

Annual Average $17.53 $20.84 $3.31 1

 The non-italicized reporting cycles are baseline, five-year cycles, and the italicized reporting cycles are proposed, four-year cycles.

Limitations of Analysis. EPA assumes future reporting cycle costs will decrease due to efficiency 

gains and a reduction in the time required for submitters to become familiar with the rule and its 

amendments. To the extent these reductions in burden do not occur, this analysis may underestimate the 

burden and cost of the rule amendment. 

4.5 Total Industry Compliance Burden and Cost of all Amendments 

The burdens and costs presented in Section 4.4 are the stand-alone industry compliance burden and 

cost for each amendment, and do not take into account the interaction of amendments (i.e., how the 

impact of one amendment would affect the burden of another amendment). For this reason, when 

calculating the total industry cost of all amendments described in EPA’s proposed rule, the Agency can 

not simply add the individual changes in burden for each proposed amendment, but must consider the 

affect of one amendment on another. As described below, amendments fall into three categories: those 

affecting the number of reports submitted during a reporting cycle, those affecting the reporting burden, 

and those affecting the reporting frequency. The impact each amendment has on the others depends on its 

category. 

4.5.1 Modifications that Affect the Number of Reports Submitted 

Several of the proposed IUR rule amendments change the number of full and/or partial reports EPA 

expects to be submitted, based on the specific chemicals they affect. The amendment changing the 

method for determining whether a manufacturer is subject to the IUR reporting requirements is expected 

to increase the overall number of reports and submitters by five percent; therefore, the combined impact 

would also increase each of the impacts of the other amendments in this category by five percent. 

Furthermore, the amendment to eliminate the 300,000 lb. threshold for downstream processing and use 

reporting would make Part IIIs necessary for all the additional Part IIs required by other amendments. The 

following steps describe how the combined effect of the amendments affecting the number of reports was 

calculated. 
4-46

Step 1: Sum the affected amendments. Table 4-46 and Table 4-47 present the number of full and 

partial reports EPA expects to be submitted as a result of the proposed IUR amendments, in the 2011 

reporting cycle and future reporting cycles, respectively. The proposed amendments changing the number 

of full and/or partial reports expected to be submitted are as follows: 

• Elimination of the 300,000 lb. threshold for downstream processing and use reporting: When 

taken alone, EPA expects this amendment to increase the number of Part IIIs submitted by 8,203 

reports (see Section 4.4.4).

• Elimination of the 25,000 lb. threshold for certain regulated chemicals: This amendment, by 

itself, would increase in the number of Part IIs submitted by 4,018, (see Section 4.4.5). 

• Make chemicals subject to ECAs ineligible for exemptions: EPA estimated this amendment will 

increase the number of Part IIIs submitted by 16 reports (see Section 4.4.6). 

• Full exemption for manufactured water: EPA expects this amendment, by itself, will decrease the 

number of Part IIIs submitted by 43 reports (see Section 4.4.7). 

Step 2: Consider the effects of the change in method for determining rule applicability. The 

Agency expects the change in the method for determining whether a manufacturer is subject to the IUR 

reporting requirements to increase the number of reports and submitters by five percent in future reporting 

cycles. Therefore, for future reporting cycles, EPA multiplied the Step 1 results by 1.05, to account for 

this amendment. Then the Agency added in the number of additional sites and reports estimated for this 

amendment individually. (In Table 4-46, for the first cycle calculations, this step is merely a placeholder 

and does not cause any change.) 

• Method for determining whether a manufacturer is subject to the IUR reporting requirements.

When taken by itself, this amendment would generate 204 additional submitters in future reporting 

cycles (five percent of the baseline number of 4,085), 1,295 additional Part IIs (five percent of the 

baseline number of 25,896), and 854 additional Part IIIs (five percent of the baseline number of 

17,075) (see Section 4.4.3). 

Step 3: Consider the effect of eliminating the 300,000 lb. threshold for processing and use 

reporting (and avoid double-counting). Under this amendment, all submitters of non-exempt 

chemicals would be required to submit a Part III. Therefore, the number of Part IIIs must be increased by 

the increased number of Part IIs, to account for the effect of eliminating the 300,000 lb. threshold for 

processing and use reporting. For example, under the future reporting cycle calculations, EPA started with 

the Step 2 total for Part III reports (9,484), and added the Step 2 total for Part II reports (5,469), minus the 

number of new Part III reports as a result of making ECAs ineligible for exemptions (16) and the number 

of new Part II reports as a result of changing the method of determining whether a manufacturer is subject 

to reporting requirements (1,295). As shown in Table 4-47, the number of reports with Part III will 

increase by 13,641 in future reporting cycles. Similar calculations are shown in Table 4-46 for the 2011 

reporting cycle.

Step 4: Calculate the number of reports when all amendments are considered together. The total 

number of additional reports from Step 2 is added to the number of reports in the baseline to calculate the 

total number of reports when all the proposed amendments are considered together. There will now be a 

total of 4,289 Part Is, 31,365 Part IIs and 30,716 Part IIIs. The difference between the total number of Part 

IIs and Part IIIs, 649 reports, is equal to the number of partially exempt reports with the five percent 

increase taken into account (618x1.05 = 649). 
4-47

Table 4-46: Change in the 2011 Reporting Cycle Number of Sites and Reports Submitted for All 

Amendments Combined 

Modification Number of Sites Number of Reports Number of Reports 

with Part III 

Baseline 4,085 25,896 17,075 

Step 1: Sum affected amendments 

Eliminate 300,000 lb. Threshold for Downstream 

Processing and Use Reporting (see Section 4.4.6) 

-- -- 8,203 

Eliminate the 25,000 lb. Threshold for Certain 

Regulated Chemicals (see Section 4.4.5) 

-- 4,018 -- 

Make Chemicals Subject to ECAs Ineligible for 

Exemptions (see Section 4.4.6) 

-- -- 16 

Full Exemption for Manufactured Water (see Section 

4.4.7). 

-- (43) -- 

STEP 1 TOTAL -- 3,975 8,219 

Step 2: Account for change in the method for determining whether you are subject to the IUR reporting requirements 

Step 1 Total Multiplied by 1 3,975 8,219 

Method for Determining Whether you are Subject to 

the IUR Reporting Requirements (see Section 4.4.3) 

-- -- -- 

STEP 2 TOTAL -- 3,975 8,219 

Step 3: Consider the effect of eliminating the 300,000 lb. threshold for processing and use reporting (and avoid doublecounting) 

Step 2 total for Part II reports minus number of new 

Part III reports as a result of making ECAs ineligible 

for exemptions and the number of new Part II reports as 

a result of changing the method of determining whether 

subject to reporting requirements 

-- -- 3,959 

STEP 3 TOTAL (Step 3 + Step 2 Total ) -- 3,975 12,178 

Step 4: Calculate the total number of reports by adding the Step 3 Total to the Baseline 

STEP 4 TOTAL (Baseline + Step 3 Total) 4,085 29,871 29,253 

Table 4-47: Change in the Future Cycle Number of Sites and Reports Submitted for All 

Amendments Combined 

Modification Number of Sites Number of Reports Number of Reports 

with Part III 

Baseline 4,085 25,896 17,075 

Step 1: Sum affected amendments 

Eliminate 300,000 lb. Threshold for Downstream 

Processing and Use Reporting (see Section 4.4.6) 

-- -- 8,203 

Eliminate the 25,000 lb. Threshold for Certain 

Regulated Chemicals (see Section 4.4.5) 

-- 4,018 -- 

Make Chemicals Subject to ECAs Ineligible for 

Exemptions (see Section 4.4.6) 

-- -- 16 

Full Exemption for Manufactured Water (see Section 

4.4.7). 

-- (43) -- 

STEP 1 TOTAL -- 3,975 8,219 

Step 2: Account for change in the method for determining whether you are subject to the IUR reporting requirements 

Step 1 Total Multiplied by 1.05 4,174 8,630 

Method for Determining Whether you are Subject to 204 1,295 854 
4-48

the IUR Reporting Requirements (see Section 4.4.3) 

STEP 2 TOTAL 204 5,469 9,484 

Step 3: Consider the effect of eliminating the 300,000 lb. threshold for processing and use reporting (and avoid doublecounting) 

Step 2 total for Part II reports minus number of new 

Part III reports as a result of making ECAs ineligible 

for exemptions and the number of new Part II reports as 

a result of changing the method of determining whether 

subject to reporting requirements 

-- -- 4,158 

STEP 3 TOTAL (Step 3 + Step 2 Total ) 204 5,469 13,641 

Step 4: Calculate the total number of reports by adding the Step 3 Total to the Baseline 

STEP 4 TOTAL (Baseline + Step 3 Total) 4,289 31,365 30,716 

4.5.2 Modifications That Affect the Reporting Burden 

Several amendments affect the burden to complete a report. As discussed in Section 4.4.27, EPA 

assumes the amendment to require electronic submission over the Internet will eliminate clerical burden 

used in the preparation of Parts I, II and III of Form U, and the burden for recordkeeping across all wage 

rate categories will be reduced by half. Table 4-48 contains the total burden by labor category for the 

2011 reporting cycle when all the amendments are considered together. Table 4-49 contains the future 

reporting cycle burden, by labor category. The steps below describe how the combined effect of the 

amendments affecting the reporting burden was calculated. 

Step 1: Sum the affected amendments. The amendments affecting the reporting burden are as follows: 

• Report production volume for each of the years since last report: This amendment is estimated to 

require 6.05 additional hours of burden to complete Part II (see Section 4.4.12). 

• Report production volume used on-site: This amendment is estimated to require 1.51 additional 

hours of burden to complete Part II (see Section 4.4.13). Table 4-48 presents the per-report total 

burden of 0.293 hours to reflect only 24 percent of reports are expected to report volume used on site. 

• Indicate whether the chemical is physically at reporting site: This amendment is estimated to 

require 0.17 additional hours of burden to complete Part II (see Section 4.4.14).

• Report volume exported: This amendment is estimated to require 1.51 additional hours of burden to 

complete Part II (see Section 4.4.15).

• Identify whether a chemical is to be recycled, remanufactured, reprocessed, reused, or 

reworked: This amendment is estimated to require 0.17 additional hours of burden to complete Part 

II (see Section 4.4.16).

• Revise industrial function categories: This amendment is estimated to require 0.25 additional hours 

to complete Part III (for submitters to familiarize themselves with the new categories), and an 

additional 0.15 hours (for submitters selecting “Other”) (see Section 4.4.18). Table 4-48 presents the 

per-report total burden of 0.26 hours to reflect that only 3.5 percent of reports are expected to select 

“Other” and thus incur this additional cost. 

• Revise consumer and commercial product categories: This amendment is estimated to require 0.84 

additional hours of burden to complete Part III (for submitters to familiarize themselves with the new 

categories), and an additional 0.15 hours (for submitters selecting “Other”) (see Section 4.4.20). 

Table 4-48 presents the per-report total burden of 0.84 hours, which reflects only 3.5 percent of 

reports are expected to select “Other” and thus incur this additional burden. 

• Number of commercial workers reasonably likely to be exposed: This amendment is estimated to 

require 21.36 additional hours to complete Part III (see Section 4.4.22).

• Upfront substantiation for processing and use information Confidential Business Information 

claims: This amendment is estimated to require 4.38 additional hours of burden to complete Part III 
4-49

for all submitters claiming processing and use information as CBI (see Section 4.4.25). Table 4-48 

presents the per-report total burden of 0.75 hours, which reflects that only 17 percent of reports are 

expected to incur additional costs because of the amendment. 

Step 2: Consider the effect of the amendment to require electronic submission over the Internet. 

This amendment would eliminate the need for clerical tasks such as typing information into Form U, 

photocopying, and mailing. In Step 2, EPA subtracts the clerical burden for all proposed amendments, 

eliminating a burden of 0.76 hours per Part I, 2.82 hours per Part II, and 10.11 hours per Part III. The 

burden reductions in recordkeeping will be reduced by 50 percent for all wage categories and will not 

change from what is presented in Section 4.4.27.

Step 3: Calculate the total burden when all amendments are combined. To calculate the total industry 

burden estimates, EPA added the total from Step 2 to the baseline. In total, the clerical burden will be 

0.75 hours per full report with one chemical, the technical burden will be 102.83 hours per full report with 

one chemical, and the managerial burden will be 37.74 hours per full report with one chemical. 
4-50

Table 4-48: Change in the 2011 Reporting Cycle Burden for All Amendments Combined, by Labor C

Modification 

Compliance 

Determination, Rule Familiarization, and 

Submission 

Burden 

Burden to Complete 

Part I 

Recordkeeping 

Burden 

Burden to Complete 

Part II 

C T M C T M C T M C T M 

Baseline -- 21.50 9.00 0.76 0.95 1.05 1.50 3.00 1.50 1.55 8.78 3.49 Step 1: Sum the Affected AmendmentsReport production volume for each of the years since last report 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.936 4.104 1.008 

Report production volume Used On-Site -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.045 0.199 0.049 Indicate whether chemical is physically at reporting site 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.026 0.114 0.028 

Report the volume exported -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.234 1.026 0.252 Identify whether a chemical is to be recycled, remanufactured, reprocessed, reused, or reworked 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.026 0.114 0.028 

Revise industrial function categories -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Revise commercial and consumer product categories 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Number of commercial workers reasonably likely to be exposed 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Upfront substantiation for processing and use information CBI claims 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Step 1 Total -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.267 5.557 1.365 Step 2:Add the Effect of the Electronic Reporting AmendmentsElectronic Submission -- 1.73 0.93 -0.76 -- -- -0.75 -1.50 -0.75 -2.82 -- -- Step 2 Total (Electronic Submission + Step 1 Total) 

-- 1.73 0.93 -0.76 -- -- -0.75 -1.50 -0.75 -1.55 5.56 1.36 

Step 3 Total BurdenStep 2 Total + Baseline -- 23.23 9.93 -- 0.95 1.05 0.75 1.50 0.75 -- 14.34 4.85 Note: C = Clerical; T = Technical; and M = Managerial wage categories 
4-51

Table 4-49: Change in the Future Reporting Cycle Burden for All Amendments Combined, by Labor C

Modification 

Compliance 

Determination, Rule Familiarization, and 

Submission 

Burden 

Burden to Complete 

Part I 

Recordkeeping 

Burden 

Burden to Complete 

Part II 

C T M C T M C T M C T M 

Baseline -- 4.500 2.000 0.691 0.870 1.018 1.500 3.000 1.500 1.240 7.024 2.792 Step 1: Sum the Affected AmendmentsReport production volume for each of the years since last report 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.749 3.283 0.806 

Report production volume used on-site -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.036 0.159 0.039 Indicate whether chemical is physically at reporting site 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.021 0.091 0.022 

Report the volume exported -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.187 0.821 0.202 Identify whether a chemical is to be recycled, remanufactured, reprocessed, reused, or reworked 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 0.021 0.091 0.022 

Revise industrial function categories -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Revise commercial and consumer product categories 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Number of commercial workers reasonably likely to be exposed 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Upfront substantiation for processing and use information CBI claims 

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 

Step 1 Total -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1.014 4.446 1.092 Step 2:Add the Effect of the Electronic Reporting AmendmentsElectronic Submission -- 1.73 0.93 -0.69 -- -- -0.75 -1.50 -0.75 -2.25 -- -- Step 2 Total (Electronic Submission + Step 1 Total) 

-- 1.73 0.93 -0.69 -- -- -0.75 -1.50 -0.75 -1.24 4.45 1.09 

Step 3 Total BurdenStep 2 Total + Baseline -- 6.23 2.93 -- 0.87 1.02 0.75 1.50 0.75 -- 11.47 3.88 Note: C = Clerical; T = Technical; and M = Managerial wage categories
4-52

Table 4-50 contains the estimated change in the burden and the total burden per reporting cycle as a 

result of the all the proposed IUR amendments during the first reporting cycle. It also presents the burden 

in future reporting cycles. EPA estimates the total industry burden will increase by approximately 1.39 

million hours to 3.24 million hours in total for the 2011 reporting cycle. In future reporting cycles, EPA 

estimates industry burden will increase by 1.21 million hours to 2.64 million hours. 

Table 4-50: Total Industry Burden for All Amendments Combined 

Burden for 

Compliance 

Determination, 

Rule 

Familiarization, 

Submission and 

to Prepare Part 

I (hours per 

site) 

Number 

of Sites 

Burden for 

Record 

Keeping 

and to 

Prepare 

Part II 

(hours per 

report) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

Part II) 

Burden to 

Prepare 

Part III 

(hours 

per 

report) 

Number of 

Reports 

(with Part 

III) 

Industry 

Burden 

(millions of 

hours) 

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) 

(g) = 

(a∗ b) + 

(c∗ d) + 

(e∗f) 

First Cycle, 

Baseline 33.26 4,085 19.82 25,896 69.92 17,075 1.84 

First Cycle, 

PostAmendment 

35.17 4,085 22.19 29,871 83.02 29,253 3.24 

Change from 

the Baseline, 

First Cycle 

1.91 0 2.37 3,975 13.10 12,178 1.39 

FutureCycle, 

Baseline 

9.08 4,085 17.06 25,896 55.93 17,075.00 1.43 

Future Cycle, 

PostAmendment 

11.05 4,289 18.35 31,365 65.63 30,716 2.64 

Change from 

the Baseline, 

Future 

Cycles 

1.98 204 1.30 5,469 9.70 13,641 1.21 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Table 4-51 shows the total industry cost. To calculate the total industry cost, the burden estimates 

located in Table 4-48 and Table 4-49 were multiplied by the wage rates found in Table 4-1. The costs 

were then multiplied by the number of submissions located in Table 4-47. EPA estimates the total 

industry cost will increase by approximately $91.87 million to $198.84 million in total for the 2011 

reporting cycle. In future reporting cycles, EPA estimates the industry cost will increase by $79.27 

million to $162.08 million.
4-53

Table 4-51: Total Industry Cost When All Amendments Are Combined 

Cost for 

Compliance 

Determination, 

Rule 

Familiarization, 

Submission and 

to Prepare Part 

I (2008$ per 

site) 

Number 

of Sites 

Cost for 

Record 

Keeping 

and to 

Prepare 

Part II 

(2008$ per 

report) 

Number 

of 

Partial 

Reports 

(with 

Part II) 

Cost to 

prepare 

Part III 

(2008$ 

per 

report) 

Number of 

Full 

Reports 

(with Part 

III) 

Industry 

Cost 

(millions 

2008$) 

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) 

(g) = 

(a∗ b) + 

(c∗ d) + 

(e∗f) 

First Cycle, 

Baseline $2,058 4,085 $1,129 25,896 $4,059 17,075 $106.97 

First Cycle, 

PostAmendment 

$2,192 4,085 $1,346 29,871 $5,117 29,253 $198.84 

Change from 

the Baseline, 

First Cycle 

$134 0 $216 3,975 $1,058 12,178 $91.87 

Future-Cycle, 

Baseline $561 4,085 $968.39 25,896 $3,247 17,075 $82.82 

Future Cycle, 

PostAmendment 

$695 4,289 $1,109 31,365 $4,047 30,716 $162.08 

Change from 

the Baseline, 

Future Cycles 

$134 204 $141 5,469 $800 13,641 $79.27 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

4.5.3 Amendment that Affects the Reporting Frequency 

This proposed amendment to modify the reporting frequency from every five years to every four 

years would not change the number of submissions or the submission burden, but would increase the cost 

to submitters over multiple reporting cycles because submissions are made more frequently. The effect of 

this amendment, in combination with the other amendments, is shown in Section 4.5.4. 

4.5.4 Average Cost and Burden per Site 

Under the baseline, 4,085 sites submit a total of 25,896 reports; 17,075 of these are full reports and 

the remainder is partial reports (See Table 4-6). Thus, an average site submits IUR data for 6.34 

chemicals (25,896 reports divided by 4,085 sites), and submits full reports for 4.18 of those chemicals 

(17,075 reports divided by 4,085 sites) (See Table 4-52). Table 4-50 contains the total number of reports 

submitted and sites when all the amendments are considered together. Under the first and future reporting 

cycles, an estimated 4.085 and 4,289 sites, respectively, submit a total of 29,871 and 31,365 reports; 

29,253 and 30,716 of which will be full reports. Therefore, in the post-amendment scenario, an average 

site will submit 7.31 reports comprised of 7.16 full reports and 0.15 partial reports (See Table 4-52). This 

is a decrease of 2.01 partial reports per site and an increase of 2.98 full reports per site compared to the 

baseline. 
4-54

Table 4-52: Average Number of Full and Partial Reports per Site 

Total 

Number 

of Sites 

Total 

Number 

of 

Reports 

Average 

Number 

of 

Reports 

per Site 

Total 

Number 

of Full 

Reports 

Average 

Number 

Full 

Reports 

per Site 

Average 

Number of 

Partial 

Reports per 

Site 

(a) (b) (c) = 

(b)/(a) (d) (e) = (d)/(a) (f) = (c)-(e) 

First Cycle, Baseline 4,085 25,896 6.34 17,075 4.18 2.16

Post-Amendment 4,085 29,871 7.31 29,253 7.16 0.15

Change from the Baseline 0 3,975 0.97 12,178 2.98 -2.01

Future Cycle, Baseline 4,085 25,896 6.34 17,075 4.18 2.16

Future Cycle, Post-Amendment 4,289 31,365 7.31 30,716 7.16 0.15

Change from the Baseline, Future Cycles 204 5,469 0.97 13,641 2.98 -2.01

Source: U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Information Management Division 2006 IUR Database Statistics 

for IUR Modifications Rule. Washington, DC. December 17, 2008 (EPA, 2008c).

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Table 4-53 contains the average total burden per site. Each site will submit only one Part I under both 

the baseline and post-amendment scenarios. The average numbers of Part IIs and Part IIIs submitted per 

site are taken from Table 4-52. EPA calculated the baseline from the per-report burden presented in Table 

4-2. In the first cycle baseline, the average site’s burden is 451 hours during the first reporting cycle and 

351 hours in future reporting cycles. The post-amendment burden per report is found in Table 4-50. The 

average burden per site is expected to be 792 hours in the first reporting cycle and 615 hours in future 

reporting cycles. This is an increase of 341 hours per site during the first reporting cycle and 264 hours 

per site in future reporting cycles compared to the baseline. 
4-55

Table 4-53: Average Total Burden per Site 

Burden for 

Compliance 

Determination, 

Rule 

Familiarization, 

Submission and 

to Prepare Part 

I (hours per 

site) 

Average 

Number of 

Part Is per 

Site 

Burden for 

Record 

Keeping and 

to Prepare 

Part II 

(hours per 

report) 

Average 

Number 

of Part 

IIs per 

Site 

Burden 

for 

Part 

III 

(hours 

per 

report) 

Average 

Number 

of Part 

IIIs per 

Site 

Total 

Average 

Burden per 

Site (hours) 

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) = (a*b) 

+(c*d)+(e*f) 

First Cycle, 

Baseline 33.26 1 19.82 6.34 69.92 4.18 451 

PostAmendment 35.17 1 22.19 7.31 83.02 7.16 792 

Change from 

the Baseline 1.91 0 2.37 0.97 13.10 2.98 341 

Future Cycle, 

Baseline 9.08 1 17.06 6.34 55.93 4.18 351 

Future Cycle, 

PostAmendment 

11.05 1 18.35 7.31 65.63 7.16 615 

Change from 

the Baseline, 

Future Cycles 

1.98 0 1.30 0.97 9.70 2.98 264 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

The average baseline and post-amendment scenario costs per site are found in Table 4-54. Baseline 

cost per report costs is taken from Table 4-5 and Table 4-8 and used in calculating the average baseline 

cost per site. In the first reporting cycle, the average baseline cost per site is estimated to be $26,185. 

Future cycle average baseline cost is estimated to be $20,274 per site. Post-amendment cost per report is 

derived in Table 4-50 and Table 4-51. The average post-amendment cost per site is calculated to be 

approximatly $48,700 in first reporting cycle, and $37,800 for all future reporting cycles. This is an 

increase of approximatly $22,500 per site during the first reporting cycle and $17,500 during future 

reporting cycles compared to the baseline. 
4-56

Table 4-54: Average Total Cost per Site 

Cost for 

Submission 

Compliance 

Determination, 

Rule 

Familiarization, 

and to Prepare 

Part I (2008$ 

per site) 

Average 

Number of 

Part Is per 

Site 

Cost for 

Record 

Keeping and 

to Prepare 

Part II 

(2008$ per 

report) 

Average 

Number 

of Part 

IIs per 

Site 

Cost to 

Prepare 

Part III 

(2008$ 

per 

report) 

Average 

Number 

of Part 

IIIs per 

Site 

Total 

Average 

Cost per 

Site 

(2008$) 

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) 

(g) = 

(a*b) + 

(c*d) + 

(e*f) 

First Cycle, 

Baseline $2,058 1 $1,129 6.34 $4,059 4.18 $26,185 

PostAmendment $2,192 1 $1,346 7.31 $5,117 7.16 $48,678 

Change from 

the Baseline $134 0 $216 0.97 $1,058 2.98 $22,493 

Future Cycle 

Baseline $561 1 $968 6.34 $3,247 4.18 $20,274 

Future Cycle, 

PostAmendment 

$695 1 $1,109 7.31 $4,047 7.16 $37,790 

Change from 

the Baseline, 

Future Cycles 

$134 0 $141 0.97 $800 2.98 $17,517 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

4.6 Annualized Industry Cost Estimates for all Modifications 

EPA estimated the total burden to industry of all of the proposed amendments over a 25-year period. 

EPA used a 20-year annualization period in the previous economic analyses of the IUR rule (EPA, 2002a 

and EPA, 2005), but for this report, a 25-year period allows EPA to analyze a set of complete reporting 

cycles under both the baseline and post-amendment scenarios. 

While the IUR data submission activity itself occurs in one reporting year (e.g., 2011), EPA believes 

rule compliance and data collection activites, and thus, costs and burdens, are incurred over the course of 

the reporting cycle. Consequently, costs and burdens are presented for a reporting cycle, rather than per 

year, because EPA cannot precisely predict the annual breakdown of how the costs are actually incurred 

by each site over a four- or five-year reporting cycle. Industry has indicated to EPA efforts related to rule 

compliance and data collection are spread out over multiple years. For example, EPA began receiving 

calls about reporting requirements for 2011 reporting in early 2009, and the Agency has already held 

conference calls with companies and EPA IT staff to discuss electronic reporting issues. Companies have 

stated they prefer to set up a system to collect the IUR information during the time the chemicals are 

being manufactured. Thus, for the 2011 reporting cycle, EPA has evidence some companies set up their 

data systems in 2009 to early 2010, are collecting the information in 2010, and will compile and report 

that information in 2011. Furthermore, as described in section 4.2.2, IUR burden estimates are taken 

from the 2002 EPA Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Final Rule and were based on 

an industry survey conducted by EPA and designed to measure industry effort associated with collecting 

chemical exposure data under TSCA Section 8. Nowhere in the survey or its cover letter are these burden 
4-57

estimates discussed as being annual burdens. They are interpreted in the 2002 EA, and in previous IUR 

ICRs, as being the total burden incurred over the entire reporting cycle. 

The total industry burden calculated in Table 4-50 included the burden during the first reporting 

cycle. EPA expects during future reporting cycles, the industry burden will decrease as submitters become 

more efficient with the data and more familiar with the reporting requirements. Section 4.2.6 discusses the 

burden reductions associated with this rule familiarization and efficiency gains. Table 4-50 also shows the 

total burden to industry in future reporting cycles. Table 4-55 shows the burdens associated with each 

reporting cycle over a period of 25 years, including the years covered by the next (2011) reporting cycle. 

Under the baseline, a five-year reporting cycle is used, and the cost of four complete cycles is analyzed. 

Under the post-amendment scenario, reporting occurs every four years, and the cost of five complete 

cycles is presented. (Note the 2011 reporting year covers a 5-year period under either scenario). 

Over a 25-year period, EPA estimates the proposed amendments will increase industry burden by 

approximately 8.85 million hours. 

Table 4-55: Industry Burden over a Period of 25 Years if All Proposed Amendments Are 

Implemented 

Baseline Burden Post-Amendment 

Burden Change in Burden 

Reporting Cycle1 Year(s) 

(millions of hours) (millions of hours) (millions of hours) 

1 2007 to 2011 1.84 3.24 1.39 

2012 to 2016 1.43 -- 2 

2012 to 2015 -- 2.64 1.21 

2017 to 2021 1.43 -- 3 2016 to 2019 -- 2.64 1.21 

2022 to 2026 1.43 -- 4 

2020 to 2023 -- 2.64 1.21 

2027 to 2031 1.43 -- 5 2024 to 2027 -- 2.64 1.21 

6 2028 to 2031 -- 2.64 2.64 

Total 7.58 16.43 8.85 

Annual Average 0.30 0.66 0.35 1

 The non-italicized reporting cycles are baseline, five-year cycles, and the italicized reporting cycles are proposed, four-year cycles.

Table 4-56 presents the annual and annualized costs estimates of all the proposed amendments. Over 

a 25-year period, EPA estimates the proposed amendments to the IUR rule will increase the annualized 

industry cost by $21.61 million, with a three percent discount rate, and $19.95 million with a seven 

percent discount rate. 
4-58

Table 4-56: Industry Cost over a Period of 25 Years if All Proposed Amendments Are Implemented 

Baseline Cost Post-Amendment 

Cost Change in Cost 

Reporting Cycle1 Year(s) 

(millions of 2008$) (millions of 2008$) (millions of 2008$) 

1 2007 to 2011 $106.97 $198.84 $91.87 

2012 to 2016 $82.82 -- 2 

2012 to 2015 -- $162.08 $79.27 

2017 to 2021 $82.82 -- 3 2016 to 2019 -- $162.08 $79.27 

2022 to 2026 $82.82 -- 4 

2020 to 2023 -- $162.08 $79.27 

2027 to 2031 $82.82 -- 5 2024 to 2027 -- $162.08 $79.27 

6 2028 to 2031 -- $162.08 $162.08 

Total $438.24 $1,009.25 $571.01 

Annual Average $17.53 $40.37 $22.84 

Annualized @ 3% $16.80 $38.40 $21.61 

Annualized @ 7% $15.88 $35.83 $19.95 1

 The non-italicized reporting cycles are baseline, five-year cycles, and the italicized reporting cycles are proposed, four-year cycles.
5-1

5. Agency Burden and Cost Estimates 

5.1 Methodology for Agency Burden and Cost 

This chapter analyzes the changes in burden and cost to EPA as a result of the proposed amendments 

to the IUR rule. This chapter calculates the incremental cost and burden changes of the amendments by 

comparing the Agency costs under the current baseline to Agency costs after the proposed rule 

amendments. The methodology for estimating the change in Agency cost is similar to estimating the 

change in burden to industry: 

• Step 1: Identify the tasks performed by the Agency under both the current IUR requirements and the 

proposed IUR rule amendments. 

• Step 2: Determine the unit cost and burden for all activities identified in Step 1. 

• Step 3: Determine the estimated total cost and burden by multiplying the unit cost and burden by the 

frequency of the activity. 

• Step 4: Subtract the total Agency cost or burden after the proposed IUR amendments from the cost or 

burden under the current IUR rule to calculate the incremental Agency cost or savings 

Based on the supporting statement for the 2008 Information Collection Request for the Partial 

Update of the TSCA Production and Site Reports (EPA 2008d), tasks associated with the costs and burden 

to the Agency under the IUR rule include: 

• Document receipt and tracking; 

• Data entry and quality control of data entry; 

• Backup systems operation; 

• Data processing; 

• Systems development; 

• Contract oversight and management; 

• Publication and printing of forms and materials; and 

• Operation of the TSCA Hotline to handle IUR-related calls. 

Costs related to using the data are not included. The one-time costs associated with the requirements of 

previous IUR amendments are also not considered here. 

5.2 Data for Agency Cost Estimates 

5.2.1 Agency Wage Rates

Of the tasks listed above, Agency personnel are responsible for 1) quality control of data entry; and 2) 

data processing, systems development, and contract oversight and management. Under the current IUR 

rule, the Agency is expected to require one FTE at the GS-12 level, per-reporting cycle, to perform 

quality control of data entry (EPA, 2008d). An additional FTE at the GS-13 level is needed to complete 

data processing, systems development, and contract oversight and management per-reporting cycle (EPA, 

2008d). The total baseline burden to the Agency is therefore 4,160 hours under the baseline. EPA 

assumes the Agency burden will remain the same for all reporting cycles. 

EPA labor costs are based on annual Federal wage rates published by the Office of Personnel 

Management for the Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-PA-VA-WV locality pay area for 
5-2

2008 (OPM, 2008). Wages are presented in terms of GS-level and step. Based on previous IUR 

economics analyses, a Step 3 is assumed for all FTEs (EPA, 2002a and EPA, 2005). Following the 

methodology outlined in Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPA, 

2002a), an additional 58 percent is added to the wage rate to account for fringe benefits and overhead 

costs. Table 5-1 shows the loaded wage rates for Agency staff at the GS-12 Step 3, and GS-13 Step 3 

levels. 

Table 5-1: Derivation of Loaded Agency Wage Rates (2008$) 

Pay Grade Annual 

Salary 

Overhead and Fringe Benefits 

% of Wages 

Overhead and Fringe 

Benefit Cost Total 

GS 12 Step 3 $77,416 58% $44,901 $122,317 

GS 13 Step 3 $88,493 58% $51,326 $139,819 

Source: The unloaded Federal salary for calendar 2008 is from the Office of Personnel Management salary table for WashingtonBaltimore-Northern Virginia (OPM, 2008). 

5.2.2 Extramural (Contractor) Costs 

In addition to costs incurred by EPA staff, burden is associated with extramural tasks performed by 

contractors. These tasks include data receipt, tracking and data entry; backup systems operations and 

maintenance; printing and publishing forms and materials; and managing the TSCA hotline. The 2008 

Information Collection Request (ICR) supporting statement (EPA, 2008d) estimates these costs. EPA 

inflated these costs to 2008 dollars from 2007 dollars using an inflation factor developed from data from 

the BLS Employee Cost Index (ECI) “Professional, scientific, and technical services” group (BLS, 2009). 

Table 5-2 shows the derivation of the extramural task cost in 2008 dollars. In total, EPA estimates it will 

spend approximately $204,000 on these tasks per reporting cycle. 

Table 5-2: Derivation of Extramural Task Costs, per Reporting Cycle 

Tasks Performed by Contractor Staff Annual Cost 

(2007$)1

Inflation 

Factor 

Annual Cost 

(2008$) 

Document Receipt, Tracking and Data Entry $90,737 1.04 $94,632 

Maintaining and Operating Back Up Systems $56,711 1.04 $59,145 

Printing and Publishing Forms and Materials $5,298 1.04 $5,525 

Managing the TSCA Hotline $42,855 1.04 $44,694 

Total $195,601 n/a $203,997 1

Source: ICR No. 1884.04. [Information Collection Request for] Partial Update of the TSCA Section 8(b) Inventory Data Base, 

Production and Site Report Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act, September 

5, 2008 (EPA, 2008d). 

5.3 Current Total Agency Burden and Cost 

As shown in Table 5-3, EPA calculated the total baseline Agency costs by combining the costs of 

EPA staff and the extramural tasks performed by contractors. 
5-3

Table 5-3: Total Agency Cost under the Current IUR Requirements 

Task Staff Cost per Reporting Cycle 

(2008$) 

VARIABLE COSTS (DEPENDENT ON THE NUMBER OF REPORTS SUBMITTED)

Quality Control of Data Entry EPA Employee 

(GS 12 Step 3) $122,317 

Document Receipt, Tracking and Data 

Entry Contractor $94,632 

TOTAL VARIABLE COST $216,949 

FIXED COSTS

Data Processing, Systems Development, 

and Contract Oversight and Management 

EPA Employee 

(GS 13 Step 3) $139,819 

Maintaining and Operating Back Up 

Systems Contractor $59,145 

Printing and Publishing Forms and 

Materials Contractor $5,525 

Managing the TSCA Hotline Contractor $44,694 

TOTAL FIXED COST $249,183 

TOTAL AGENCY COST $466,133 

Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding. 

Previous estimates of Agency costs, on which the estimates included in this analysis are based, 

provide only cost estimates, not burden estimates. Therefore, EPA’s per report burden was estimated as 

described in this section. The EPA GS 13 staff’s responsibilities for data processing, systems 

development, and contract oversight and management task are not strongly tied to the number of reports 

received, nor are the contractor tasks of maintaining and operating a back-up system and managing the 

TSCA hotline. However, quality control of data entry, and the document receipt, tracking, and data entry 

burdens, are dependent upon the number of reports received. The combined cost of these activities is 

$216,949 (See Table 5-3). EPA assumes an Agency burden of 2,080 hours, accounting for a year of the 

GS 12’s burden (contractor hours are included as costs to the Agency, not burden.) EPA assumes it incurs 

the same cost to perform the data entry and processing for each data element in Form U. 

To calculate the Agency burden per data element, EPA followed a methodology outlined in the 

Economic Analysis of the Final Rule to Add Certain Industry Groups to EPCRA Section 313 (EPA, 

2007). EPA first calculated the total number of data elements in Form U (126 elements) and the 

percentage of data elements in each section of the form, and derived a weighted percentage of elements in 

each section of the form. For example, there are 19 data elements in Part I, and 4,085 sites submit Part I 

of Form U. These 77,615 data elements (19 x 4,085 = 77,615) account for approximately 3.4 percent of 

all data elements. Similarly, 52.5 percent of all data elements are in Part II of the form, and 44.1 percent 

are in Part III. The Agency then multiplied the total burden of IUR processing, 2,080 hours, by the 

percentage of data elements in a section and divided by the total number reports submitted for each 

section. An example of this calculation can be seen in Equation 1 for Part I. 

Equation 1: Burden to Process Part I per Report = (2,080 hours x 0.034) / 4,085 = 0.017 hours 

The burden per section was then divided by the total number of data items in that section to calculate 

the burden per item, 0.0009 hour (approximately .054 minutes) (See Equation 2). 

Equation 2: Burden per Data Element = 0.017 hours / 19 = 0.0009 hours 
5-4

To calculate the cost to EPA, the process described above was repeated; however, instead of using 

2,080 hours, EPA used the combined cost for the quality control of data entry, and document receipt, 

tracking, and data entry, which was $216,949. Thus, EPA calculated it costs the Agency approximately 

$0.09 to process a single data element of Form U. The total Agency burden per report is approximately 

0.113 hours and $11.79. Table 5-4 contains the Agency burden and cost per report by section of Form U. 

This baseline burden will remain the same for all reporting cycles. 

Table 5-4: Baseline Agency Burden per Report 

Burden per Data Element Total Number of Data Elements 

Burden (hours) Cost (2008$) Burden (hours) Cost (2008$) 

Part I 19 0.0009 $0.09 0.017 $1.78 

Part II 47 0.0009 $0.09 0.042 $4.40 

Part III 60 0.0009 $0.09 0.054 $5.61 

Total (Full Report) 126 - - 0.113 $11.79 

5.4 Changes to Agency Burden and Cost as a Result of the Proposed 

Modifications 

The estimated cost and burden impacts on the Agency for each of the proposed amendments to the 

IUR are outlined below. See Section 3. for more information about each of the proposed amendments. 

In each of the following sections, the burden estimates for each amendment are calculated 

independently of the other amendments. See Section 5.5 for an estimate of the aggregated impact of all 

proposed amendments. 

5.4.1 Technical Modifications to the Regulatory Text 

EPA is proposing to reorganize certain existing regulatory text and to delete obsolete regulatory text. 

These amendments do not substantively affect the regulatory text, so EPA assumes this amendment will 

not impact Agency burden or cost. 

5.4.2 Modifications to Selected Definitions 

EPA is proposing to modify the definitions of “importer,” “manufacture,” “site,” “commercial use,” 

“consumer use,” “reporting year,” and “submission period,” and to add definitions for “manufacturer,” 

“Central Data Exchange (CDX),” “e-IURweb,” “industrial function,” as described in Section 3. These 

changes are clarifications only; EPA is clarifying in regulatory text what has been previously explained 

through outreach with the regulated community. Therefore, EPA assumes these definition changes will 

not impact Agency burden or cost.

5.4.3 Method for Determining Whether a Manufacturer is Subject to IUR Reporting Requirements 

EPA is proposing to require reporting if, for any calendar year since the previous IUR principal 

reporting year, the subject chemical was manufactured or imported in volumes of 25,000 lb. or greater. 

The Agency estimates this will increase the total number of sites and reports by five percent from the 

baseline. This modification would not take effect until after the first post-amendment reporting cycle 

(2011); for the first reporting cycle, submitters will still consider production volume only for the principal 

reporting year. This creates a difference in the number of sites and reports expected in the first cycle 

versus future cycles. (See Section 4.4.3 for more information.) Therefore, the tables below show 

estimated changes in cost and burden for both the first and fiture reporting cycles. 

Table 5-5 shows the estimated Agency burden of the proposed amendment, using the baseline burden 

estimates found in Table 5-4. The Agency estimates no change in burden for the first reporting cycle and 
5-5

a burden increase of 104 hours in future reporting cycles as a result of modifying the method for 

determining whether the 25,000 lb.reporting threshold is met. 

Table 5-5: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Modifying the Method for Determining 

Whether a Manufacturer is Subject to IUR Reporting Requirements 

 

Burden to 

Process 

Part I 

Submission 

(hours)

Number 

of Sites 

Burden 

to 

Process 

Part II 

(hours 

per 

report)

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

Part II)

Burden to 

Process 

 Part III 

(hours per 

report)

Number 

of 

Reports 

with Part 

III

Agency 

Burden 

 (hours)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f)

(g) = 

(a*b)+(c*d) 

+(e*f)

First Cycle, 

Baseline 0.017 4,085 0.042 25,896 0.054 17,075 2,080 

First Cycle, PostAmendment 0.017 4,085 0.042 25,896 0.054 17,075 2,080 

Change from the 

Baseline, First 

Cycle 

0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0 

Future Cycle 

Baseline 0.017 4,085 0.042 25,896 0.054 17,075 2,080

Future Cycle, PostAmendment 0.017 4,289 0.042 27,191 0.054 17,929 2,184

Change from the 

Baseline, Future 

Cycles 

0.000 204 0.000 1,295 0.000 854 104 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value. 

Table 5-6 shows the estimated change in cost to EPA as a result of the proposed amendment. The 

Agency estimates no change in cost for the first reporting cycle and a cost increase of approximately 

$10,800 in future reporting cycles. 
5-6

Table 5-6: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Modifying the Method for Determining Whether a 

Manufacturer is Subject to IUR Reporting Requirements 

Cost to 

Process 

Part I 

Submission 

(2008$) 

Number 

of Sites 

Cost to 

Process 

Part II 

(2008$ 

per 

report) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

Part II) 

Cost to 

Process 

Part III 

(2008$ per 

report) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

with 

 Part III 

Agency 

Burden 

(2008$) 

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) 

(g) 

=(a*b)+(c*d) 

+(e*f) 

First Cycle, 

Baseline $1.78 4,085 $4.40 25,896 $5.61 17,075 $216,949 

First Cycle, PostAmendment $1.78 4,085 $4.40 25,896 $5.61 17,075 $216,949 

Change from the 

Baseline, First 

Cycle 

0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0

Future Cycle 

Baseline $1.78 4,085 $4.40 25,896 $5.61 17,075 $216,949 

Future Cycle, 

Post-Amendment $1.78 4,289 $4.40 27,191 $5.61 17,929 $227,796 

Change from the 

Baseline, Future 

Cycles 

$0.00 204 $0.00 1,295 $0.00 854 $10,847 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value. 

5.4.4 Eliminate the 300,000 lb. Threshold for Processing and Use Reporting 

EPA is proposing to eliminate the 300,000 lb. threshold for reporting processing and use information, 

thereby requiring all submitters of non-excluded substances to report information in all parts of the IUR 

Form U. Eliminating this threshold will increase industry burden by requiring more sites to complete Part 

III of Form U (Part III contains the downstream processing and use information). EPA estimates the 

number of Part IIIs submitted will increase by 8,203 reports (see Section 4.4.4 for more information). 

Table 5-7 shows the estimated Agency burden of the proposed amendment, using the baseline burden 

estimates found in Table 5-4. The Agency expects a burden increase of 441 hours as a result of this 

amendment. 

Table 5-7: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Eliminating the 300,000 lb. Threshold for 

Processing and Use Reporting 

Burden to Process 

Part III 

(hours per report)

Number of 

Reports

Agency Burden 

 (hours)

(a) (b) (c) = (a)*(b)

Baseline 0.05 17,075 919 

Post-Amendment 0.05 25,278 1,360 

Change from the Baseline 0 8,203 441 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Table 5-8 shows the estimated change in cost to EPA as a result of the proposed amendment. The 

Agency estimates a cost increase of approximately $46,000. 
5-7

Table 5-8: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Eliminating the 300,000 lb. Threshold for 

Processing and Use Reporting 

Cost to Process 

Part III 

(2008$ per report)

Number of 

Reports 

Agency Cost 

(2008$) 

(a) (b) (c) = (a)*(b)

Baseline $5.61 17,075 $95,835 

Post-Amendment $5.61 25,278 $141,876 

Change from the Baseline $0.00 8,203 $46,040 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

5.4.5 Eliminate the 25,000 lb. Threshold for Certain Regulated Chemicals 

EPA is proposing to eliminate the 25,000 lb. reporting threshold for chemicals that are: (1) the subject 

of a regulation promulgated under sections 5(a)(2), 5(b)(4), or 6 of the Act; (2) the subject of an order 

issued under section 5(e) or 5(f) of the Act, or (3) the subject of relief that has been granted under a civil 

action under section 5 or 7 of the Act. The manufacturers (including importers) of these chemicals would 

be required to report under the IUR rule, regardless of the production volume. 

Approximately 1,131 chemicals fall into these categories (EPA, 2006a). Because the proposed 

amendment would affect only chemicals subject to a promulgated rule, this figure is an overestimate. 

EPA estimated these chemicals are produced at a total of 4,018 sites (see Section 4.4.5 for more details). 

Table 5-9 shows the estimated Agency burden of the proposed amendment, using the baseline burden 

estimates found in Table 5-4. The Agency expects a burden increase of 169 hours as a result of the 

elimination of the 25,000 lb. threshold for certain regulated chemicals. 

Table 5-9: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Eliminating the 25,000 lb. Threshold for 

Certain Regulated Chemicals 

Burden to Process 

Part II 

 (hours per report) 

Number of 

Reports

Agency Burden 

 (hours)

(a) (b) (c) = (a)*(b)

Baseline 0.04 25,896 1,092 

Post-Amendment 0.04 29,914 1,261 

Change from the Baseline 0 4,018 169 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Table 5-10 shows the estimated change in cost to EPA as a result of the proposed amendment. The 

Agency estimates a cost increase of approximately $17,700. 
5-8

Table 5-10: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Eliminating the 25,000 lb. Threshold for Certain 

Regulated Chemicals 

Cost to Process 

Part II 

(2008$ per report)

Number of 

Reports

Agency Cost 

(2008$)

(a) (b) (c) = (a)*(b)

Baseline $4.40 25,896 $113,853 

Post-Amendment $4.40 29,914 $131,518 

Change from the Baseline $0.00 4,018 $17,665 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

5.4.6 Make Chemicals Subject to Enforceable Consent Agreements (ECAs) Ineligible for 

Exemptions 

The Agency is proposing all chemicals subject to enforceable consent agreements be ineligible for 

exemptions. A total of four chemicals and 16 sites are affected by this amendment (see Section 4.4.6 for 

more information). These sites would submit Part III of Form U for these chemicals for the first time in 

the next submission period. 

Table 5-11 shows the estimated Agency burden of the proposed amendment, using the baseline 

burden estimates found in Table 5-4. The Agency expects a burden increase of one hour as a result of this 

amendment. 

Table 5-11: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Making Chemicals Subject to ECAs Ineligible 

for Exemptions 

Burden to Process 

Part III 

 (hours per report)

Number of 

Reports

Agency Burden 

(hours)

(a) (b) (c) = (a)*(b)

Baseline 0.05 17,075 919 

Post-Amendment 0.05 17,091 920 

Change from the Baseline 0 16 1 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Table 5-12 shows the estimated change in cost to EPA as a result of the proposed amendment. The 

Agency estimates a cost increase of approximately $90. 

Table 5-12: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Making Chemicals Subject to ECAs Ineligible for 

Exemptions 

Cost to Process 

Part III 

(2008$ per report)

Number of 

Reports

Agency Cost 

(2008$)

(a) (b) (c) = (a)*(b)

Baseline $5.61 17,075 $95,835 

Post-Amendment $5.61 17,091 $97,925 

Change from the Baseline $0.00 16 $90 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.
5-9

5.4.7 Full Exemption for Manufactured Water 

Under the current IUR regulations, manufactured water is partially exempt from reporting; therefore, 

facilities that produce manufactured water need to complete only Parts I and II of Form U. The Agency 

now is proposing to grant a full exemption for manufactured water. Thus, the burden reduction for this 

proposed amendment would be the result of 43 fewer Part IIs being submitted (see Section 4.4.7 for more 

information.) 

Table 5-13 shows the estimated Agency burden of the proposed amendment, using the baseline 

burden estimates found in Table 5-4. The Agency estimates a burden reduction of two hours as a result of 

this amendment. 

Table 5-13: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of a Full Exemption for Manufactured Water 

Burden to Process 

Part II 

 (hours per report)

Number of 

Reports

Agency Burden 

 (hours)

(a) (b) (c) = (a)*(b)

Baseline 0.04 25,896 1,092 

Post-Amendment 0.04 25,853 1,090 

Change from the Baseline 0 -43 -2

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the 

post-amendment value.

Table 5-14 shows the estimated change in cost to EPA as a result of the proposed amendment. The 

Agency estimates a cost savings of approximately $190. 

Table 5-14: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of a Full Exemption for Manufactured Water 

Cost to Process 

 Part II 

(2008$ per report)

Number of 

Reports 

Agency Cost 

(2008$)

(a) (b) (c) = (a)*(b)

Baseline $4.40 25,896 $113,853 

Post-Amendment $4.40 25,853 $113,664 

Change from the Baseline $0.00 -43 -$189 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

5.4.8 Remove Fully-Exempt Polymers from the Partially-Exempt List 

EPA is amending the list of partially exempt chemicals to remove three chemical substances (Starch 

(CASRN 9005-25-8), Dextrin (CASRN 9004-53-9), and Maltodextrin (CASRN 9049-76-7)) which, as 

polymers, are fully exempt from reporting. This will not change the Agency burden because these 

substances currently are fully exempt from reporting, and therefore no additional reports will be 

submitted to EPA. 

5.4.9 Parent Company and Site Identity 

Manufacturers (including importers) currently are required to report the name and other information 

to identify the company associated with their plant site on Part I of Form U. EPA is proposing to the 

company name to be the ultimate domestic parent name. EPA assumes no additional Agency burden for 

processing the ultimate domestic parent name, compared to the current IUR reporting requirement of the 

parent company name. 
5-10

5.4.10 Technical Contact 

Manufacturers (including importers) are required to provide a technical contact for their IUR 

submission. EPA is proposing to amend the IUR rule to require the technical contact to be a person who 

works at the site and is knowledgeable about the chemical. EPA assumes no additional Agency burden to 

process the technical contact regardless of the location of the contact. 

5.4.11 Chemical Identity 

EPA is proposing to require the reporting of the Chemical Abstracts (CA) Index Name currently used 

to list the substance in the Inventory as the chemical name reported for IUR. Currently, submitters are 

required to report a specific chemical name, with no further elaboration in the regulatory text. EPA is also 

proposing to allow submitters to report only the CASRN as a chemical identifying number or, in the case 

of confidential chemical substances, the accession number. Note in cases where a CASRN exists for a 

confidential chemical, it can be reported instead of the accession number and claimed as confidential for 

purposes of the IUR submission. EPA is proposing to remove the PMN number as an allowed chemical 

identifying number because each Inventory substance has either a CASRN or a TSCA accession number 

or both, which are likely to be known already to the submitter. 

EPA assumes no additional Agency burden to process a CA Index Name or CASRN, compared to 

another chemical identity name or number. 

5.4.12 Report Production Volume for Each of the Years since Last Principal Reporting Year 

EPA is proposing to require reporting of a chemical’s production volume manufactured in each of the 

five years since the last IUR principal reporting year. Thus, for the 2011 IUR, manufacturers (including 

importers) of subject chemicals would report the production volume for the calendar years 2006, 2007, 

2008, 2009, and 2010. This amendment will result in four additional data items for EPA to process in Part 

II of Form U, adding approximately 1.2 minutes (0.02 hours) of processing burden per form (see Table 

5-4). 

Table 5-15 shows the estimated Agency burden of the proposed amendment, using the baseline 

burden estimates found in Table 5-4. The Agency estimates a burden increase of 93 hours as a result of 

this amendment. 

Table 5-15: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Reporting of Production Volume for Each of 

the Years since Last Principal Reporting Year 

Burden for Processing 

Production Volume 

(hours per report) 

Number of 

Reports 

Agency Burden 

(hours) 

(a) (b) (c) = (a)*(b) 

Baseline 0.001 25,896 23 

Post-Amendment 0.004 25,896 116 

Change from the Baseline 0.004 0 93 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Table 5-16 shows the estimated change in cost to EPA as a result of the proposed amendment. The 

Agency estimates a cost increase of approximately $9,700.
5-11

Table 5-16: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Reporting of Production Volume for Each of the 

Years since Last Principal Reporting Year 

Cost for Processing 

Production Volume 

(2008$ per report) 

Number of 

Reports 

Agency Cost 

(2008$) 

(a) (b) (c) = (a)*(b) 

Baseline $0.09 25,896 $2,422 

Post-Amendment $0.47 25,896 $12,112 

Change from the Baseline $0.37 0 $9,690 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

5.4.13 Volume of Chemical Substance Used On-Site 

Under the current IUR requirements, submitters who manufacture a chemical exclusively for on-site 

use are required to indicate this on Form U. The Agency is proposing to require submitters to report both 

production volumes used on- and off-site. EPA expects there will be a slight increase in the number of 

submitters who would report product volume used on-site information; about 19.4 percent of all 

submitters will report the volume used on-site (see Section 5.4.13 for more information). 

Table 5-17 shows the estimated Agency burden of the proposed amendment, using the baseline 

burden estimates found in Table 5-4. The Agency estimates a burden increase of five hours as a result of 

this amendment. 

Table 5-17: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Reporting of Production Volume Used OnSite 

Burden to 

Process 

Information 

(hours per 

report) 

Number of 

Reports 

Number of Reports 

with Production 

Volume Used On-Site 

Agency Burden 

(hours) 

Baseline 0.042 25,896 0 1,092 

Post-Amendment 0.043 25,896 5,024 1,096 

Change from the 

Baseline 0.001 0 5,024 5 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Table 5-18 shows the estimated change in cost to EPA as a result of the proposed amendment. The 

Agency estimates a cost increase of approximately $470.

Table 5-18: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Reporting of Production Volume Used On-Site 

Cost to Process 

Information 

(2008$ per 

report) 

Number of 

Reports 

Number of Reports 

with Production 

Volume Used On-Site 

Agency Cost 

(2008$) 

Baseline $4.40 25,896 0 $113,853 

Post-Amendment $4.49 25,896 5,024 $114,323 

Change from the 

Baseline $0.09 0 5,024 $470 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.
5-12

5.4.14 Indicate Whether Chemical Is Physically at Reporting Site 

EPA is proposing to require submitters to indicate whether an imported chemical is physically at the 

reporting site. This will add one data element for EPA to process. 

Table 5-19 shows the estimated Agency burden of the proposed amendment, using the baseline 

burden estimates found in Table 5-4. The Agency estimates a burden increase of 23 hours as a result of 

this amendment. 

Table 5-19: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Indicating Whether an Imported Chemical is 

Physically On-Site 

Burden to Process 

Information 

(hours per report)

Number of Reports Agency Burden 

 (hours)

(a) (b) (c) = (a)*(b)

Baseline 0.042 25,896 1,092 

Post-Amendment 0.043 25,896 1,115 

Change from the 

Baseline 0.001 0 23 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Table 5-20 shows the estimated change in cost to EPA as a result of the proposed amendment. The 

Agency estimates a cost increase of approximately $2,400.

Table 5-20: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Indicating Whether an Imported Chemical is 

Physically On-Site 

Cost to Process 

Information 

 (2008$ per report) 

Number of Reports Agency Cost 

 (2008$) 

(a) (b) (c) = (a)*(b) 

Baseline $4.40 25,896 $113,853 

Post-Amendment $4.49 25,896 $116,275 

Change from the 

Baseline $0.09 0 $2,422 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

5.4.15 Report Production Volume Exported 

EPA is proposing to require all submitters to provide the exported chemical volume in Section II of 

the report. This will add one data element to Part II of Form U for EPA to process. 

Table 5-21 shows the estimated Agency burden of the proposed amendment, using the baseline 

burden estimates found in Table 5-4. The Agency estimates a burden increase of 23 hours as a result of 

this amendment. 
5-13

Table 5-21: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Requiring the Reporting of Export Volume 

Burden to Process 

Information 

(hours per report) 

Number of Reports Agency Burden 

 (hours) 

(a) (b) (c) = (a)*(b) 

Baseline 0.042 25,896 1,092 

Post-Amendment 0.043 25,896 1,115 

Change from the 

Baseline 0.001 0 23 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Table 5-22 shows the estimated change in cost to EPA as a result of the proposed amendment. The 

Agency estimates a cost increase of approximately $2,400. 

Table 5-22: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Requiring the Reporting of Export Volume 

Cost to Process 

Information 

 (2008$ per report) 

Number of Reports Agency Cost 

 (2008$) 

(a) (b) (c) = (a)*(b) 

Baseline $4.40 25,896 $113,853 

Post-Amendment $4.49 25,896 $116,275 

Change from the 

Baseline $0.09 0 $2,422 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

5.4.16 Identify Whether Chemical Is To Be Recycled, Remanufactured, Reprocessed, Reused, or 

Reworked 

EPA is proposing to add a checkbox to Form U for submitters to indicate whether a chemical is to be 

recycled, remanufactured, reprocessed, reused, or reworked. This will add one data element to Part II of 

Form U for EPA to process. 

Table 5-23 shows the estimated Agency burden of the proposed amendment, using the baseline 

burden estimates found in Table 5-4. The Agency estimates a burden increase of 23 hours as a result of 

this amendment. 

Table 5-23: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Indicating Whether Chemical is Recycled, 

Remanufacture, Reprocessed, Reused, or Reworked 

Burden to Process a Checkbox to 

Indicate Whether a Product is 

Recycled, Remanufactured, 

Reprocessed, Reused, or Reworked 

(hours per report) 

Number of Reports Agency Burden 

 (hours) 

(a) (b) (c) = (a)*(b) 

Baseline 0.042 25,896 1,092 

Post-Amendment 0.043 25,896 1,115 

Change from the 

Baseline 0.001 0 23 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.
5-14

Table 5-24 shows the estimated change in cost to EPA as a result of the proposed amendment. The 

Agency estimates a cost increase of approximately $2,400. 

Table 5-24: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Indicating Whether Chemical is Recycled, 

Remanufactured, Reprocessed, Reused, or Reworked 

Cost to Process a Checkbox to 

 Indicate Whether a Product is 

Recycled, Remanufactured, 

Reprocessed, Reused, or Reworked 

(2008$ per report) 

Number of Reports Agency Cost 

 (2008$) 

(a) (b) (c) = (a)*(b) 

Baseline $4.40 25,896 $113,853 

Post-Amendment $4.49 25,896 $116,275 

Change from the 

Baseline $0.09 0 $2,422 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

5.4.17 Concentration Ranges 

EPA is proposing to amend the ranges used to report chemical concentration in §710.52(C)(3) and (4) 

by changing the ranges to: 1) less than one percent by weight, 2) at least one percent but less than 30 

percent by weight, 3) at least 30 percent but less than 60 percent by weight, 4) at least 60 percent but less 

than 90 percent by weight, and 5) at least 90 percent by weight. 

This is a technical correction to eliminate gaps in the ranges as previously listed in the rule. EPA 

assumes it will have no impact on Agency burden or cost. 

5.4.18 Revise Industrial Function Categories 

The Agency is revising the industrial function categories, by adding eight newcategories, eliminating 

six existing categories and requiring submitters to write in text when they claim “Other” as the category. 

This would add one data element to Part III of Form U for EPA to process. EPA expects the number of 

submitters who select “Other” to decrease, for a total of 603 submitters expected to write-in this text 

descriptor (see Section 4.4.18 for more information). 

Table 5-25 shows the estimated Agency burden of the proposed amendment, using the baseline 

burden estimates found in Table 5-4. The Agency estimates a burden increase of 0.54 hours as a result of 

this amendment. 

Table 5-25: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Revising the Industrial Function Categories 

Burden to 

Process 

Function 

Categories 

(hours per 

report) 

Number of 

Reports with 

Function 

Categories 

Burden to 

Process Writein Text for 

"Other" 

(hours) 

Number of 

Reports with 

Text 

Descriptor for 

"Other" 

 Burden 

(hours) 

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) = (a*b)+ 

(c*d) 

Baseline 0.05 17,075 0.000 0 918.82 

Post-Amendment 0.05 17,075 0.001 603 919.36 

Change from the 

Baseline 0.00 0 0.001 603 0.54 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the post-
5-15

amendment value.

Table 5-26 shows the estimated change in cost to EPA as a result of the proposed amendment. The 

Agency estimates a cost increase of approximately $56. 

Table 5-26: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Revising the Industrial Function Categories 

Cost to 

Process 

Industrial 

Function 

Categories 

(2008$ per 

report) 

Number of 

Reports with 

Industrial 

Function 

Categories 

Cost to Process 

Write-in Text 

for "Other" 

(2008$) 

Number of 

Reports with 

Text 

Descriptor for 

"Other" 

Cost 

(2008$) 

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) = (a*b) + 

(c*d) 

Baseline $5.61 17,075 $0.00 0 $95,835 

Post-Amendment $5.61 17,075 $0.09 603 $95,892 

Change from the 

Baseline $0.00 0 $0.09 603 $56 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

5.4.19 Revise Industrial Sectors 

EPA is proposing to replace the five-digit North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 

codes with 48 Industrial Sectors. This amendment will not change the Agency’s data processing burden. 

EPA expects the Agency’s burden to process the industrial sectors will remain the same regardless of the 

code system used. 

5.4.20 Revise Consumer and Commercial Product Categories 

The Agency is proposing to revise the consumer and commercial product categories, by adding 12 

new categories and requiring submitters to write in text when they select “Other” as a consumer or 

commercial product category. EPA expects 604 submitters to write in this text descriptor for “Other” (see 

Section 4.4.20 for more information), adding one data element to Part III of Form U for EPA to process. 

Table 5-27 shows the estimated Agency burden of the proposed amendment, using the baseline 

burden estimates found in Table 5-4. The Agency estimates a 0.54 hour burden increase as a result of this 

amendment. 
5-16

Table 5-27: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Revising the Consumer and Commercial 

Product Categories 

Burden to 

Process 

Consumer or 

Commercial 

Product 

Categories 

(hours per 

report) 

Number of 

Reports with 

Consumer or 

Commercial 

Product 

Categories 

Burden to 

Process Writein Text for 

"Other" 

(hours) 

Number of 

Reports with 

Write-in 

Text for 

"Other" 

 Burden 

(hours) 

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) = (a)*(b) + 

(c)*(d) 

Baseline 0.05 17,075 0.000 0 918.82 

PostAmendment 0.05 17,075 0.001 604 919.36 

Change from 

the Baseline 0.00 0 0.001 604 0.54 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the 

post-amendment value.

Table 5-28 shows the estimated change in cost to EPA as a result of the proposed amendment. The 

Agency estimates a cost increase of approximately $56. 

Table 5-28: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Revising the Consumer and Commercial 

Product Categories 

Cost to Process 

Consumer or 

Commercial 

Product 

Categories 

(hours per 

report) 

Number of 

Reports with 

Consumer or 

Commercial 

Product 

Categories 

Cost to Writein Text for 

"Other" 

(2008$) 

Number of 

Reports with 

Write-in 

Text for 

"Other" 

Cost 

(2008$) 

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) = (a)*(b) + 

(c)*(d) 

Baseline $5.61 17,075 $0.00 0 $95,835 

Post-Amendment $5.61 17,075 $0.09 604 $95,892 

Change from the 

Baseline $0.00 0 $0.09 604 $56 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the 

post-amendment value.

5.4.21 Designation of Consumer or Commercial Use 

EPA is proposing to require the identification of whether the downstream use is a consumer or a 

commercial use, or both, adding one data element to Part III of Form U for EPA to process. 

Table 5-29 shows the estimated Agency burden of the proposed amendment, using the baseline 

burden estimates found in Table 5-4. The Agency expects a burden increase of 15 hours as a result of this 

amendment. 
5-17

Table 5-29: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Designation of Consumer or Commercial Use 

 Burden per Report 

 (hours) 

Number of Reports 

with Part III 

Burden 

(hours) 

Baseline 0.054 17,075 919 

Post-Amendment 0.055 17,075 934 

Change from the 

Baseline 0.001 0 15 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Table 5-30 shows the estimated change in cost to EPA as a result of the proposed amendment. The 

Agency estimates a cost increase of approximately $1,600. 

Table 5-30: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Designation of Consumer or Commercial Use 

 Cost per Report 

 (2008$) 

Number of Reports 

with Part III 

Cost 

(2008$) 

Baseline $5.61 17,075 $95,835 

Post-Amendment $5.71 17,075 $97,433 

Change from the 

Baseline $0.09 0 $1,597 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

5.4.22 Number of Commercial Workers Reasonably Likely To Be Exposed 

EPA is proposing to require submitters of reports with processing and use information to provide the 

number of commercial workers who are reasonably likely to be exposed to a chemical. This amendment 

adds one data element to Part III of Form U for EPA to process. 

Table 5-31 shows the estimated Agency burden of the proposed amendment, using the baseline 

burden estimates found in Table 5-4. The Agency expects a burden increase of 15 hours as a result of this 

amendment. 

Table 5-31: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Requiring the Number of Commercial 

Workers Reasonably Likely To Be Exposed 

 Burden per Report 

 (hours) 

Number of Reports 

with Part III 

Burden 

(hours) 

Baseline 0.054 17,075 919 

Post-Amendment 0.055 17,075 934 

Change from the 

Baseline 0.001 0 15 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Table 5-32 shows the estimated change in cost to EPA as a result of the proposed amendment. The 

Agency estimates a cost increase of approximately $1,600. 
5-18

Table 5-32: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Requiring the Number of Commercial Workers 

Reasonably Likely To Be Exposed 

 Cost per Report 

 (2008$) 

Number of Reports 

with Part III 

Cost 

(2008$) 

Baseline $5.61 17,075 $95,835 

Post-Amendment $5.71 17,075 $97,433 

Change from the 

Baseline $0.09 0 $1,597 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

5.4.23 Changes to the Standard for the Reporting of Processing and Use Information 

EPA is proposing to eliminate the “not readily obtainable (NRO)” standard and replace it with the 

more stringent “known to or reasonably ascertainable by” standard for reporting of processing and use 

information. This amendment does not affect the number of submitters or the number of data elements in 

Form U, and therefore, EPA assumes it will not increase the Agency burden or cost. 

5.4.24 Chemical Identity CBI Claims 

EPA is proposing, when a submitter asserts a claim of confidentiality for the chemical identity of a 

substance listed on the public portion of the Master Inventory File, the Agency may make the information 

available to the public without further notice to the submitter. See the proposed regulatory text at 40 CFR 

711.30(e). Any such action on EPA’s part would be as part of regular and routine use of the data and will 

not create any additional burden. 

5.4.25 Upfront Substantiation for Processing and Use Information CBI Claims 

EPA is proposing to require upfront substantiation for all CBI claims in the processing and use 

section of Form U. This amendment adds two data elements per item claimed as CBI, to Part III of Form 

U for EPA to process. EPA expects 2,928 reports will claim processing and use information as CBI, and 

on average they will make three CBI claims per report (see section 4.4.25 for more information). 

Table 5-33 shows the estimated Agency burden of the proposed amendment, using the baseline 

burden estimates found in Table 5-4. The Agency expects a burden increase of eight hours as a result of 

this amendment. 

Table 5-33: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Requiring Upfront Substantiation for CBI 

Claims 

Burden per 

Report 

 (hours) 

Number of 

Reports with 

Part III 

Burden for 

Upfront CBI 

Substantiation 

for CBI Claims 

in Part III 

Number of 

Reports with 

Substantiated 

CBI Claims 

 in Part III 

Burden 

(hours) 

Baseline 0.05 17,075 0.000 0 919 

Post-Amendment 0.05 17,075 0.003 2,928 927 

Change from the 

Baseline 0.00 0 0.003 2,928 8 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Table 5-34 shows the estimated change in cost to EPA as a result of the proposed amendment. The 

Agency estimates a cost increase of approximately $822. 
5-19

Table 5-34: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Requiring Upfront Substantiation for CBI Claims 

 

Cost per 

Report 

 (2008$) 

Number of 

Reports with 

Part III 

Cost for 

 Upfront CBI 

Substantiation 

for CBI Claims 

in Part III 

Number of 

Reports with 

Substantiated 

CBI Claims 

in Part III 

Cost 

(2008$) 

Baseline $5.61 17,075 $0.00 0 $95,835 

Post-Amendment $5.61 17,075 $0.28 2,928 $96,657 

Change from the 

Baseline $0.00 0 $0.28 2,928 $822 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

5.4.26 Limitation on Confidentiality Claims for Data Elements Identified as “Not Known or 

Reasonably Ascertainable” 

EPA is proposing to no longer allow CBI claims for data elements identified as “not known or 

reasonably ascertainable.” EPA expects there will be no change in Agency burden as a result of this 

proposed amendment because the number of submitters and data elements will not change. 

5.4.27 Require Electronic Submissions over the Internet 

EPA is proposing to require all Form Us to be submitted to the Agency electronically, via e-IURweb 

and EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) over the Internet. EPA expects mandatory electronic 

submission will reduce significantly the Agency’s data processing time. Based on a study conducted by 

EPA, “A Business Case Analysis of EPA’s Central Data Exchange” (EPA, 2007) on of the costs and 

benefits of the CDX system, EPA’s processing burden is expected to decrease by 88.6 percent, not 

including the operating and maintenance and troubleshooting costs included in the general CDX operating 

budget. 

Table 5-35 shows the estimated Agency burden of the proposed amendment, using the baseline 

burden estimates found in Table 5-4. The Agency estimates a burden decrease of approximately 1,800 

hours as a result of this amendment. 

Table 5-35: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Requiring Electronic Submission 

Burden per 

Report to 

Process 

Part I 

(hours per 

site) 

Number of 

Sites 

Burden per 

Report to 

Process 

Part II 

(hours per 

report) 

Number of 

Reports 

Burden per 

Report to 

Process 

Part III 

(hours per 

site) 

Number of 

Sites with 

 Part III 

Burden 

(hours) 

Baseline 0.017 4,085 0.0422 25,896 0.054 17,075 2,080 

PostAmendment 0.002 4,085 0.005 25,896 0.006 17,075 238 

Change 

from the 

Baseline 

-0.015 0 -0.0373 0 -0.048 0 -1,842 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.
5-20

Table 5-36 shows the estimated change in cost to EPA as a result of the proposed amendment. The 

Agency estimates a cost savings of approximately $192,200. 

Table 5-36: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Requiring Electronic Submission 

Cost per 

Report to 

Process 

Part I 

(2008$) 

Number of 

Sites 

Cost per 

Report to 

Process 

Part II 

(2008$ per 

report) 

Number of 

Reports 

Cost per 

Report to 

Process 

Part III 

(2008$ per 

site) 

Number of 

Sites with 

 Part III 

Cost 

(2008$) 

Baseline $1.78 4,085 $4.40 25,896 $5.61 17,075 $216,949 

PostAmendment $0.20 4,085 $0.50 25,896 $0.64 17,075 $24,794 

Change 

from the 

Baseline 

-$1.57 0 -$3.89 0 -$4.97 0 -$192,155 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

5.4.28 Updated e-IUR Reporting Software 

EPA developed the e-IUR reporting software for use by manufacturers (including importers) in 

preparing and submitting reports electronically during the 2006 IUR reporting cycle. For the 2011 

submission period, EPA will provide a free, web-based application in place of the 2006 downloadable 

software.The updated e-IURweb reporting tool for the 2011 IUR collection would feature several 

improved capabilities over the current e-IUR reporting tool. Although not quantified here, EPA expects 

updated e-IURweb software will reduce Agency burden to process and correct errors in the form. 

5.4.29 Electronic Signature Process 

In order to submit IUR data electronically to EPA via the Central Data Exchange (CDX), individuals 

acting on behalf of the submitter must first register with CDX. To register in CDX, the CDX registrant 

(also referred to as “Electronic Signature Holder”) downloads two forms: the Electronic Signature 

Agreement and the Verification by Company Authorizing Official Form. Registration enables CDX to 

perform two important functions: authenticate identity, and verify authorization. For authentication of 

identity, the submitter completes the Electronic Signature Agreement form, signs and dates it, has the 

form notarized, and mails it back to EPA. The Verification of Authorization form requires the signatures 

of the authorized company official and anyone he/she authorizes to submit support documents for the 

company. 

The storage and processing of these forms is expected to generate a small burden for EPA. To 

estimate the Agency burden of processing, reviewing, approving, and filing the wet ink copies of these 

forms, EPA used the burden estimates found in the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR) 

Cost Benefit Analysis: Final Rule (EPA, 2004). EPA estimates the burden to receive, process, review, 

approve, and file wet-ink signature agreements for new submitters or submissions as a result of employee 

turnover is 0.17 hours per form (EPA, 2004). All 4,085 sites will be required to submit new electronic 

signature agreements in the 2011 submission year. In future reporting cycles, only sites which have not 

previously registered with CDX or sites with a new authorized company official must submit the 

electronic signature agreements. EPA expects this number to be negligible. Therefore EPA expects the 

Agency burden of this amendment to be approximately 645 hours (4,085 sites x 0.17 hours per site). 

The processing, reviewing, approving, and filing of the electronic signature agreements is expected to 

be completed by the GS-13 Step-3 employee currently responsible for data processing, systems 

development, and contract oversight and management. EPA multiplied the burden estimate of 645 hours 
5-21

with an hourly wage rate of $67.22. This wage rate was calculated by dividing the annual total loaded 

wage of the GS-13 Step 3 employee ($139,819) found in Table 5-1 by one FTE of 2,080 hours. Therefore, 

the total cost to the Agency of processing, reviewing, approving, and filing of the electronic signature 

agreement form is approximately $46,700 during the 2011 reporting cycle. 

5.4.30 Modifications Specifically Affecting Importers 

For purposes of IUR, importers currently are allowed to report the IUR information jointly with the 

foreign manufacturer of the chemical. Under the proposed amendment, the foreign manufacturer must 

now register with CDX and submit its report electronically. Previously, joint submissions could not be 

made electronically. 

For the 2006 IUR reporting cycle, EPA set aside joint submissions until both were received and 

matched. Oftentimes, EPA had no way to determine whether a submission was a “joint” submission, 

which increased the time required for manual processing of the data. EPA anticipates the use of the 

reporting tool will help to make joint IUR reporting easier for industry. Although not quantified, EPA 

also anticipates the electronic reporting tool will streamline EPA’s processing of the IUR information 

submitted in the 2011 reporting cycle, thus reducing Agency burden. 

5.4.31 Modify Reporting Frequency 

EPA is proposing to modify the IUR reporting cycle from five years to four years. This will increase 

the Agency burden because the Agency will receive and process IUR data more frequently. The annual 

baseline Agency burden is two FTEs, or 4,160 hours. Table 5-37 contains the change in burden over a 25-

year period. In total, EPA estimates the Agency will spend 4,160 more hours over a 25-year period as a 

result of modifying the IUR reporting frequency. 

Table 5-37: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of Modifying the Reporting Frequency 

Baseline Burden Post-Amendment 

Burden Change in Burden Reporting Cycle1 Year(s) 

(Hours) (Hours) (Hours) 

1 2007 to 2011 4,160 4,160 0 

2012 to 2016 4,160 -- 2 

2012 to 2015 -- 4,160 

0 

2017 to 2021 4,160 -- 3 2016 to 2019 -- 4,160 0 

2022 to 2026 4,160 -- 4 

2020 to 2023 -- 4,160 0 

2027 to 2031 4,160 -- 5 2024 to 2027 -- 4,160 0 

6 2028 to 2031 -- 4,160 4160 

Total 20,800 24,960 4,160 

Annual Average 832 998 166 1

 The non-italicized reporting cycles are baseline, five-year cycles, and the italicized reporting cycles are proposed, four-year cycles

Table 5-38 contains the 25-year cost estimate as a result of modifying the reporting frequency. The 

baseline cost estimate is for data entry only and is discussed in Section 5.2. This table includes extramural 

costs which are incurred by the Agency. In total, EPA estimates it will cost the Agency approximately 

$466,100 to increase the frequency of reporting from a five-year reporting cycle to a four- year reporting 
5-22

cycle over a 25-year period. EPA estimates the annualized changes in cost would be $17,408 and $15,511 

with a three percent and seven percent discount rate, respectively. 

Table 5-38: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Modifying the Reporting Frequency 

Baseline Cost Post-Amendment 

Cost Change in Cost Reporting Cycle1 Year(s) 

(2008$) (2008$) (2008$) 

1 2007 to 2011 $466,132.9 $466,132.9 $0.0 

2012 to 2016 $466,132.9 -- 2 2012 to 2015 -- $466,132.9 $0.0 

2017 to 2021 $466,132.9 -- 3 2016 to 2019 -- $466,132.9 $0.0 

2022 to 2026 $466,132.9 -- 4 

2020 to 2023 -- $466,132.9 $0.0 

2027 to 2031 $466,132.9 -- 5 2024 to 2027 -- $466,132.9 $0.0 

6 2028 to 2031 -- $466,132.9 $466,132.9 

Total $2,330,664 $2,796,797 $466,133 

Annual Average $93,227 $116,533 $23,307 

Annualized @ 3% $87,798 $105,206 $17,408 

Annualized @ 7% $81,056 $96,567 $15,511 1

 The non-italicized reporting cycles are baseline, five-year cycles, and the italicized reporting cycles are proposed, four-year cycles

5.5 Total Agency Cost of All Modifications 

As EPA did with the industry cost calculations, EPA calculated the cost for each individual 

amendment as a stand-alone cost, and did not take into account the effect of individual amendments on 

the others. For this reason, when calculating the total Agency cost, EPA could not simply add the changes 

in burden for each proposed amendment, but had to consider the interactions among the proposed 

amendments. For a more detailed discussion of the interaction among the proposed amendments, see 

Section 4.5. As shown in Table 5-39, EPA expects the proposed electronic submission amendment will 

decrease Agency burden by approximately 88.6 percent. 
5-23

Table 5-39: Change in Agency Burden as a Result of All the Proposed IUR Modifications 

To calculate the combined effect on Agency costs if all the proposed amendments were to be enacted, 

EPA used the baseline number of reports and sites taken from the 2006 IUR database (EPA, 2008c) and 

the baseline per report cost and burden estimates as found in Table 5-4. The change in the number of 

reports due to the effect of the amendments combined is calculated in Table 4-46 and Table 4-47 for the 

first and future reporting cycles, respectively. EPA added the cost of one additional FTE (2,080 hours) to 

the baseline hours to account for the additional activities conducted by the GS-13 employee (see Table 

5-3) and all extramural costs not related to data entry (see Table 5-2). 

Table 5-40 presents the total Agency burden for all the amendments combined. In total, EPA 

estimates the Agency will save 1,721 hours during the first reporting cycle and 1,704 hours in each future 

reporting cycle. Table 5-41 presents the total Agency cost estimates; the Agency will save approximately 

$179,600 in the first reporting cycle and $177,700 in future reporting cycles as a result of the proposed 

IUR amendments. The baseline and post-amendment costs both contain the cost of all extramural 

activities, found in Table 5-2. 

Option 

Burden per 

Part I of 

Report 

(hours) 

Burden per 

Part II of 

Report 

(hours) 

Burden per 

Part III of 

Report 

(hours) 

Baseline 0.02 0.04 0.05 

Production Volume Used On-Site - 0.0002 -- 

Industrial Function Categories - -- 0.00003 

Recycled, Remanufactured, Reprocessed, Reused, or Reworked - 0.001 -- 

Whether Chemical is Physically at Site - 0.001 -- 

Exported Volume Reporting - 0.001 -- 

Consumer/Commercial Product Categories - -- 0.00003 

Number of Workers Exposed - -- 0.001 

CBI - -- 0.0005 

Production Volume in Off-Years - 0.0036 -- 

Electronic Submission -0.015 -0.043 -0.049 

Total Change from the Baseline with All Amendments -0.015 -0.037 -0.047

Total, All Amendments 0.002 0.006 0.006
5-24

Table 5-40: Total Agency Burden for All Amendments Combined 

Burden 

per 

Report 

(Part I) 

(hours) 

Number 

of Sites 

Burden to 

Process 

Part II 

(hours) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with Part 

II) 

Burden to 

Process 

Part III 

(hours) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

 Part III) 

Agency 

Burden 

(hours) 

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) 

(g) = 

(a∗b) 

+(c∗d) + 

(e∗f) 

First-year Baseline 0.017 4,085 0.042 25,896 0.054 17,075 4,160 

First year, Post 

Amendment 0.002 4,085 0.006 29,871 0.006 29,253 2,439 

Change from the 

Baseline, First year -0.015 0 -0.037 3,975 -0.047 12,178 -1,721 

Future-cycle 

Baseline 0.017 4,085 0.042 25,896 0.054 17,075 4,160 

Future cycle, Post 

Amendment 0.002 4,289 0.006 31,365 0.006 30,716 2,456 

Change from the 

Baseline, Future 

cycles 

-0.015 204 -0.037 5,469 -0.047 13,641 -1,704 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Table 5-41: Total Agency Cost of All Amendments Combined 

Cost per 

Report 

(Part I) 

(2008$) 

Number 

of Sites 

Cost to 

Process 

Part II 

(2008$) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

 Part II) 

Cost to 

Process 

Part III 

(2008$) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

Part III) 

Agency 

Cost 

(2008$) 

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) 

(g) = 

(a∗b)+ 

(c∗d) + 

(e∗f) 

First-year Baseline $1.78 4,085 $4.40 25,896 $5.61 17,075 $466,133 

First year, Post 

Amendment $0.20 4,085 $0.58 29,871 $0.66 29,253 $286,580 

Change from the 

Baseline, First year -$1.57 $0.00 -$3.82 $3,975 -$4.95 $12,178 -$179,553 

Future-cycle 

Baseline $1.78 4,085 $4.40 25,896 $5.61 17,075 $466,133 

Future cycle, Post 

Amendment $0.20 4,289 $0.58 31,365 $0.66 30,716 $288,450 

Change from the 

Baseline, Future 

cycles -1.574 204 -$3.82 5,469 -$4.95 13,641 -$177,683 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

To calculate the Agency burden per data element, EPA followed the same methodology used to 

calculate the baseline burden per data element (See Section 5.3). EPA calculated the total number of data 

elements in the proposed Form U (146 elements) and the percentage of data elements in each section of 

the form, and derived a weighted percentage of elements in each section of the form. For example, the 
5-25

revised Part I contains 23 data elements, and 4,289 sites are expected to submit Part I when all the 

amendments are considered. These 77,615 data elements (19 x 4,085 = 77,615) account for approximately 

2.41 percent of all data elements. Similarly, 41.35 percent of all data elements are in Part II of the form, 

and 56.24 percent are in Part III. The Agency then multiplied the total variable burden of IUR processing, 

376.5 hours, by the percentage of data elements in a section and divided by the total number reports 

submitted for each section. To calculate the total variable burden to the Agency, EPA took the total 

burden estimate of 2,456 hours (Table 5-40) and subtracted the fixed burden of 2,080 hours. An example 

of this calculation can be seen in Equation 3 for Part I. 

Equation 3: Burden to Process Part I per Report = (376.5 hours x 0.0241) / 4,289 = 0.002 hours 

The burden per section was then divided by the total number of data items in that section to calculate the 

burden per item, 0.00009 hour (approximately .0054 minutes) (See Equation 2). 

Equation 4: Burden per Data Element = 0.002 hours / 19 = 0.00009 hours 

Table 5-42 contains the total post-amendment burden to the Agency at the per-report and per-data 

element level. Because of the electronic submission, the Agency burden decreases by .099 hours per 

report, despite35 data elements being added to Form U. 

Table 5-42: Agency Burden per Report when All Amendments are Combined 

Number of Data Elements Burden per Data Element 

 (hours) 

Total Burden per Report 

Form (hours) 

U 

Section Baseline PostAmendment 

Change 

from 

Baseline 

Baseline PostAmendment 

Change 

from 

Baseline 

Baseline PostAmendment 

Change 

from 

Baseline 

Part I 19 23 4 0.0009 0.00008 -0.0008 0.017 0.002 -0.015 

Part II 47 66 19 0.0009 0.00008 -0.0008 0.042 0.006 -0.037 

Part III 60 75 15 0.0009 0.00008 -0.0008 0.054 0.006 -0.048 

Total 

(Full 

Report) 

126 161 35 - - 0.113 0.014 -0.099 

The burden per section was then divided by the total number of data items in that section to calculate 

the burden per item, 0.00009 hour (approximately .0054 minutes) (see Equation 5). 

Equation 5: Burden per Data Element = 0.002 hours / 19 = 0.00009 hours 

To calculate the cost to EPA, the process described above was repeated; however, instead of using the 

hourly burden, EPA used the combined cost for the quality control of data entry, and document receipt, 

tracking, and data entry, which was $39,366. This cost was calculated by subtracting the fixed Agency 

costs, $249,184 (see Table 5-3) from the total post amendment cost of $288,450 (See Table 5-41). Thus, 

EPA calculated it costs the Agency approximately $0.09 to process a single data element of Form U. The 

total Agency cost per report is approximately $1.44 in the post- amendment scenario. Table 5-43 contains 

the Agency cost per report by section of Form U. This baseline burden will remain the same for all 

reporting cycles. 
5-26

Table 5-43: Agency Cost per Report When All Amendments are Combined 

Number of Data Elements Cost per Data Element 

 (2008$) 

Total Cost per Report 

Form (2008$) 

U 

Section Baseline PostAmendment 

Change 

from 

Baseline 

Baseline PostAmendment 

Change 

from 

Baseline 

Baseline PostAmendment 

Change 

from 

Baseline 

Part I 19 23 4 $0.09 $0.009 -$0.085 $1.78 $0.20 -$1.57 

Part II 47 66 19 $0.09 $0.009 -$0.085 $4.40 $0.57 -$3.83 

Part III 60 75 15 $0.09 $0.009 -$0.085 $5.61 $0.67 -$4.94 

Total 

(Full 

Report) 

126 161 35 - - $11.79 $1.44 -$10.34 

Table 5-44 contains Agency costs per-data element and per-report separated by EPA and contractor 

staff. Using the values in Table 5-3, EPA estimates in the baseline, approximately 56.4 percent of the 

variable Agency costs are attributed to EPA staff ($122,317/$216,949). The remaining 43.6 percent of 

data processing costs are incurred by contractor staff ($94,632/$216,949). EPA does not expect the 

distribution of costs between Agency and contractor staff to change as a result of the proposed rule. Thus, 

to calculate the post-amendment cost attributed to contractor staff, EPA multiplied the per-report cost and 

the per-data element cost by 43.6 percent. The cost to contract staff is approximately $0.63. Similarly, to 

derive the EPA staff cost of $0.81 per report, the total per-report cost of $1.44 was multiplied by 56.4 

percent. 

Table 5-44: Agency Cost per Report when All Amendments Are Combined 

Cost per Data Element 

 (2008$) 

Total Cost per Report 

 (2008$)1 

Form U Section Agency 

Staff 

Cost 

Contractor 

Cost 

Total PostAmendment 

Cost 

Agency 

Staff 

Cost 

Contractor 

Cost 

Total PostAmendment 

Cost 

Part I $0.005 $0.004 $0.009 $0.11 $0.09 $0.20 

Part II $0.005 $0.004 $0.009 $0.32 $0.25 $0.57 

Part III $0.005 $0.004 $0.009 $0.37 $0.29 $0.66 

Total (Full Report) - - $0.81 $0.63 $1.44 1

 Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding. 
5-27

5.6 Annualized Agency Cost Estimates for All Modifications 

Table 5-45 presents the annual Agency burden estimates for data entry and extramural costs over a 

25-year period. The annual baseline Agency burden is equivalent to two FTEs, or 4,160 hours. The postamendment Agency burden is calculated in Table 5-40, and an FTE is added to account for all the GS-13 

level tasks (see Table 5-3), which are not affected by any of the proposed amendments. In total, EPA 

estimates the Agency burden for the IUR rule will be reduced by 6,079 hours over a 25-year period under 

the proposed IUR amendments. 

Table 5-45: Agency Burden over a Period of 25 Years if All Proposed Amendments Are 

Implemented 

Baseline Burden Post-Amendment 

Burden Change in Burden 

Reporting Cycle1 Year(s) 

(Hours) (Hours) (Hours) 

1 2007 to 2011 4,160 2,439 -1,721 

2012 to 2016 4,160 -- 2 

2012 to 2015 -- 2,456 -1,704 

2017 to 2021 4,160 -- 3 

2016 to 2019 -- 2,456 -1,704 

2022 to 2026 4,160 -- 4 

2020 to 2023 -- 2,456 

-1,704 

2027 to 2031 4,160 -- 5 2024 to 2027 -- 2,456 -1,704 

6 2028 to 2031 -- 2,456 2,456 

Total 20,800 14,721 -6,079 

Annual Average 832 589 -243 

1

 The non-italicized reporting cycles are baseline, five-year cycles, and the italicized reporting cycles are proposed, four-year cycles

To estimate the per-reporting cycle cost of all the proposed amendments over a 25-year period, EPA 

used the total baseline cost estimate in Table 5-3. These costs include the data entry performed by both 

EPA and contractor staff, and all extramural activities conducted by contractor staff. Under the baseline, 

EPA estimates the total Agency cost will be $466,100 during each reporting cycle. The annualized postamendment cost also includes all extramural costs from Table 5-2 in addition to the data entry and quality 

control costs. 

Table 5-46 contains the annualized cost estimation. In total, annual post-amendment cost will be 

$286,600 during the first reporting cycle and thereafter. Over a 25-year period, EPA estimates the Agency 

will save approximately $601,800. Annualized savings areapproximately $22,800 and $21,400, 

discounted at three percent and seven percent, respectively. 
5-28

Table 5-46: Annual and Discounted Total Cost to the Agency of All Modifications 

Baseline Cost Post-Amendment 

Cost Change in Cost Reporting Cycle1 Year(s) 

(2008$) (2008$) (2008$) 

1 2007 to 2011 $466,133 $286,580 -$179,553 

2012 to 2016 $466,133 -- 2 

2012 to 2015 -- $288,450 -$177,683 

2017 to 2021 $466,133 -- 3 2016 to 2019 -- $288,450 -$177,683 

2022 to 2026 $466,133 -- 4 2020 to 2023 -- $288,450 -$177,683 

2027 to 2031 $466,133 -- 5 2024 to 2027 -- $288,450 -$177,683 

6 2028 to 2031 -- $288,450 $288,450 

Total $2,330,664 $1,728,831 -$601,834 

Annual Average $93,227 $69,153 -$24,073 

Annualized @ 3% $87,798 $65,011 -$22,788 

Annualized @ 7% $81,056 $59,643 -$21,414 1

 The non-italicized reporting cycles are baseline, five-year cycles, and the italicized reporting cycles are proposed, four-year cycles
6-1

6. Social Cost Summary 

To calculate the total burden to society of the proposed IUR amendments,, EPA added the total 

industry burden to the Agency burden savings. Table 6-1 contains the annual burden estimates for the 

years 2007 through 2031. 

The baseline burden for the first reporting cycle is calculated by adding the baseline burden to 

industry, 1.84 million hours (see Table 4-10), and the baseline burden to EPA, 4,160 hours (see Table 

5-3), for a total of 1.85 million hours. EPA estimates the proposed IUR rule amendments would increase 

the industry burden in the first reporting cycle by 1.39 million hours (see Table 4-50) and decrease 

Agency burden by 1,721 hours (see Table 5-40). The net burden increase is 1.39 million hours. 

The burden in future reporting cycles would be less than for the first reporting cycle. The shift from a 

five-year cycle to a four-year cycle increases both industry and Agency burden. All of these changes are 

shown in Table 6-1. EPA estimates all of the amendments combined would increase the burden to society 

by 8.85 million hours over a 25-year period. This includes a burden increase of 8.85 million hours to the 

affected industry over the 25 years (see Table 4-55), and a burden decrease of 6,079 hours to the Agency 

(see Table 5-45) over the same period. 

As shown in Table 6-1, EPA estimates the total increase in burden as a result of the IUR rule 

amendments over a 25-year period will be 8.85 million hours. 

Table 6-1: Change in Total Burden to Society If All Modifications Are Implemented 

Baseline Burden Post-Amendment 

Burden Change in Burden 

Reporting Cycle1 Year(s) 

(Hours) (Hours) (Hours) 

1 2007 to 2011 1.85 3.24 1.39 

2012 to 2016 1.44 -- 2 

2012 to 2015 -- 2.64 1.20 

2017 to 2021 1.44 -- 3 

2016 to 2019 -- 2.64 1.20 

2022 to 2026 4 1.44 -- 

2020 to 2023 -- 2.64 1.20 

2027 to 2031 1.44 -- 5 2024 to 2027 -- 2.64 1.20 

6 2028 to 2031 -- 2.64 2.64 

Total 7.60 16.44 8.85 

Annual Average 0.29 0.66 0.35 1

 The non-italicized reporting cycles are baseline, five-year cycles, and the italicized reporting cycles are proposed, four-year cycles

Table 6-2 contains the total cost and change in cost to society as a result of the proposed IUR rule 

amendments. The cost to society is expected to increase by $570.41 million over the 25-year period as a 

result of the proposed IUR amendements. The cost to industry is expected to increase by $571.01 million 

over this period (see Table 4-56), and the Agency cost is expected to decrease by $601,834 (see Table 

5-46). The annualized cost to society over a 25-year period is $21.58 million and $19.93 million at three 

percent and seven percent discount rates, respectively. 
6-2

Table 6-2: Change in Total Costs to Society if All Modifications Are Implemented 

Baseline Cost Post-Amendment 

Cost Reporting Change in Cost 

Cycle1 Year(s) 

(millions of 2008$) (millions of 2008$) (millions of 2008$) 

1 2007 to 2011 $107.43 $199.12 $91.69 

2012 to 2016 $83.28 -- 2 

2012 to 2015 -- $162.37 $79.09 

2017 to 2021 $83.28 -- 3 2016 to 2019 -- $162.37 $79.09 

2022 to 2026 $83.28 -- 4 2020 to 2023 -- $162.37 $79.09 

2027 to 2031 $83.28 -- 5 2024 to 2027 -- $162.37 $79.09 

6 2028 to 2031 -- $162.37 $162.37 

Total $440.57 $1,010.98 $570.41 

Annual Average $17.62 $40.44 $22.82 

Annualized @ 3% $16.88 $38.47 $21.58 

Annualized @ 7% $15.96 $35.89 $19.93 1

 The non-italicized reporting cycles are baseline, five-year cycles, and the italicized reporting cycles are proposed, four-year cycles
7-1

7. Impact of the Proposed IUR Rule Modifications Rule on the Benefits 

of the IUR 

The IUR rule is one of EPA’s most valuable tools for meeting the Agency’s mandate under TSCA to 

manage the risks resulting from chemical production and use in the United States. It is EPA’s most 

comprehensive source of data on the chemical industry, and IUR data are used in almost all of OPPT’s 

risk screening and management programs. However, the IUR data in their current form have numerous 

limitations, which in turn limit EPA’s effectiveness in meeting its mandate under TSCA. 

In an effort to improve the quality and usefulness of the data the Agency collects under the IUR rule, 

EPA is proposing a set of IUR amendments. The proposed amendments would improve the completeness 

and accuracy of the IUR data by requiring electronic reporting using the e-IURweb reporting software, 

expanding the range of chemicals for which full information would be reported, adjusting the specific 

reported information, increasing the frequency of collecting the information, and modifying CBI 

requirements. EPA expects the proposed amendments will reduce many of the current data constraints 

and, as a result, improve the effectiveness of EPA’s chemical risk management programs. Most 

importantly, the IUR rule amendments will require submitters to provide processing and use exposurerelated information for more chemicals. This additional information will allow EPA to more accurately 

assess human and environmental exposures to specific chemicals, including the concentrations, 

frequency, and durations of these exposures. 

With this additional information, EPA will improve its abilityto screen chemicals to identify whether 

additional risk assessment and management steps are needed. More complete reporting of the processing 

and use data, more careful consideration of confidentiality claims, and adjustments to specific data 

elements will help provide the needed data. By enhancing the data supplied to Agency risk-screening 

programs, EPA expects to more effectively and expeditiously reduce the risks posed by chemicals. The 

more EPA can base its decisions on actual data, rather than on assumptions, the better EPA is able to 

tailor its risk management decisions to the level of actual risk, whether higher or lower than it would be if 

based only on assumptions. Ultimately, enhancing the risk screening process will have positive 

consequences for human and ecosystem health, and will use EPA’s and society’s resources more 

efficiently. Additional benefits will accrue from changes in reporting requirements that will improve 

consistency and compatibility with other EPA databases. EPA would be better able to anticipate industry 

trends, particularly for chemicals for which EPA has concerns, and to measure the effectiveness of 

Agency programs. 

The benefits resulting from the proposed IUR rule amendments are discussed qualitatively in this 

section. Quantification of the benefits of the proposed rule would require more specific information about 

each user’s use patterns and preferences, and the changes in the use patterns and preferences which would 

result from the additional information made available under the proposed rule. These data are not readily 

available, and collecting such data would be cost-prohibitive. For example, one approach would be to 

conduct a national willingness-to-pay (WTP) survey of the general public to determine the value the 

public places on the availability of the information resulting from the proposed rule. However, such a 

survey, or a survey to collect similar information, has not been conducted. 

7.1 Benefits of Information-Based Policies 

Improvements in the IUR data would allow EPA and others to use the data more effectively as part of 

the Agency’s risk screening and prioritization programs. Screening chemicals for potential risks is an 

essential first step in developing and prioritizing risk management activities. Effective risk-screening by 

EPA depends on the ability to characterize chemical uses accurately and to predict potential exposures. 

Current screening activities are greatly hampered by the incomplete data supplied through the 2006 IUR. 
7-2

In addition, EPA’s current screening activities for medium production volume chemicals are hampered 

further by the fact EPA has only estimates of production volume for many chemicals and must rely on 

relatively limited public sources of information. This proposed rule will benefit society by filling these 

information gaps and contributing to better assessments of potential risks and risk management decisions. 

The proposed amendments to the IUR rule will increase the amount of publicly available data about a 

chemical’s potential risks, and consequently are likely to result in (a) a reduction in the costs of risk-based 

decisions about the chemical, and (b) an improvement in the expected outcome of the decisions. 

• Reduced cost of risk-based decision making. By making new information about toxic substances 

available to the public (including EPA and other government agencies), this proposed rule can replace 

other information-gathering, management, and dissemination activities related to the regulated 

chemicals. Once the data are publicly available, information users and decision makers will avoid the 

time and resource costs required to individually perform these activities. In effect, the proposed rule 

increases the efficiency and strength of the decision-making process. 

• Improved outcome of decisions. Information-based policies contribute to better decisions by 

redirecting resources toward their most highly valued uses. With incomplete information regarding 

toxic chemicals, public and private decision makers are unable to make adequate assessments of the 

benefits and costs of actions involving these substances. For example, EPA decisions regarding 

whether, when, and how to target chemicals for further risk assessment can be misdirected if basic 

risk-screening information is unavailable or inadequate. With more information, EPA can better 

direct its limited resources toward high-priority risks. Improved information can therefore help lead to 

more socially optimal reductions in risks to humans and the environment. 

The proposed rule amendments will generate both types of benefits. First, it will reduce EPA’s and 

other decision makers’ reliance on other databases and information sources that are inadequate for 

accurately and efficiently characterizing the risks associated with the thousands of chemicals in 

commerce that need to be evaluated. As discussed in Chapter 5. EPA will bear additional costs for 

collecting and managing the new IUR data; however, by providing more reliable and complete data on 

chemical uses and exposures, the rule will also allow EPA to save time and resources in screening 

chemicals and in developing risk management priorities. Furthermore, by requiring data to be submitted 

electronically, the rule will reduce EPA’s costs of processing the IUR data and result in a better quality 

database. 

Second, it will allow EPA to better prioritize its risk management activities—to move more quickly in 

addressing chemicals posing relatively high risks (and/or relatively low risk-management costs). 

A more detailed discussion about the value of information-based policies can be found in the 

economic analysis for the 2003 Amendments (EPA, 2002a). Specific benefits accruing from the use of the 

information generated by this proposed rule are discussed in the following sections. 

7.2 Benefits of Individual Proposed Amendments 

The proposed IUR amendments expand the range of chemicals for which full information is to be 

reported, adjust the specific reported information, increase the frequency of collecting the information, 

and modify CBI requirements. These proposed amendments also would provide information to better 

address Agency and public information needs, improve the usability and reliability of the reported data, 

and ensure data are available in a timely manner. EPA is proposing these amendments to the IUR rule to 

meet four primary goals: (1) to tailor the information collected to better meet the Agency’s overall 

information needs, (2) to increase its ability to effectively provide public access to the information, (3) to 

obtain new and updated information relating to potential exposures to a subset of chemical substances 

listed on the TSCA Inventory, and (4) to improve the usefulness of the information reported. The 
7-3

following sections describe how each of the amendments meets these goals and generates benefits to data 

users. 

7.2.1 Tailor Information Collected to More Closely Match the Agency’s Information Needs 

EPA’s efforts to use the 2006 IUR data have provided indications of areas where further 

improvements are needed. Several of the amendments described in this proposed rule would change some 

of the reporting requirements in an effort by EPA to increase the usability of the collected information 

and to focus IUR reporting on the information needed most by the Agency. These proposed changes will 

enable EPA and other Federal agencies to improve their risk screening programs, enabling them to better 

assess and manage risk and improve public awareness of basic information about a large number of 

chemical substances. These amendments and their specific benefits are described below. 

Parent Company Name and Site Identity 

Manufacturers (including importers) are required to report the company name and Dun & Bradstreet 

(D&B) number to identify the company associated with the plant site, and also to report the site name, 

address, and D&B number. EPA received a variety of questions concerning the correct company name to 

report during the 2006 IUR reporting cycle. EPA is now clarifying what is meant by company name, by 

proposing to require the company name provided to be the ultimate domestic parent company name. EPA 

believes this change will reduce confusion by making this reporting requirement consistent with the Toxic 

Release Inventory (TRI) requirements for parent company name. Reduced confusion leads to more 

accurate information, which in turn leads to more accurate risk characterizations. 

Furthermore, the 2006 IUR submissions from different reporting sites contained varying D&B 

numbers for parent companies appearing to be the same company. In order to better identify when 

reporting sites are under the same parent company, EPA is proposing to include the address as well as the 

D&B number of the parent company. Similar to the proposed change in parent company name, this 

change also will lead to more accurate information, which will lead to more accurate risk 

characterizations and small business analyses. 

Technical Contact 

Manufacturers (including importers) are required to provide a technical contact for their IUR 

submission. The technical contact must be a person who can answer questions EPA may have about the 

reported chemical substance and should be a person located at the manufacturing site. Based on EPA’s 

experience with contacting the reported technical contact with follow-up questions concerning 2006 IUR 

submissions, submitters often provide the names of individuals who are not connected directly to the 

reporting site, and therefore, are not knowledgeable about either the chemical or the submission. EPA has 

also seen situations where the technical contact is a contracted employee who is able to address 

subsequent concerns only as long as he or she remains under contract to the company. EPA may raise 

follow-up questions about an IUR submission possibly for years after the submission date. EPA is 

considering allowing multiple technical contacts on a chemical-by-chemical basis. The benefit of this 

proposed amendment would be increased clarity, which leads to improved accuracy in the information 

collected, which in turn leads to more accurate risk characterizations. 

Chemical Identity 

EPA is proposing to require the reporting of the Chemical Abstracts (CA) Index Name currently used 

to list the substance in the Inventory as the chemical name reported for IUR. Currently, submitters are 

required to report a specific chemical name, with no further elaboration in the regulatory text. EPA has 

found, however, submitters sometimes supply a name that is somewhat generic or excludes parts of the 

specific chemical identity distinguishing one substance from another. EPA’s experience in the 2006 IUR 

was up to five percent of the reports submitted contained chemical identity problems serious enough the 
7-4

Agency was unable to precisely identify the substance. These problems resulted in the temporary 

exclusion of the information associated with the poorly or erroneously identified chemical from the IUR 

database until the Agency was able to obtain correct and specific chemical identity information from the 

submitter. EPA believes the requirement to use the substance name as currently listed on the Inventory 

will greatly reduce the number of poorly identified substances. Improved chemical identification 

ultimately leads to more accurate risk characterizations. 

EPA is also proposing to allow submitters to report only the CASRN as a chemical identifying 

number or, in the case of confidential chemical substances, the accession number. EPA is proposing to 

eliminate the PMN number as an acceptable chemical identifying number because each Inventory 

substance has either a CASRN or a TSCA accession number or both, which are likely to be already 

known to the submitter. This proposed amendment would save the Agency considerable time and effort to 

access and review reported information that has been identified only by a PMN case number. 

Report Production Volume for Each of the Years since the Last Principal Reporting Year 

EPA is proposing to require reporting of production volume for each of the years since the last IUR 

principal reporting year. Thus, for the 2011 IUR reporting cycle, manufacturers (including importers) of a 

chemical at or above the 25,000 lb. threshold in the 2010 principal reporting year would report the 

production volume of that chemical for each of the calendar years: 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010. 

Collecting the production volume for multiple years would provide greater detail than the current “onceevery-five-years” snapshot. For future reporting cycles, all manufacturers (including importers) who are 

required to report based on meeting or exceeding the 25,000 lb. threshold in any year since the last 

principal reporting year will be required to report production volume for each of those years. 

EPA has mounting evidence many chemicals, including larger volume chemicals, are manufactured 

in volumes that may widely fluctuate from year to year. This can result in the production volume of a 

chemical exceeding the threshold for several years, then falling below the threshold during the IUR 

principal reporting year. Therefore, EPA believes a single snapshot of annual production volume (i.e., 

taken just once each reporting cycle) does not provide an accurate picture of the chemicals in commerce, 

and may provide an erroneous view of the exposure scenarios associated with a particular chemical 

substance. 

EPA uses production volume data in several important ways. The data help the Agency to establish 

trends in chemical manufacturing; to determine the effectiveness of various Agency programs; to estimate 

the magnitude of consumer, worker, and environmental exposures; and to determine the costs (and 

financial impacts) of potential control strategies in economic analyses. Voluntary EPA programs such as 

Design for the Environment (DfE) and other pollution prevention programs would use the annual 

production volume data to identify trends and program performance. Relying on a single snapshot of 

annual production volume in each reporting cycle hampers EPA’s ability to identify the programs and 

techniques that are most effective, using measurable, readily identifiable production trend data. Therefore, 

proposed amendment would provide information EPA and others need for the assessment of programs 

and would provide greater accuracy of the volumes of chemicals in commerce than the current one-year 

snapshot. 

Volume of Chemical Substance Used On-Site 

EPA is proposing to require submitters to report the volumes of a manufactured or imported chemical 

substance used at the reporting site. The requirement to report the volume used on-site is replacing the 

requirement to indicate the chemical is site-limited. Under this proposal, either domestically 

manufactured or imported chemicals could be reported as used at the reporting site, whereas under the 

current reporting requirements, only domestically manufactured chemicals, consumed entirely at the site 

of manufacture, should be reported as site-limited. 
7-5

EPA is proposing this change to simplify reporting and to collect information that better addresses the 

Agency’s needs. In the past, submitters sometimes erroneously reported their production volume 

separately to identify the portion of their chemical consumed at the manufacturing site. For the 2006 IUR, 

many submitters continued this practice and erroneously filed separate reports to indicate a portion of 

their production volume was site-limited. Filing separate reports resulted in the need to report separately 

processing and use information when the combined production volume was 300,000 lb. or greater. 

Including all production volumes on one report simplifies reporting for such submitters and results in a 

less complicated database, thereby making the data easier to use. The proposed amendment to require 

reporting the volume used on-site wouldprovide valuable information related to potential exposures 

associated with the on-site volumes, therefore providing the Agency with better information for exposure 

assessments and other data analyses. 

Indicate Whether Imported Chemicals Are Physically at Reporting Site 

EPA is proposing to add a requirement to indicate whether an imported chemical is physically at the 

reporting site. Often, the site reporting an imported chemical never physically receives the chemical, but 

instead ships it directly to another location such as a warehouse, a processing or use site, or a customer’s 

site. Identifying whether the chemical is physically at the reporting site provides more accurate 

information for screening-level analyses and other uses of the IUR data. 

Report Volume Exported 

EPA is proposing to add a requirement to report the production volume directly exported and not 

domestically processed or used. This amendment would allow EPA to better identify the proportion of the 

production volume accounted for by the use reporting, given downstream reporting is not required for 

exported substances. 

Identify Whether Chemical Is To Be Recycled, Remanufactured, Reprocessed, Reused, or 

Reworked 

EPA is proposing to add a requirement to indicate via a checkbox whether a manufactured chemical, 

such as a byproduct, is being recycled, remanufactured, reprocessed, reused, or reworked. Submitters 

would identify that their manufactured chemical, which otherwise would be disposed of as a waste, is 

being removed from the waste stream and is being used for a commercial purpose (i.e. recycled, 

remanufactured, reprocessed, reused or reworked). Such information will benefit the Agency by 

identifying where these activities are already occurring, and can be used to encourage such activities. 

Collecting information on whether a chemical is being recycled, remanufactured, reprocessed, reused, or 

reworked and is not entering the waste stream provides valuable information to EPA and others regarding 

trends in chemical manufacturing and can be used to help determine the effectiveness of various 

programs, such as EPA’s Resource Conservation Challenge (RCC) Program. 

Designation of Consumer or Commercial Use 

EPA is proposing to require submitters to designate via a checkbox whether the use is a consumer or 

a commercial use, or both. The Agency’s experience using the 2006 IUR data identified a need to 

distinguish between potentially exposed consumer and commercial populations. Designation of consumer 

or commercial use, or both, would allow EPA to complete a better characterization for the potentially 

exposed populations. 

Number of Commercial Workers Reasonably Likely To Be Exposed 

EPA is proposing to require submitters to report the total number of commercial workers, including 

those at sites not under the submitter’s control, that are reasonably likely to be exposed while using the 

reportable chemical substance, with respect to each commercial use. The approximate number of workers 
7-6

would be reported using the same definitions and ranges used for manufacturing and industrial processing 

and use workers. Information on the number of commercial workers reasonably likely to be exposed to 

the reportable chemical substance would be used to characterize the commercial population reasonably 

likely to be exposed to the subject chemical substance. Therefore, this amendment would improve the 

population characterization, which is important to the development of the overall exposure 

characterization. 

7.2.2 Increase EPA’s Ability to Effectively Provide Public Access to the Information 

EPA anticipates the proposed amendments would result in the Agency receiving more publicly 

available, non-CBI information. It is therefore important for the Agency to be able to provide public 

access to the information in a timely manner; requiring all submissions in an electronic format will better 

enable the Agency to accomplish this. 

Require Electronic Submissions over the Internet 

EPA is proposing to require the mandatory use of EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) through the 

Internet for manufacturers (including importers) to report IUR information. EPA would require all 

submissions to be generated using the e-IURweb reporting software. EPA would no longer accept paper 

submissions or electronic media for any IUR submission after the effective date of the final rule. 

The proposed amendment to eliminate paper-based submissions in favor of mandatory e-IURweb 

reporting would provide several benefits to EPA and industry. EPA believes the required use of eIURweb and CDX would reduce the reporting burden on industry by reducing both the cost and the time 

required to review, edit and transmit data to the Agency. Data systems into which data were once 

manually entered would now be populated electronically, thus reducing the potential for error when data 

are entered by hand or when data are entered through a scanning process. All information sent by 

submitters via CDX would be transmitted securely to protect CBI. EPA would be able to communicate 

electronically with submitters, e.g., to confirm receipt of a submission or to identify a problem with the 

submission. Electronic submissions enable data to be available for Agency and public use more quickly 

and it eliminates inefficiencies and errors introduced in the process to scan paper submissions. 

EPA developed e-IUR reporting software for use in preparing and submitting reports electronically 

during the 2006 IUR submission period (see www.epa.gov/iur). For the 2011 submission period, EPA 

will provide a free web-based application in place of the 2006 downloadable software. The 2011 eIURweb would feature several enhancements over the 2006 e-IUR. These improvements include a 

sophisticated validation system, which would alert users when a required field on the form is either 

missing information or contains certain kinds of potentially incorrect information. Other updates are 

expected to include automated chemical identity checks, automated company and site identity checks, and 

the facilitation of joint submissions and amendments. Additionally the reporting software would include 

user-friendly features such as drop-down selections, searchable chemical lists, imbedded help files, and an 

error-checking process to help identify common reporting errors before the submission is submitted. All 

of these applications will increase the accuracy of data and eliminate Agency time in manually 

performing these checks. 

Coupled with EPA’s e-IURweb reporting software, electronic reporting has become the most efficient 

method of reporting for industry as well as for EPA. During the comment period for the Information 

Collection Request (ICR) renewal (73 FR 51805, September 5, 2008), EPA received positive comments 

regarding the use of CDX, the encrypted internet submission process, and the ability to use a secure 

electronic signature method to submit IUR reports. 
7-7

7.2.3 Obtain New and Updated Exposure Information 

The EPA Administrator has announced her intention to increase efforts to assess, prioritize, and take 

action on existing chemicals, with particular emphasis on protecting children. The Agency is developing a 

broader, more vigorous approach on existing chemicals, which will utilize the full range of TSCA 

regulatory tools to reduce or eliminate risks from chemicals of concern. The IUR rule is one of the tools 

available for this effort. Through the IUR rule, the Agency collects the information it needs to conduct an 

initial characterization and screening of potential exposures associated with chemicals. EPA needs more 

in-depth exposure-related information to fine-tune the screening process, and to better assess, prioritize, 

and take action on existing chemicals. The various programs and tools EPA uses to evaluate and manage 

chemical risks are described in Section 7.3. The proposed amendments would increase the amount of 

exposure information collected are described in the following sections. 

Method for Determining Whether a Manufacturer is Subject to IUR Reporting Requirements 

For the 2011 reporting cycle, reporting for subject chemicals would be required if the production 

volume in the 2010 principal reporting year only meets or exceeds the 25,000 lb. reporting threshold, 

which is the current requirement. For the 2016 reporting cycle and future reporting cycles, a site would 

examine its annual production volumes for each of the four calendar years since the last principal 

reporting year. If the production volume for a reportable chemical substance were 25,000 lb. or greater for 

any calendar year during that four-year period, then the site would need to report the chemical substance, 

unless it is otherwise exempt. 

EPA is proposing this change because of the mounting evidence many chemicals, even larger volume 

chemicals, often experience wide fluctuations in manufacturing volume from year to year. This can result 

in the production volume of chemical exceeding the threshold for several years, then falling below the 

threshold during the IUR principal reporting year. Consequently, historical IUR reporting has resulted in a 

change of approximately 30 percent in the composition of the chemicals being reported from one 

reporting cycle to the next. Therefore, the one-year snapshot of production volume does not provide an 

accurate picture of the chemicals in commerce, and may provide an erroneous view of the exposure 

scenarios associated with a particular chemical substance. 

Further evidence that capturing production volume for only the IUR principal reporting year is 

causing EPA to miss a significant amount of chemical production was revealed in the comments the 

Agency received from the proposed “reset” of the TSCA Inventory. The Federal Register notice of 

November 21, 2008 (73 FR 70460) requested industry provide comment on whether a three-year 

reporting cycle was sufficient for deciding whether a chemical they manufactured or imported should 

remain listed on the TSCA Inventory. Commenters overwhelmingly expressed concern the proposed 

three-year reporting cycle would drastically misrepresent the chemicals presently in commerce. (See 

Docket No: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0785.) 

In submitted comments, companies agreed unanimously that if they were to report for one year only, 

the reset would inappropriately remove chemical substances from the Inventory. While all commenters 

felt the three-year reporting cycle was inadequate, a majority of the industry comments suggested 

reporting should cover a 10-year period. The comments strongly indicated there were chemicals 

manufactured or imported only occasionally, and these chemicals would not be captured if the reporting 

covered too short a period. Therefore, requiring chemical manufacturers (importers) to evaluate 

production volume for any calendar year since the previous IUR principal reporting year would benefit 

users of IUR data by yielding a much more accurate picture of the chemicals currently in commerce and 

properly the subject of EPA’s risk screening, assessment, and management activities. 
7-8

Eliminate 300,000 lb. Threshold for Processing and Use Information Reporting 

EPA is proposing to eliminate the 300,000 lb. threshold for reporting processing and use information, 

thereby requiring all submitters of non-excluded substances to report information in all parts of the IUR 

Form U. EPA is proposing to eliminate this reporting threshold in order to collect information necessary 

to complete screening-level exposure characterizations and subsequent risk-based prioritizations for 

medium production volume (MPV) chemicals. In the 2003 Amendments final rule (68 FR 848, January 7, 

2003), EPA acknowledged the value of information for chemical substances manufactured in lower 

volumes and stated if the Agency were to find it necessary in the future, it would collect information on 

chemical substances at reporting thresholds below the thresholds introduced in that action. The IUR 

processing and use information is needed now to complete the characterizations and prioritizations for 

those chemicals manufactured (including imported) in volumes of 25,000 to 300,000 lb. 

The Agency currently is unable to develop screening level risk evaluations for medium and lower 

production volume chemicals because most of these chemicals are produced below the volume for which 

exposure and use information is required under the current IUR rule (i.e. 300,000 lb. per year). The 

exposure information is an essential part of developing screening-level risk evaluations and, based on its 

experience in using this information, the Agency has concluded collecting this information is critical to its 

mission of characterizing exposure, identifying potential risks, and noting uncertainties for these lower 

production volume chemicals. 

Both hazard and exposure information is needed to develop screening level evaluations. Once the 

IUR processing and use information is available for these medium and lower volume chemicals, EPA 

would be able to develop the exposure characterizations needed to develop the evaluations. As with the 

high-production volume (HPV) chemicals, EPA would then be able to identify potential risks, note 

scientific issues and uncertainties, and indicate the initial priority assigned by the Agency for potential 

future appropriate action. Therefore, the proposed rule would provide this necessary processing and use 

information for chemicals manufactured or imported in volumes of 25,000 to 300,000 lb. 

Eliminate 25,000 lb. Threshold for Certain Regulated Chemicals 

EPA is proposing to eliminate the 25,000 lb. reporting threshold for certain regulated chemical 

substances that are the subject of particular TSCA rules and/or orders and to require manufacturers 

(including importers) of such chemicals to report under the IUR, regardless of the production volume. 

Thus, for the 2011 IUR reporting cycle, manufacturers (including importers) of a chemical at or above the 

25,000 lb. threshold would report the production volume of that chemical for each of the calendar years: 

2010, 2009, 2008, 2007, and 2006. This provision will ensure the availability of current information when 

EPA has expressed a concern in the form of regulatory action on those chemical substances, regardless of 

the production volume. EPA is proposing to eliminate the 25,000 lb. threshold for those chemicals that 

are: (1) the subject of a rule promulgated under sections 5(a)(2), 5(b)(4), or 6 of TSCA; (2) the subject of 

an order issued under section 5(e) or 5(f) of TSCA; or, (3) the subject of relief that has been granted under 

a civil action under section 5 or 7 of TSCA. 

Under this proposal, a manufacturer, including importer, of such chemical substances would be 

required to report information on the manufacturing, processing, and use of the chemical substances if it 

manufactured (including imported) any quantity of these chemical substances during any of the years 

since the last principal reporting year, including volumes under 25,000 lb. For the 2011 reporting cycle, 

the manufacturer would need to consider the manufacture or import during the years 2006 through 2010. 

Manufacturers (including importers) of these chemicals would report the production volumes for each 

year from 2006 to 2010, and the full manufacturing, processing, and use information for 2010. 

Chemicals regulated under TSCA are of demonstrated interest to the Agency. EPA has made a 

determination that such substances either “may present,” “will present,” or “do present” an unreasonable 

risk to human health and/or the environment or that the substances have “substantial production/ 
7-9

significant or substantial exposure.” Therefore, this proposed amendment would enable EPA to use the 

IUR data associated with these regulated chemicals to monitor chemical production and compliance with 

the rules. 

Making Chemicals Subject to Enforceable Consent Agreements Ineligible for Exemptions 

EPA may enter into an enforceable consent agreement (ECA) with a manufacturer of a chemical 

substance to obtain testing where a consensus exists among EPA, affected manufacturers and/or 

processors, and interested members of the public concerning the need for and scope of testing. Chemicals 

covered by ECAs are of demonstrated interest to EPA. The Agency has an interest in identifying the 

manufacturing, processing, and use of substances under such agreements, and therefore is proposing to 

require such substances to be reported for IUR purposes, regardless of whether the substance otherwise 

meets the requirements listed in 40 CFR §710.46 (proposed §711.6) as an exempt or partially exempt 

chemical substance. This proposed amendment would ensure the availability of current information if 

EPA has expressed a concern in the form of an ECA on any substance otherwise excluded from the IUR 

rule. For example, EPA could use the IUR data associated with these regulated chemicals to monitor 

chemical production and compliance with the agreements. 

Changes to Standard for the Reporting of Processing and Use Information 

In order to collect more complete information regarding the industrial processing and use and 

commercial and consumer use of chemicals, EPA is proposing to replace the “readily obtainable” 

reporting standard in the 2006 IUR with the “known to or reasonably ascertainable by” reporting standard 

for the reporting of processing and use information. TSCA section 8(a)(2) authorizes EPA to require 

persons to report information “known to or reasonably ascertainable by” the submitter. This is the same 

standard currently applying to the reporting of information described in the regulations at 710.52(c)(1), 

(c)(2), and (c)(3). It covers all information in a person’s possession or control, plus all information a 

reasonable person similarly situated might be expected to possess, control, or know. The “known to or 

reasonably ascertainable by” reporting standard was the only standard used for IUR reporting purposes 

prior to the 2006 IUR reporting cycle. 

EPA is proposing this change because reporting under the “readily obtainable” reporting standard did 

not generate sufficiently precise processing and use information for screening-level reviews. The Agency 

believes reporting under the “known to or reasonably ascertainable by” standard will generate processing 

and use information sufficiently precise for screening-level reviews. 

The 2006 IUR response rate for the processing and use data captured only a portion of the volume the 

Agency suspects actually was used for industrial processing and use or commercial and consumer use. 

Considering only those chemicals meeting the criteria to require reporting of processing and use 

information, only 72 percent of the total volume was accounted for in the industrial processing and use 

data and 22 percent in the commercial and consumer use data. At a minimum, EPA is lacking industrial 

processing and use data on 28 percent of the expected volume reported, and is lacking consumer and 

commercial processing and use data on 78 percent of the expected volume reported.4

 Because of this low 

level of reporting, EPA now believes the reporting standard of “not readily obtainable” was too lenient 

and resulted in an underreporting of the actual processing and use situation. 

 

4

 The Agency believes the percentage of missing processing and use information actually is larger than indicated by 

this analysis. As described in the 2003 Amendments final rule (68 FR 861), EPA anticipated that, on an individual 

report basis, the total percentages of production volumes associated with the industrial processing or use information 

may add up to more than 100 percent of the reported production volume. This could happen because the submitter 

reported on the distribution of a chemical to sites in its control as well as downstream sites, some of which were not 

immediate purchasers from the original manufacturing site. 
7-10

The Agency’s experience using the 2006 IUR data to develop exposure characterizations has alerted 

EPA to the fact the IUR processing and use data are incomplete and inconsistent. Effective risk screening 

by EPA depends on the ability to accurately characterize chemical uses and to predict potential exposures. 

If the information provided does not include these data, EPA must make assumptions about the use of the 

unreported production volume. Incorrect assumptions may lead EPA to designate an inappropriately high 

priority level to the chemical, resulting in unnecessary effort and resource expenditures for both regulated 

parties and EPA in cases where adequate data would have led the Agency to act differently. 

Therefore, using the reporting standard “known to or reasonably ascertainable by” would result in 

companies reporting more consistent and complete processing and use information in their IUR reports, 

and more efficient use of EPA resources. 

Change to Reporting Frequency 

Prior to the 2003 Amendments, the IUR collection occurred every four years. EPA reduced the 

reporting frequency from every four years to every five years starting with the 2006 IUR rule 

modifications, to reduce the burden associated with the amended IUR requirements. While the less 

frequent reporting does reduce burden, the Agency now has determined reporting every five years does 

not provide data sufficiently current to meet Agency and public needs, and is proposing to return to 

reporting every four years. 

As described above, the Agency has been criticized for using outdated information. Also, a review of 

the previous reporting under IUR has revealed a change of approximately 30 percent in the chemicals 

reported from one reporting cycle to the next. Receiving IUR information more frequently will provide 

EPA with a more accurate, up-to-date overview of the chemical manufacturing industry, addressing a 

criticism the Agency has received for relying on outdated information. More timely information will help 

EPA to better prioritize chemicals for screening, and will lead to more efficient use of EPA resources. 

7.2.4 Improve Utility of Information Reported 

Some of the amendments in the proposed rule would change reporting requirements, in an effort by 

EPA to increase the usability of the collected information. By increasing data transparency, increasing 

international compatibility, or changing the method by which the data is submitted, these proposed 

changes will ultimately enable EPA and other Federal agencies to improve their risk screening programs, 

enabling them to better assess and manage risk, and improve public awareness of basic information about 

a large number of chemical substances. 

Industrial Function Categories 

EPA is proposing to revise the list of industrial function categories by combining categories leading 

to common exposure scenarios and adding categories where the Agency believes the existing categories 

do not adequately describe potential uses. EPA worked with Environment Canada and Health Canada to 

develop the proposed set of categories, which would be used by both the United States and Canada for 

Inventory reporting. Harmonization of the categories for reporting the industrial functions of chemical 

substances would benefit both EPA and Canadian agencies by facilitating the exchange of information, 

and would serve as a model to be used by Mexico in developing an Inventory of chemical substances. In 

addition, the harmonized categories would facilitate consistent reporting of chemical use information by 

industry in the United States and Canada. 

Another benefit of revising the list of industrial function categories would be to reduce the number of 

uses reported as “Other.” EPA is proposing to require that if a submitter chooses the category “Other,” the 

submitter include a text description for the industrial function category associated with the use of 

chemical substance. 
7-11

Industrial Sectors 

EPA is proposing to replace the five-digit North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 

codes with 48 Industrial Sectors (IS). The industrial sectors were adopted from the European Union’s 

guidance on information requirements and chemical safety assessment. The chosen Industrial Sectors 

divide the entire range of NAICS codes into sectors so any NAICS code has a corresponding Industrial 

Sector. The Agency believes this change would provide several benefits. First, it would encourage more 

complete reporting by using terms already familiar to industry. Second, the industrial sectors would 

reduce the likelihood of errors resulting from the selection of miscellaneous or inappropriate NAICS 

codes. Third, it would reduce the number of codes that could apply to one substance. 

One of the primary purposes of the IUR data collection is to group together similar data for priority 

setting exercises and activities. Respondents to the 2006 IUR submitted 342 unique five-digit NAICS 

codes, which made it difficult for EPA to group chemicals based on industrial processing and use 

scenarios. The 2006 IUR database has 2,330 unique combinations of processing or use categories, 

NAICS, and industrial function categories, in all. This large number of unique combinations increases the 

difficulty and time required by EPA to sort and classify chemicals because EPA either would need to 

develop exposure scenarios for each unique combination, or determine which three-code combinations 

have similar exposure scenarios and can be grouped. Therefore, another benefit of using the industrial 

sectors would be to reduce the number of unique combinations, thereby increasing the usability of the 

data. 

Consumer and Commercial Product Categories 

EPA is proposing to revise the list of consumer and commercial use categories by combining 

categories leading to common exposure scenarios and adding categories not adequately described in the 

initial set of categories. EPA worked with Environment Canada and Health Canada to develop the 

proposed categories, which will be adopted by the United States and Canada for reporting of Inventory 

information. Harmonized categories for reporting the consumer and commercial uses of chemical 

substances will benefit both EPA and Canadian agency by facilitating the exchange of information and 

will serve as a model to be used by Mexico in developing an Inventory of chemical substances. In 

addition, the harmonized categories will facilitate consistent reporting of chemical use information by 

industry in the United States and Canada. 

Additional benefits of expanding the list of consumer and commercial use categories would be to 

provide persons submitting IUR information with a greater opportunity to characterize the products in 

which chemical substances they manufacture are used, and to reduce the number of uses reported as 

“Other.” 

EPA is proposing to require that if a submitter chooses the category “Other,” the submitter include a 

text description for the consumer and commercial product containing the chemical substance. The 2006 

IUR reports showed the category “Other” was reported with the greatest frequency. A total of 1,206 

reports, or 26 percent, out of 4,666 reports containing commercial and consumer use information, 

included “Other.” Although one of EPA’s objectives of revising the consumer and commercial product 

categories is to reduce the reporting frequency of “Other,” EPA believes in many cases where “Other” 

was reported, submitters may not have selected the correct categories for their situation. In addition to 

revising the overall product categories, narrower definitions and expanded lists of examples of products in 

which the chemical substance would be used were added to each category descriptor. By requiring the 

submitters to supply a written description for “Other,” this amendment will enable the Agency to evaluate 

and improve the inclusiveness of future consumer and commercial category lists or descriptions. 
7-12

Upfront Substantiation for Processing and Use Information CBI Claims 

Under the proposed rule, in order to submit a claim of confidentiality for processing and use 

information data elements, the submitter would be required to both check the appropriate box on the 

reporting form and substantiate the claim in writing by answering certain questions provided in the 

proposed rule. Where a submitter fails to substantiate the processing and use CBI claim in accordance 

with the applicable rules, EPA may make the information available to the public without further notice to 

the submitter. 

EPA has observed, on occasion, processing and use information has been claimed as confidential 

even though it was revealed in submissions sent to the Agency in response to the HPV Challenge program 

and published on the EPA website. In addition, EPA has observed some of the processing and use 

information claimed as confidential appears to be available on submitter’s websites or in published 

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS). The high number of confidentiality claims asserted for the reported 

2006 IUR reports on industrial processing and use information meant EPA was unable to make available 

to the public important data or to completely describe the analysis or provide the support information used 

to reach Agency conclusions. This included the number of processing sites, the number of potentially 

exposed industrial workers, and the percent production volume for each industrial processing or use 

scenario. This amendment decrease in the number of inappropriate CBI claims under the new 

substantiation requirement, which would improve EPA’s ability to make current plant site information 

available to other Federal agencies and the public because more information submitted under IUR could 

be released publicly. This would increase the transparency and public accessibility of the chemical risk 

information, may increase public confidence in EPA’s chemical management program, and is consistent 

with the President’s policy goals for government reliance on and public availability of scientific 

information.5

 

7.3 Potential Users of Information Generated by the Proposed IUR 

Modifications Rule 

EPA will be the primary user of the information generated by the proposed rule amendments, 

although other public and private organizations, in particular those with interests in managing chemical 

risks, will also use the data. The information is expected to be applied and disseminated by these users in 

a number of ways; however, it will serve primarily to reduce the costs of screening and managing 

chemical risks and to improve risk management decisions. The American public will be the ultimate 

beneficiary of the amended IUR. By lowering the cost of decision making in the public sector, the rule 

will free up resources for other public or private uses. Similar gains will also result from cost savings in 

private-sector decision making. By improving risk management decisions, the rule will also help to better 

target risk management activities to the areas where the net benefits (i.e., risk reductions net of control 

costs) are expected to be the largest. 

IUR data users and the benefits they derive from IUR data are discussed in more detail in the 

following sections. 

 

5

 On March 9, 2009, President Obama, writing about Scientific Integrity in a Presidential Memorandum for the 

Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, wrote: “The public must be able to trust the science and scientific 

process informing public policy decisions. Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological 

findings and conclusions. If scientific and technological information is developed and used by the Federal 

Government, it should ordinarily be made available to the public. To the extent permitted by law, there should be 

transparency in the preparation, identification, and use of scientific and technological information in policymaking.” 
7-13

7.3.1 EPA Risk-Screening and Management Programs 

EPA’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) has a multifaceted approach to identifying 

and managing chemical risks. OPPT can initiate the review of a chemical in a number of ways, including 

under an Agency program, through a request by the Interagency Testing Committee or because of a 

request by the public. The Agency has a number of more detailed screening tools, such as the Use Cluster 

Scoring System (UCSS). Depending on the outcome of these screening processes, the next step may 

include entering one of EPA’s risk management programs. These types of programs and the benefits 

derived from the processing and use information provided on the IUR Form U are examined in detail in 

the economic analysis for the 2003 Amendments (EPA, 2002). EPA’s current programs and tools to 

evaluate and manage chemical risks include: 

• Risk Screening. OPPT screens chemicals on the TSCA Inventory to identify potential risks and 

determine whether more detailed assessments should be undertaken. With the data currently 

available, EPA does not have the information needed to effectively and systematically screen some of 

the chemicals on the Inventory. The amended IUR would supply exposure-related information the 

Agency does not currently have, recognizing industry has a greater knowledge than EPA about its 

own operations and the uses of chemicals it manufactures and sells. Without this information, EPA 

would likely: (1) not screen these chemicals, (2) screen them using outdated or anecdotal exposure 

information, or (3) screen them but rely on exposure estimates (which are typically conservative) 

using modeling data. Therefore, data collected as a result of the proposed rule will improve the 

Agency’s ability to screen chemicals in commerce, allowing the Agency to focus its chemical 

screening programs and to identify potentially risky situations earlier than otherwise possible. 

• High Production Volume Chemical Testing. EPA’s major efforts to prioritize existing chemicals 

began with data collected under the High-Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program, which 

makes available to the public screening-level environmental and health effects information on HPV 

chemicals produced or imported in the United States in quantities of one million lb. or more per year. 

At the conclusion of the voluntary HPV Challenge Program, EPA developed the first in a series of 

test rules to require the testing of high production volume chemicals for which no voluntary 

agreement was made. EPA finalized its first HPV test rule, covering 37 chemicals, in 2005. A second 

HPV rule was proposed in 2008, and a third rule is expected to be proposed in 2009. EPA also plans 

to develop an initial set of screening-level assessments of medium production volume (MPV) 

chemicals – those produced or imported in quantities above 25,000 lb. and less than one million lb. 

per year. In developing the test rules, EPA relied heavily on exposure information obtained from the 

IUR; improving the data collected through the IUR rule will enhance the quality of information used 

in decision making for future test rules. 

• Existing Chemicals Program. The Existing Chemicals Program conducts detailed analyses of 

potentially high-risk chemicals and develops strategies to reduce or eliminate the exposure risks. 

Chemicals are screened first to identify those (1) requiring additional testing, (2) presenting 

potentially significant risk management concerns, or (3) currently not requiring further review. While 

the proposed amendments to the IUR data would increase EPA’s ability to screen existing chemicals 

based on exposure and, ultimately, risk, more in-depth data similar to the New Chemicals Program 

data would lead to improved screening and a quicker identification of chemicals with a high priority 

for follow-up action. This would result in a more appropriate entry into EPA’s chemical management 

programs. The range of benefits EPA anticipates from being able to obtain more accurate and broader 

use information could be expanded with a greater amount of in-depth exposure and use information. 

The improved IUR data would be particularly helpful for screening medium and lower volume 

chemicals not covered by the HPV program. 

• Use Cluster Scoring System (UCSS). The UCSS tool identifies potential risks of chemical 

substances used in similar applications, or “use clusters.” This system enables the Agency to view the 
7-14

potential risks of a given chemical substance in the context of the potential risks presented by related 

products on the market and allows the Agency to establish regulatory review priorities for those use 

clusters. However, some of the UCSS data sources are outdated and the estimating methodologies are 

approximate. More in-depth exposure-related data could be used to create a database providing 

additional information that will allow the Agency to provide more accurate screening-level estimates 

for use clusters and to target Agency programs to areas currently needing attention. The additional 

exposure-related data would also enable EPA to more easily conduct broader chemical screening 

analyses across several industries. 

• Master Testing List. IUR data also help EPA determine which chemical substances are on the 

Master Testing List (MTL). The MTL is a list of chemicals identified by the Agency as having 

inadequate data for health and/or environmental risk assessments. OPPT uses the MTL to establish 

priorities for chemical testing, keep the public informed, solicit input from industry on specific 

chemical exposure and risk assessment needs, and to encourage industry to perform testing. More indepth exposure-related manufacturing, processing, and use data would enable EPA to better target 

testing needs to situations in which potential exposures are known to occur, thereby increasing the 

efficiency of efforts in these programs and facilitating earlier completion of critical testing needs. 

• Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) program. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation 

and Development’s (OECD) voluntary SIDS program allows OECD member countries to share the 

burden of testing internationally traded, large production volume chemicals. The United States is 

responsible for testing 25 percent of the chemicals identified for the program. The information needed 

is collected by industry sponsors; however, the data elements included may not be consistent across 

sponsors, and some companies may not participate in developing all of the data elements. Currently 

collected data and data collected through more in-depth exposure and use data requirements will 

enable the EPA to meet many key needs for exposure data and will provide a consistent database of 

information from manufacturers (including importers). This information will increase the program’s 

efficiency by helping to identify chemicals requiring additional testing or assessment while excluding 

those with low domestic exposure. An improved exposure database will also improve evaluation of 

potential risk in the assessment reports prepared at the end of the SIDS process. 

• Design for the Environment (DfE) program. EPA’s DfE program incorporates principles and 

strategies from both the Existing Chemicals Program and the UCSS, by focusing on specific chemical 

uses and establishing partnerships with industry to develop voluntary, long-range plans for risk 

management. Currently collected IUR data, which would be enhanced by data collected through more 

in-depth exposure and use data requirements, helps to identify use cluster candidates for this program. 

The more in-depth exposure-related data would also better enable the initial assessment of exposures 

and help identify potential substitutes. The data could be used to assist in ranking activities, 

identifying high-risk areas, and developing realistic approaches for reducing risk. 

7.3.2 Other Federal Risk Management Programs 

Under TSCA section 4, EPA has the authority to require firms to conduct tests of specific chemicals 

to determine the potential risk posed by these substances. However, other governmental agencies, such as 

the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH), and the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), share regulatory 

authority over chemical substances or products containing them. In the case of NIOSH, the agency 

compiles summaries of available information and recommends exposure limits. Therefore, EPA serves as 

a conduit for chemical hazard information between the chemical producers and these other agencies. 

OSHA currently manages occupational exposure to chemicals by setting a variety of chemical and 

personal protection standards, by requiring preparation of emergency response and process safety 

management plans and by requiring provision of health and safety data to workers for chemicals used in 
7-15

the workplace. OSHA will be able to use the IUR data to identify chemicals with large numbers of 

potentially exposed workers or with uses suggesting greater exposure potential. The information provided 

by the proposed rule could increase OSHA’s ability to manage chemical hazards, exposures, and risks in 

occupational settings. 

NIOSH will also benefit from the additional exposure-related information collected under the 

proposed rule amendments. The exposure information NIOSH uses to determine occupational safety and 

health in businesses nationwide may be based on outdated information collected under the National 

Occupational Exposure Survey (NOES). Completed in 1983, NOES collected information such as plant 

site location, plant site Standard Industrial Classification (SIC), information on the plant site’s 

occupational safety and health programs, occupational titles of workers potentially exposed, the number 

of employees per occupational title, information on process steps, and trade names of products. NIOSH 

could use IUR data in place of the NOES data to identify chemicals with large numbers of potentially 

exposed workers or with uses suggesting greater exposure potential. 

CPSC also could use the new data directly in conducting its exposure and risk assessment activities 

(e.g. screening consumer products for chemical hazards). CPSC obtains risk information to screen 

chemical hazards from a network of hospital emergency rooms. This information is limited to injuries and 

illnesses resulting from acute exposures only. 

Additional data required by the proposed IUR amendments would provide a better source of reliable 

information on the chemicals used in consumer products. CPSC would improve its ability to identify the 

chemicals used in consumer products and, with consideration of hazard data, to identify chemical 

consumer use scenarios presenting greater potential risk. The information could improve CPSC’s ability 

to meet its program objective of protecting the public from chemical hazards in consumer products. 

7.3.3 State and Local Programs 

IUR data also help state and local authorities with rulemaking, information collection, and voluntary 

program activities. Because state and local governments must address chemicals, use patterns, and 

exposure scenarios that may be unique or isolated, state and local agency access to the enhanced data will 

assist in identifying situations posing potentially high risks for individual states or locations within those 

states. The information added to the IUR includes county data, which will enable states to identify which 

counties are likely to have specific issues or which counties may have multiple chemicalrisk situations. 

The additional data also could be used to assist with setting goals, targeting actions, and developing or 

expanding pollution prevention activities. 

7.3.4 Nongovernmental Organization (NGO) Initiatives and Private-Sector Stewardship 

Many private-sector organizations have a strong interest in reducing risks and providing leadership in 

preventing pollution while still maintaining productive economic enterprises. These organizations can 

better meet these objectives by developing a better understanding of how chemicals are used in general. 

This will allow them to manage risks more effectively and participate in setting chemical priorities at 

community, regional, and national levels. 

The publicly available (non-CBI) information provided by the IUR supports activities typically 

undertaken by NGOs, such as tracking industry trends, organizing grassroots involvement in risk-based 

decision making, and conducting outreach and educational programs. These organizations could use the 

new data to identify and establish priorities for risks; to evaluate chemicals and chemical use patterns to 

determine areas of concern; to identify and promote pollution prevention opportunities; and to focus 

pollution prevention, public outreach, and education initiatives and activities. 

Industry can use the amended IUR information to improve corporate product stewardship programs 

through access to use information reported by multiple companies. The American Chemistry Council’s 

Responsible Care® Program is one example of one such program that could use this information. The 
7-16

Responsible Care Program requires companies to take responsibility for their products from cradle to 

grave, which requires an understanding of how their product is being used not only by their customers, 

but further down the chain. Despite this private effort, some companies have told EPA they do not know 

how their chemicals are used. Non-CBI use information provided by multiple companies could give an 

individual company a better understanding of the downstream uses of its products, therefore enabling 

more effective implementation of the Responsible Care concepts. 
8-1

8. Small Entity Analysis 

This chapter estimates the impact the proposed amendments to the IUR rule may have on small 

entities by examining the relationship between the compliance costs and company sales for small 

companies. 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires regulators to assess the effects of regulations on 

small entities, including businesses, nonprofit organizations, and governments. In some instances, 

agencies also are required to examine regulatory alternatives that may reduce adverse economic effects on 

significantly impacted small entities. The RFA requires agencies to prepare an initial and final regulatory 

flexibility analysis for each rule unless the Agency certifies the rule will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA, however, does not specifically define “a 

significant economic impact on a substantial number” of small entities. Sections 603 and 604 of the RFA 

require regulatory flexibility analyses to identify the types, and estimate the numbers, of small entities to 

which the rule will apply, and describe the rule requirements to which small entities will be subject and 

any regulatory alternatives, including exemptions and deferral, that would lessen the rule’s burden on 

small entities. 

The existing IUR rule, at §710.29, generally exempts from reporting small businesses, defined at 

§704.3 as entities with annual sales of less than $40 million and less than 100,000 lb. production of any 

given chemical at a site; or annual sales of less than $4 million. This exemption is maintained in the 

proposed amendments. In addition, a small business currently is required to report if it produces any 

chemical substance that is the subject of a regulation proposed or promulgated under TSCA sections 4, 

5(b)(4), or 6; that is the subject of an order under TSCA section 5(e); or that is the subject of relief that 

has been granted pursuant to a civil action under TSCA section 5 or 7. A small business may also report 

voluntarily. 

The major steps followed in the analysis are described in the following sections.. 

8.1 Select a Relevant Small Entity Definition 

The RFA relies on the definition of “small business” found in the Small Business Act, which 

authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to develop definitions for “small business” for 

industries in each North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. The SBA definitions 

typically are based upon either a sales or an employment level, depending on the nature of the industry. 

Companies engaged in chemical manufacturing (NAICS Code 325) or petroleum refining (NAICS Code 

324110) are the most likely to report under the IUR rule. Specifically, entities potentially affected by the 

proposed rule include companies manufacturing or importing chemicals in amounts of 25,000 lb. or more 

annually and are listed on the TSCA Inventory and regulated under TSCA §8. Under 13 CFR part 121, 

SBA defines small business for the six-digit NAICS industry based on employment thresholds (SBA, 

2004). These employee size standards range from 500 employees to 1,500 employees for NAICS Codes 

325 and 324110. For example, SBA defines a company in NAICS 325320 (Pesticide and Other 

Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing) as small if it has fewer than 500 employees. In comparison, a 

company in NAICS 324110 (Petroleum Refineries) is considered small if it has fewer than 1,500 

employees. To obtain an average estimate of the number of small companies affected by the proposed 

rule, EPA chose an employment threshold of 1,000 employees to determine small business status. 

Throughout the remainder of this report, this definition is referred to as the “employment-based 

definition.” 
8-2

For comparative purposes, EPA also considered an alternative definition based upon sales. Under this 

definition, a manufacturer or importer is defined as small under 40 CFR 704.3 if it meets either of the 

following criteria: 

• Total annual sales of the company, combined with those of any parent company, are below 

$40 million and annual production volume or importation volume at the facility is less than or equal 

to 100,000 lb.; or 

• Total annual sales of the company, combined with those of any parent company, are below 

$4 million. 

Consistent with the methodology used in the 2002 Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory 

Update Final Rule (EPA, 2002) , EPA assumed any company with sales less than or equal to $40 million 

is small, regardless of production volume.6

 This assumption may tend to overestimate the number of 

small businesses affected because it includes entities that may not meet all small business requirements 

under TSCA §8(a). Throughout the remainder of this report, this definition is referred to as the “salesbased definition.” 

8.2 Identify Number of Small Companies Reporting in 2006 

To identify the percentage of small companies reporting under the IUR rule, EPA obtained a list of all 

companies that submitted a Form U during the 2006 reporting cycle (EPA, 2009c). Using the Dun & 

Bradstreet Number reported by the company, EPA identified the ultimate parent company and obtained 

sales and employment data for companies for which data are available from Dun & Bradstreet Corporate 

Leads Portal (Dun & Bradstreet, 2009).7

During the 2006 reporting cycle, 4,1888

 sites submitted reports. Parent company data was available 

for 3,392 of these sites,9

 with 872 associated parent companies. Information for the remaining companies 

was unavailable for several reasons. First, these companies may be too small to be listed in Dun & 

Bradstreet. Second, the IUR data used may be out of date because it is based on IUR reporting for 2006 

(e.g., some companies may have gone out of business or changed hands since the information was 

reported). Finally, certain companies may have requested to be removed from, or may have declined to 

provide information to, Dun & Bradstreet. 

Using the sales data collected for the companies for which data was available, EPA estimated the 

average sales for the parent companies considered small under both definitions. 

Table 8-1 shows the percentage of parent companies from the 2006 IUR reporting which qualified for 

“small business” status, under both the employment-based and the sales-based definitions specified 

 

6

 It is important to note that the $40 million level is for parent company sales, not individual site sales. 

7 Dun & Bradstreet is a New York-based company that provides business information through a global commercial 

database. It assigns DUNS numbers to identify businesses around the world. These numbers are required for many 

U.S. federal government transactions and therefore are widely used and assigned. DUNS numbers are also used 

frequently in corporate research. Database entries provide legal and trade names, physical and mailing addresses, 

geographical descriptions, product and industry descriptors, sales and number of employees for three years and 

associated growth rates, as well as up to 40 vital statistics about each organization. While the reporting year varied 

by company, company sales and employment data were retrieved from the database in April 2009. 

8

 Note that this value (4,188) does not equal the number of sites assumed for the baseline in Table 4-6 (4,085). The 

data used to prepare Table 4-6 counted only sites submitting reports for chemicals with production volumes equal to 

or greater than 25,000 lb. (that is, those sites subject to the rule). The 4,188 sites in this dataset may include 

submitters who voluntarily submitted reports for chemicals with production volumes lower than 25,000 lb. 9

 This does not include parent companies listed in D&B as having either 0 employees or $0 sales. 
8-3

above. These results are fairly consistent with the 2002 EA’s estimates between 21 and 35 percent of the 

regulated community could be considered small businesses (EPA, 2002a). 

Table 8-1: Results of Dun & Bradstreet Analysis 

Existing Sites 

 (2006 Reporting Cycle)

Employment-based 

Definition 

Sales-based 

 Definition 

Number of Global Parent Companies with Data 872 872 

Number of Global Parent Companies Considered Small 360 218 

Percentage of Global Parent Companies Considered Small 41.3% 25.0% 

Average Annual Sales of Global Parent Companies 

Considered Small (2008$) $412,713,310 $11,638,441 

Source: Analysis of data from Dun & Bradstreet’s Corporate Leads Portal, April 2009. 

8.3 Estimate Number of Parent Companies 

Incomplete information on global parent companies from Dun & Bradstreet for all of the companies 

that submitted IUR reports in 2006 required EPA estimate the total number of parent companies in the 

baseline. One global parent company may submit reports for more than one site. Based on the sample of 

companies for which the parent company information is available, EPA estimates 3.89 sites per global 

parent company. Given that 4,188 sites submitted reports, EPA estimates the number of parent companies 

for the 2006 IUR reporting baseline is 1,076. 

As described in Section 4.5, the proposed amendments are expected to increase the number of sites 

reporting by 204. Therefore, EPA estimates the total number of global parent companies reporting under 

the revised IUR rule to increase by 52 from the baseline (that is, 52 “new” companies (204 ÷ 3.89 = 52)). 

8.4 Estimate Number of Small Companies 

EPA estimated the number of small companies potentially impacted by the proposed IUR 

amendments by applying the percentage of small companies derived in Table 8-1 to the total number of 

parent companies EPA expects to be subject to the rule under the proposed amendments. 

Table 8-2 shows the number of expected small companies, under both definitions. 
8-4

Table 8-2: Estimated Number of Small Companies under the Proposed IUR Rule Amendments 

Employment-based 

Definition 

Sales-based 

 Definition 

Baseline 

Companies 

New 

Companies 

Baseline 

Companies 

New 

Companies 

Total Number of Parent Companies 1,076 52 1,076 52 

Percent of Parent Companies Considered Small 41.3% 24.8% 

Number of Parent Companies Considered 

Small 444 22 267 13 

Total Number of Parent Companies 

Considered Small 466 280 

Limitations of the Analysis: The proposed amendments cause an increase in the number of sites 

reporting because of changes to the reporting volume thresholds and the timeframe in which the 

thresholds are applied. These amendments may have a disproportionate effect on smaller companies 

because they may be the ones manufacturing (including importing) chemicals at or around the 25,000 lb. 

threshold. Therefore, this method may underestimate the number of small businesses. Furthermore, to the 

extent the set of companies for which EPA was not able to find data is not statistically similar to the set of 

companies for which data was available, this analysis may under- or over-estimate the percentage of small 

companies. 

8.5 Estimate Cost-to-Sales Ratios for Small Companies 

Table 4-51 shows the total increase in industry costs associated with the proposed amendments, if all 

proposed amendments are implemented. As described in Section 4, industry costs involve compliance 

determination, rule familiarization, preparation and submission of reports, and recordkeeping. Because 

these costs would be incurred once every four years under a four-year reporting cycle, these costs were 

annualized over four years at both a three percent and seven percent discount rate.10 By dividing the 

annualized costs for the entire industry in the first reporting cycle by the number of expected sites (4,085), 

EPA obtained the per-site incremental cost. EPA assumes that the per-site cost is the same for each site, 

regardless of whether a site is small. 

EPA divided the total number of parent companies considered small (under either definition) by the 

number of sites associated with these parent companies to estimate the average number of sites per small 

parent company. This resulted in an average of approximately 1.76 sites per small company under the 

employee-based definition of small business and approximately 1.92 sites per small company under the 

sales-based definition. 

The RFA does not define the terms “significant” or “substantial” analytically with regard to the extent 

of the economic impact and number of small entities affected. However, EPA has often defined the lower 

threshold as compliance costs of one percent of sales and the higher threshold as compliance costs of 

three percent of sales to establish whether the level of economic impacts faced by the small entities can be 

presumed as not significant (U.S. EPA, 2006b). Therefore, to determine the magnitude of any potential 

adverse impact, EPA compared the average, annualized incremental costs on a per-company basis to the 

average annual sales for small businesses to develop cost-to-sales ratios. The derivation of these ratios is 

shown in Table 8-3. 

 10 A seven percent discount rate, reflecting the opportunity cost of capital, is consistent with OMB Circular A-4 

(OMB, 2003). A three percent discount rate was also used as a sensitivity analysis to examine the robustness of the 

results to a change in the annualization assumptions. 
8-5

Table 8-3: Derivation of Cost-to-Sales Ratios for Small Companies under the Proposed IUR Rule 

Amendments 

Employment-based Definition Sales-based Definition 

3% Discount 

Rate 

7% Discount 

Rate 

3% Discount 

Rate 

7% Discount 

 Rate 

Total Annualized 

Costs $21,607,475 $19,948,001 $21,607,475 $19,948,001 

Annualized Costs 

per Site $5,289 $4,883 $5,289 $4,883 

Number of Sites 

per Small Parent 

Company 

1.76 1.92 

Annualized Costs 

per Small Parent 

Company 

$9,309 $8,594 $10,156 $9,376 

Annual Sales per 

Small Parent 

Company 

$412,713,310 $412,713,310 $11,821,104 $11,821,104 

Cost-to-Sales 

Ratio 0.0023% 0.0021% 0.0859% 0.0793% 

Number of 

Companies 

Potentially 

Affected 

466 280 

As shown in Table 8-3, under the employment-based definition, a small parent company affected by 

the rule on average has sales of more than $412.7 million. The annualized costs of the proposed IUR rule 

amendments per small parent company, however, are $9,309 at a three percent discount rate, and even 

lower under a seven percent discount rate. The cost-to-sales ratio for an average small company under the 

employment-based definition would be 0.002 percent or less. Under the more conservative sales-based 

definition, small parent company sales are on average more than $11.8 million, with annualized costs 

associated with the proposed amendments of $10.156 or lower. The cost-to-sales ratio for an average 

small company under the sales-based definition would be 0.09 percent or less. 

Using the highest annual cost shown in Table 8-3, $10,156, a small company would have to have 

annual sales of less than $1.02 million in order to have a cost-to-sales ratio larger than one percent. As 

mentioned in Section 8. , firms with sales of $4 million or less are generally exempt from IUR reporting 

because they fall within the applicable definition of “small manufacturer,” regardless of production 

volume (40 CFR §704.3). Therefore, companies small enough to have a cost-to-sales ratio greater than 

one percent generally will be exempt from reporting under the proposed IUR rule, and thus will not be 

significantly affected by the amendments. 

8.6 Summary 

EPA analyzed potential small business impacts from this rule using the SBA employment-based 

definition and the TSCA sales-based definition. EPA estimates 466 small firms potentially would be 

affected by this proposed rule under the employment-based definition of the term, and 280 small firms 

potentially would be affected under the sales-based definition of the term. Based on costs annualized over 

a four-year period and average sales data, EPA estimated the cost-to-sales ratio of the proposed rule 

would be 0.002 percent or less under the employment-based definition for an average small company 

subject to the rule, and 0.09 percent or less under the sales-based definition. As noted above, EPA often 

defines the lower threshold as compliance costs of one percent of sales and the higher threshold as 
8-6

compliance costs of three percent of sales to establish whether the level of economic impacts faced by the 

small entities can be presumed as not significant. For a company to have a cost-to-sales ratio larger than 

one percent, company sales would have to be less than $1.02 million. Because the small businesses 

affected by the proposed rule actually have average sales of more than $11 million, and because any 

potentially affected companies with sales of $1.02 million or less would generally be exempt from 

reporting obligations under the IUR, small entities will not be significantly affected by the proposed 

amendments to the IUR rule.
9-1

9. Additional Analyses 

9.1 Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 

1993), this action is a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of the Executive Order because it 

may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the 

principles set forth in the Executive Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action. 

9.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

 Pursuant to Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4), EPA has 

determined this regulatory action does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of 

$100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or for the private sector, in 

any one year. The analysis of the costs associated with this action is described in Unit VII.A. Thus, this 

rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. 

 In addition, EPA has determined this rule does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. 

This is because only manufacturers (including importers) of chemical substances are affected by the rule. 

No action is required by small governments that are not chemical manufacturers (including importers). 

Accordingly, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 203 of UMRA. 

9.3 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 USC 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct 

or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond, to a collection of information that requires Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and 

displays a valid OMB control number. The information collection requirements related to the submission 

of Form Us are already approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. That Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been 

assigned EPA ICR number 1884.04 and OMB control number 2070-0162. Because this rule involves new 

or revised information collection activities requiring additional OMB approval, EPA has prepared an 

addendum to the currently approved ICR (EPA, 2010). 

The Paperwork Reduction Act mandates federal agencies estimate the recordkeeping and reporting 

burden of a proposed rule. In this context, the term “burden” is interpreted as the total time, effort, or 

financial resources expended by people to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide information to 

or for a federal agency. This includes the time needed by regulated entities to review instructions and to 

develop, acquire, install, and use technology and systems to collect, validate, verify, and disclose 

information. Time taken to adjust existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions 

and requirements and to train personnel to respond to the information collection task is also included. In 

this section, burden hours for both industry respondents and the government are estimated. 

In this report, total industry burden hours represent the sum of time spent on reporting and on other 

administrative activities. Industry respondents will spend time on the following activities associated with 

the IUR rule: compliance determination, rule familiarization, preparation and submission of reports, and 

recordkeeping. 

As derived in Section 4.5 of this report, EPA estimates the proposed rule would impose a total 

estimated incremental industry burden of 1.39 million hours, in the first reporting cycle, if all proposed 
9-2

amendments are implemented. The burden for the average site will increase by approximately 341 hours 

per site to 792 hours. 

9.4 Executive Order 13132 - Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to 

develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism 

implications” are defined in the Executive Order to include regulations having “substantial direct effects 

on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.” 

EPA has determined this proposed rule does not have federalism implications because it will not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, 

or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 

in the Order. This rule simply amends the Inventory Update Reporting rule in several ways to provide 

information to better address Agency and public information needs, improve the usability and reliability 

of the reported data, and ensure data are available in a timely manner. Because EPA has no information 

indicating any state or local government manufactures or processes the chemical substances covered by 

this action, the proposed rule does not apply directly to states and localities and will not affect state and 

local governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed rule. 

9.5 Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice 

Executive Order (EO) 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)), establishes federal executive 

policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and 

addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of 

their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United 

States. 

The proposed rule does not have an adverse impact on the environmental and health conditions in 

low-income and minority communities requiring special consideration by the Agency under EO 12898.

The Agency believes the information collected under this proposed rule, if finalized, will assist EPA and 

others in determining the potential hazards and risks associated with the chemicals covered by the rule. 

Because the IUR rule is an information collection requirement, the information that will become available 

through the rule will enable the Agency to target educational, regulatory, or enforcement activities 

towards industries or chemicals posing the greatest risks and/or to target programs for geographic areas 

that are at the highest risk. Thus, the information to be gathered under the rule will help EPA make 

decisions that will benefit potentially at-risk communities, some of which may be disadvantaged. 

The proposed rule is directed at manufacturers or importers of chemicals. All consumers of these 

chemical products and all workers who come into contact with these chemicals could benefit if data 

regarding the chemicals’ health and environmental effects were developed. Therefore, it does not appear 

that the costs and the benefits of the proposed rule will be disproportionately distributed across different 

geographic regions or among different categories of individuals. 

9.6 Executive Order 13045 – Children’s Health 

Executive Order 13045, “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), requires that federal agencies examine the impacts of each 
9-3

regulatory action on children for any economically significant regulation (as defined by Executive Order 

12866) that the agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children. The proposed rule is 

not subject to EO 13045, because it does not establish an environmental standard intended to mitigate 

health or safety risks, nor does it otherwise have a disproportionate effect on children. Furthermore, the 

proposed rule is not economically significant. Nevertheless, the information obtained by the reporting 

required by this rule will be used to inform the Agency’s decision-making process regarding chemicals to 

which children may be disproportionately exposed. This information will also assist the Agency and 

others in determining whether the chemicals in this proposed rule present potential risks, allowing the 

Agency and others to take appropriate action to investigate and mitigate those risks.

9.7 Executive Order 13175 – Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

As required by Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian 

Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), EPA has determined that this proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications because it will not have any effect on tribal governments, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 

between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in the Order. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this rule. 

9.8 Executive Order 13211 – Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions 

Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. 

9.9 National Technology Transfer Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 

Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in 

its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the 

Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards. 

This proposed action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the 

use of any voluntary consensus standards. 
10-1

10. References 

BLS, 2009. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary 

Tables: Historical Data December 2006 – December 2008. March 12, 2009.

http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsuphst.pdf. 

Dun & Bradstreet, 2009. Dun & Bradstreet Corporate Leads Portal. Database searches. April 2009. 

EPA, 1997. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. 

Economic Analysis of the Final Rule to Add Certain Industry Groups to EPCRA Section 313. 

Washington, DC. April 1997. 

EPA, 2002a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis 

Branch. Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPA-HQ-OPPT2002-0054-0260). Washington, DC. August 2002. 

EPA, 2002b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis 

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

EPA, 2003. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. ICR No. 574.12. [Information 

Collection Request for] Premanufacture Review Reporting and Exemption Requirement for New 

Chemical Substances and Significant Use Reporting Requirements for Chemicals Substances.

Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. 

Washington, DC. November 25, 2003. 

EPA, 2004. U.S. EPA. Office of Environmental Information. Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule 

(CROMERR) Cost Benefit Analysis: Final (EPA-HQ-OEI-2003-0001-0248). November 2004. 

Washington, DC. http://www.regulations.gov/. 

EPA, 2005. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. 

Economic Analysis of IUR Modifications Final Rule (EPA-HQ OPPT 2004-0106-0055). Washington, 

DC. July 2005. 

EPA, 2006a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Instructions for Reporting for the 

2006 Partial Updating of the TSCA Chemical Inventory Database. Washington, DC. November 2006. 

http://www.epa.gov/iur/pubs/2006_inst_tsca_cheminv.pdf. 

EPA, 2006b. U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation. Final Guidance for EPA 

Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act. Washington, DC. November 2006. 

EPA, 2007. U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information. A Business Case Analysis of EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange. Washington, DC. March 2007. 

EPA, 2008a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. What is the TSCA Chemical Substance 

Inventory? http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/pubs/invntory.html. Washington, DC. Updated 

December 10, 2008. 

EPA, 2008b. U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Economic and Policy Analysis 

Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 56 Chemical Substances 

(EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0251). October 2008. 

EPA, 2008c. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Information Management Division. 

2006 IUR Database Statistics for IUR Modifications Rule. Washington, DC. December 17, 2008. 

EPA, 2008d. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, ICR No. 1884.04. [Information 

Collection Request for] Partial Update of the TSCA Section 8(b) Inventory Data Base, Production 
10-2

and Site Report, Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. Washington, DC. September 5, 2008. 

EPA, 2009a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Information Management Division. 

Chemicals Ineligible for Exemptions under Proposed IUR Modifications Rule. (2006 IUR Database 

Statistics). Washington, DC. May 12, 2009. 

EPA, 2009b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis 

Branch. Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule. 

(EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0296). Washington, DC. July 13, 2009. 

EPA, 2009c. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Information Management Division. 

IUR Company Names and Related Information. (Database query results). Washington, DC. April 14, 

2009. 

EPA, 2009d. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Information Management Division. 

2002 IUR Database Statistics for IUR Modifications Rule. Washington, DC. April 30, 2009. 

EPA, 2009e. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Information Management Division. 

Email communication from Darryl Ballard to Wendy Hoffman. Washington, DC. May 19, 2009. 

EPA, 2009f. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. TSCA Section 4 Federal Register 

Enforceable Consent Agreements. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/4eca.html. Washington, 

DC. Updated October 1, 2009. 

EPA, 2009g. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Sunset Dates of Chemicals Subject to 

Final TSCA Section 4 and Related 12(b) Actions, Modified on September 1, 2009. 

http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/sunset.html. Washington, DC. Updated September 1, 2009. 

EPA, 2009h. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Chemical Control Division. Memo 

from Susan Sharkey to Wendy Hoffman. Washington, DC. September 8, 2009. 

EPA, 2010. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, ICR No. 1884.05. [Information 

Collection Request for] Addendum to Partial Update of the TSCA Section 8(b) Inventory Data Base, 

Production and Site Reports. Washington, DC. July, 2010. 

OPM, 2008. Office of Personnel Management, Salary Table 2008-DCB, Washington Baltimore-Northern 

Virginia, DC-MD-PA-VA-WV. http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/pdf/DCB.pdf. 

U.S. Postal Service (USPS), 2009. USPS – Prices. http://www.usps.com/prices/. December 15, 2009. 
 A-1

Appendix A. 2006 Form U 
 A-2
 B-1

Appendix B. Proposed Revised Form U 
 B-2
 B-3
 B-4
 C-1

Appendix C. – Current and Proposed Industrial Function Categories 

Table C-1: List of Current and Proposed Industrial Function Categories 

Current IUR Industrial Function Categories Proposed IUR Industrial Function Categories 

1. Adsorbents and absorbents 

2. Adhesives, binders, and sealants 

3. Aerosol Propellants*

 

4. Agricultural chemicals (non-pesticidal) 

5. Anti-adhesive agents 

6. Bleaching agents 

7. Coloring agents, dyes1 

8. Coloring agents, pigments1

9. Corrosion inhibitors and anti-scaling agents 

10. Fillers 

11. Fixing agents* 

12. Flame retardants 

13. Flotation agents*

 

14. Fuels 

15. Functional fluids3

 

16. Intermediates 

17. Lubricants1

18. Odor agents2

19. Oxidizing agents 

20. pH-regulating agents*

 

21. Photosensitive chemicals 

22. Plating agents and surface treating agents 

23. Processing aids, not otherwise listed 

24. Process regulators, used in vulcanization or 

polymerization processes2

 

25. Process regulators, other than polymerization or 

vulcanization processes2

 

26. Reducing agents2

27. Solvents (for cleaning and degreasing) 

28. Solvents (which become part of product formulation or 

mixture) 

29. Solvents (for chemical manufacture and processing and 

are not part of product at greater than 1% by weight)*

 

30. Stabilizers*

31. Surface active agents 

32. Viscosity adjustors 

33. Other1

 

1. Abrasives+

2. Adsorbents and absorbents 

3. Adhesives and sealant chemicals 

4. Agricultural chemicals (non-pesticidal) 

5. Anti-adhesive agents 

6. Bleaching agents 

7. Corrosion inhibitors and anti-scaling agents 

8. Dyes1

9. Fillers 

10. Finishing agents+

11. Flame retardants 

12. Fuels and fuel additives 

13. Functional fluids (closed systems)3

14. Functional fluids (open systems) 3

15. Intermediates 

16. Ion exchange agents+

17. Lubricants and lubricant additives1

18. Odor agents 

19. Oxidizing/reducing agents2

20. Photosensitive chemicals 

21. Pigments1

22. Plasticizers+

23. Plating agents and surface treating agents 

24. Process regulators2

25. Processing aids, specific to petroleum 

production+

26. Processing aids, not otherwise listed 

27. Propellants and blowing agents+

28. Solids separation agents+

29. Solvents (for cleaning and degreasing) 

30. Solvents (which become part of product 

formulation or mixture) 

31. Surface active agents 

32. Viscosity adjustors 

33. Laboratory chemicals 

34. Paint additives and coating additives not 

described by other categories 

35. Other (specify) 1

Notes: 

1

 A current industrial function category has been renamed under the proposed amendment, but the definition of the category has not changed. 2 Two current industrial function categories have been combined into one category under the proposed rule. 3 A single industrial function category has been divided into two categories under the proposed rule. *

 Indicates that a current industrial function category is being eliminated under the proposed rule. + Indicates that a current function category is added under the proposed rule. 
 D-1

Appendix D. Current and Proposed Consumer and Commercial Product 

Categories 

EPA is proposing to revise the list of consumer and commercial product categories by combining 

categories that lead to common exposure scenarios and adding categories that were not adequately 

described in the current set of categories. 

Table D-1: List of Current and Proposed Consumer and Commercial Product Categories 

Current IUR Consumer and Commercial 

Product Categories 

Proposed IUR Consumer and Commercial 

Product Categories 

1. Adhesives and sealants 

2. Agricultural products (non-pesticidal) 

3. Artists' supplies 

4. Automotive care products 

5. Electrical and electronic products 

6. Fabrics, textiles and apparel 

7. Glass and ceramic products 

8. Lawn and garden products (non-pesticidal) 

9. Leather products 

10. Lubricants, greases and fuel additives 

11. Metal products 

12. Paints and coatings 

13. Paper products 

14. Photographic supplies 

15. Polishes and sanitation goods 

16. Rubber and plastic products 

17. Soaps and detergents 

18. Transportation products 

19. Wood and wood furniture 

20. Other 

21. Not readily obtainable 

Chemical Substances in Furnishing, Cleaning, 

Treatment/Care Products 

1. Floor Coverings 

2. Foam Seating and Bedding Products 

3. Furniture and Furnishings not covered elsewhere 

4. Fabric, Textile, and Leather Products not covered 

elsewhere 

5. Cleaning and Furnishing Care Products 

6. Laundry and Dishwashing Products 

7. Water Treatment Products 

8. Personal Care Products 

9. Air Care Products 

10. Apparel and Footwear Care Products 

Chemical Substances in Construction, Paint, 

Electrical, and Metal Products 

11. Adhesives and Sealants 

12. Paints and Coatings 

13. Building/Construction Materials - Wood and 

Engineered Wood Products 

14. Building/Construction Materials not covered 

elsewhere 

15. Electrical and Electronic Products 

16. Metal Products not covered elsewhere 

17. Batteries 

Chemical Substances in Packaging, Paper, Plastic, 

Toys, Hobby Products 

18. Food Packaging 

19. Paper Products 

20. Plastic and Rubber Products not covered 

elsewhere 

21. Toys, Playground, and Sporting Equipment 

22. Arts, Crafts, and Hobby Materials 

23. Ink, Toner, and Colorant Products 

24. Photographic Supplies, Film, and Photochemicals 

Chemical Substances in Automotive, Fuel, 

Agriculture, Outdoor Use Products 

25. Automotive Care Products 

26. Lubricants and Greases 

27. Anti-Freeze and De-icing Products 

28. Fuels and Related Products 

29. Explosive Materials 
 D-2

30. Agricultural Products (non-pesticidal) 

31. Lawn and Garden Care Products 

Chemical Substances in Products not Described by 

Other Categories

32. Non-TSCA Use 

33. Other (specify) 
 E-1

Appendix E. – Industrial Sectors 

EPA is proposing to replace the NAICS codes used in the industrial processing and use information 

section with a new set of Industrial Sectors, developed from the European Union’s REACH program. 

Code Sector Description

IS1 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 

IS2 Oil and Gas Drilling, Extraction, and 

support activities 

IS3 Mining (except Oil and Gas) and support 

activities 

IS4 Utilities 

IS5 Construction 

IS6 Food, beverage, and tobacco product 

manufacturing 

IS7 Textiles, apparel, and leather 

manufacturing 

IS8 Wood Product Manufacturing 

IS9 Paper Manufacturing 

IS10 Printing and Related Support Activities 

IS11 Petroleum Refineries 

IS12 Asphalt Paving, Roofing, and Coating 

Materials Manufacturing 

IS13 Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease 

Manufacturing 

IS14 All other Petroleum and Coal Products 

Manufacturing 

IS15 Petrochemical Manufacturing 

IS16 Industrial Gas Manufacturing 

IS17 Synthetic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing 

IS18 Carbon Black Manufacturing 

IS19 All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical 

Manufacturing 

IS20 Cyclic Crude and Intermediate 

Manufacturing 

IS21 All Other Basic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing 

IS22 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 

IS23 Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing 

IS24 Organic Fiber Manufacturing 

IS25 Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural 

Chemical Manufacturing 

IS26 Pharmaceutical and Medicine 

Manufacturing 

IS27 Paint and Coating Manufacturing 

IS28 Adhesive Manufacturing 

IS29 Soap, Cleaning Compound, and Toilet 

Preparation Manufacturing 

IS30 Printing Ink Manufacturing 

IS31 Explosives Manufacturing 

IS32 Custom Compounding of Purchased 

Resins 

IS33 Photographic Film, Paper, Plate, and 

Chemical Manufacturing 

Code Sector Description

IS34 All Other Chemical Product and 

Preparation Manufacturing 

IS35 Plastics Product Manufacturing 

IS36 Rubber Product Manufacturing 

IS37 Nonmetallic Mineral Product 

Manufacturing (includes clay, glass, 

cement, concrete, lime, gypsum, and other 

nonmetallic mineral product 

manufacturing) 

IS38 Primary Metal Manufacturing 

IS39 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 

IS40 Machinery Manufacturing 

IS41 Computer and Electronic Product 

Manufacturing 

IS42 Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and 

Component Manufacturing 

IS43 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing 

IS44 Furniture and Related Product 

Manufacturing 

IS45 Miscellaneous Manufacturing 

IS46 Wholesale and Retail Trade 

IS47 Services 

IS48 Other (requires additional information) 
 F-1

Appendix F. – Sensitivity Analyses 

Some of EPA’s proposed amendments to the IUR rule are expected to change the number of 

submitters, reports, or the number of responses to a specific question on Form U. For several options, data 

available from the 2006 IUR was used to directly estimate the number of chemicals or submitters affected 

by the amendment. For example, the number of submitters who produce manufactured water above the 

threshold is known. However, a lack of available data for other amendments meant EPA only was able to 

estimate the impact broadly, such as a percentage increase or decrease in the number of submitters caused 

by the amendment, using the Agency’s best professional judgment. These amendments include (1) the 

method for determining whether the threshold is met, (2) reporting production volume used on-site, (3) 

requiring write-in text if submitter selects “Other” as a product function category, (4) requiring write-in 

text if selecting “Other” as a consumer or commercial use, and, (5) upfront substantiation for all 

processing and use information CBI claims. In estimating the cost of these amendments, EPA used a 

midpoint estimate for the percentage increase or decrease in the number of submitters, reports filed, or 

number of submitters answering a specific question. To show the possible range of costs as a result of the 

proposed amendments more accurately, EPA presents a range of costs in this section, using the lower and 

upper bounds for the item estimated. 

F.1 Method for Determining Whether the Threshold Is Met 

Currently, the IUR rule requires a report be filed for a chemical only if the chemical’s production 

volume exceeds the 25,000 lb. threshold in the principal IUR reporting year. EPA is proposing to modify 

the timeframe for reporting in fulture reporting cycles subsequent to 2011 so chemical manufacturers 

(including importers) would be subject to the IUR rule if a chemical’s production volume has met or 

exceeded the threshold in any calendar year since the last principal reporting year. The Agency expects 

this will increase the number of sites and reports submitted by between zero and ten percent of the 

baseline (see Table 4-6). In Section 5.4, the Agency estimated the increase in cost and burden to industry 

using a midpoint estimate of five percent. Using a five percent increase in the number of sites and reports, 

EPA expects the burden to industry will increase by approximately 72,000 hours in future reporting 

cycles (see Table 4-12). Table F-1: contains the results of the sensitivity analysis using a lower bound 

estimate of a zero percent increase in the number of submitters and an upper bound estimate of a ten 

percent increase. All baseline burden estimates were taken from Table 4-2. The increase in burden to 

industry is expected to range from zero hours to aproximately 143,000 hours as a result of modifying the 

method for determining whether the 25,000 lb. threshold is met in future reporting cycles. 
 F-2

Table F-1: Sensitivity Analysis of Industry Burden Estimates for Modifying the Method for 

Determining Whether the Threshold Is Met (Future Reporting Cycles Only) 

Number of Sites Number of Reports 

(with Part II) 

Number of Reports 

(with Part III) 

Industry Burden Burden to (hours) Prepare Part I, 

Rule 

Familiarization, 

Compliance 

Determination, 

and Submission 

(hours per site) 

Lower 

Bound 

(0% 

increase) 

Upper 

Bound 

(10% 

increase) 

Burden 

to 

Prepare 

Part II 

and 

Record 

Keeping 

(hours 

per 

report) 

Lower 

Bound 

(0% 

increase) 

Upper 

Bound 

(10% 

increase) 

Burden 

to 

Prepare 

Part III 

(hours 

per 

report) 

Lower 

Bound 

(0% 

increase) 

Upper 

Bound 

(0% 

increase) 

Lower 

Bound 

(10% 

increase) 

Upper 

Bound 

(10% 

increase) 

(a) (b) (b) (c) (d) (d) (e) (f) (f) (g) = (a∗ b)+ 

(c∗ d)+(e∗f) 

Baseline 9.08 4,085 4,085 17.06 25,896 25,896 55.93 17,075 17,075 1,433,833 1,433,833 

PostAmendment 9.08 4,085 4,494 17.06 25,896 28,486 55.93 17,075 18,783 1,433,833 1,577,216 

Change 

from the 

Baseline 

0.00 0 409 0.00 0 2,590 0.00 0 1,708 0 143,383 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the post-amendment value.

Table F-2 shows the range of cost estimates using a zero percent lower bound and ten percent upper 

bound increase in the number of reports and submitters as a result of the proposed amendment. All 

baseline cost estimates are taken from Table 4-5. EPA estimates a cost to industry between $0 and $8.28 

million. The midpoint cost estimate of $4.14 million is used in Table 4-13. 

Table F-2: Sensitivity Analysis of Industry Cost Estimates for Modifying the Method for 

Determining Whether the Threshold Is Met (Future Reporting Cycles Only) 

Number of Sites Number of Reports 

(with Part II) 

Number of Reports 

(with Part III) 

Industry Cost Cost to Prepare (millions 2008$) Part I, Rule 

Familiarization, 

Compliance 

Determination 

and Submission 

(2008$ per site) 

Lower 

Bound 

(0% 

increase) 

Upper 

Bound 

(10% 

increase) 

Cost to 

Prepare 

Part II 

and 

Record 

Keeping 

(2008$ 

per 

report) 

Lower 

Bound 

(0% 

increase) 

Upper 

Bound 

(10% 

increase) 

Cost to 

Prepare 

Part III 

(2008$ per 

report) 

Lower 

Bound 

(0% 

increase) 

Upper 

Bound 

(10% 

increase) 

Lower 

Bound 

(0% 

increase) 

Upper 

Bound 

(10% 

increase) 

(a) (b) (b) (c) (d) (d) (e) (f) (f) (g) = (a∗ b)+ 

(c∗ d)+(e∗f) 

Baseline $560.77 4,085 4,085 $968.39 25,896 25,896 $3,247.40 17,075 17,075 $82.82 $82.82 

PostAmendment $560.77 4,085 4,494 $968.39 25,896 28,486 $3,247.40 17,075 18,783 $82.82 $91.10 

Change 

from the 

Baseline 

$0.00 0 409 $0.00 0 2,590 $0.00 0 1,708 $0.00 $8.28 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the post-amendment value.

The cost and burden to the Agency of this amendment were calculated in Section 5.4. With a five 

percent increase in the number of reports, the Agency’s burden is expected to increase by 104 hours (see 

Table 5-5). The range in the burden increase to EPA, using a lower bound zero percent increase in the 

number reports and an upper bound increase of ten percent, is presented in Table F-3. Baseline Agency 

burden is taken from Table 5-4. The proposed amendment is expected to increase the Agency burden by 

between zero and 208 hours. 
 F-3

Table F-3: Sensitivity Analysis of Agency Burden Estimates for Modifying the Method for 

Determining Whether the Threshold Is Met (Future Reporting Cycles Only) 

Number of Sites Number of Reports 

(with Part II) 

Number of Reports 

(with Part III) 

Industry Burden 

(hours) Burden 

to 

Process 

Part I 

(hours) 

Lower 

Bound 

(0% 

increase) 

Upper 

Bound 

(10% 

increase) 

Burden 

to 

Process 

Part II 

(hours) 

Lower 

Bound 

(0% 

increase) 

Upper 

Bound 

(10% 

increase) 

Burden 

to 

Process 

Part 

III 

(hours) 

Lower 

Bound 

(0% 

increase) 

Upper 

Bound 

(10% 

increase) 

Lower 

Bound 

(0% 

increase) 

Upper 

Bound 

(10% 

increase) 

(a) (b) (b) (c) (d) (d) (e) (f) (f) (g) = (a∗ b)+ 

(c∗d)+(e∗f) 

Baseline 0.017 4,085 4,085 0.042 25,896 25,896 0.054 17,075 17,075 2,080 2,080 

PostAmendment 0.017 4,085 4,494 0.042 25,896 28,486 0.054 17,075 18,783 2,080 2,288 

Change 

from the 

Baseline 

0.000 0 409 0.000 0 2,590 0.000 0 1,708 0 208 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the post-amendment value.

Table F-4 shows the range in Agency costs as a result of modifying the method for determining 

whether the threshold is met. Baseline Agency costs are taken from Table 5-4. The proposed amendment 

is expected to increase the Agency cost between approximately $0 and $21,700 during the first reporting 

cycle. 

Table F-4: Sensitivity Analysis of Agency Cost Estimates for Modifying the Method for 

Determining Whether the Threshold Is Met (Future Reporting Cycles Only) 

Number of Sites Number of Reports 

(with Part II) 

Number of Reports 

(with Part III) 

Industry Cost 

(2008$) Cost 

to 

Process 

Part I 

(2008$) 

Lower 

Bound 

(0% 

increase) 

Upper 

Bound 

(10% 

increase) 

Cost to 

Process 

Part II 

(2008$) 

Lower 

Bound 

(0% 

increase) 

Upper 

Bound 

(10% 

increase) 

Cost to 

Process 

Part 

III 

(2008$) 

Lower 

Bound 

(0% 

increase) 

Upper 

Bound 

(10% 

increase) 

Lower 

Bound 

(0% 

increase) 

Upper 

Bound 

(10% 

increase) 

(a) (b) (b) (c) (d) (d) (e) (f) (f) (g) = (a∗ b)+ 

(c∗d)+(e∗f) 

Baseline $1.78 4,085 4,085 $4.40 25,896 25,896 $5.61 17,075 17,075 $216,949 $216,949 

PostAmendment $1.78 4,085 4,494 $4.40 25,896 28,486 $5.61 17,075 18,783 $216,949 $238,644 

Change 

from the 

Baseline 

$0.00 0 409 $0.00 0 2,590 $0.00 0 1,708 $0 $21,695 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the post-amendment value.

F.2 Reporting Production Volume Used On-Site 

The cost to industry of requiring the reporting of production volume used on-site is estimated in 

Section 4.4.13. EPA estimated between 14.8 percent of all reports (the percentage of reports which 

included a site-limited volume in 2006 reporting (EPA 2008c)) and 24 percent of all reports (the 

percentage of 2006 reports which claim the chemicals is an intermediate in the downstream use and 

processing section (EPA, 2008c)) would report production volume used on-site. Therefore, the total 

number of reports with volume used on-site ranges from 3,833 to 6,215 reports. Using a midpoint of 19.4 

percent, industry burden is expected to increase by 7,596 hours (see Table 4-24). Table F-5 shows the 

burden estimates using the lower and upper bounds for the number of reports that will contain information 

on production volume used on-site. The baseline cost per report is taken from Table 4-6. EPA expects the 

total industry burden to range from 5,800 to 9,400 hours. 
 F-4

Table F-5: Sensitivity Analysis of Industry Burden Estimates for Reporting Production Volume 

Used On-Site 

Number of Reports with 

Production Volume Used 

 On-Site 

Total Industry Burden 

 (hours) 

Burden per 

Report to Report 

Production 

Volume Used 

On-Site 

 (hours) 

Lower Limit 

(14.8% of all 

Reports) 

Upper Limit 

(24% of all 

Reports) 

Lower Limit 

(14.8% of 

all Reports) 

Upper Limit 

(24% of all 

Reports) 

Baseline 0.00 0 0 0 0 

Post-Amendment 1.51 3,833 6,215 5,795 9,397 

Change from the 

Baseline 1.51 3,833 6,215 5,795 9,397 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the post-amendment value.

Table F-6 contains the range of cost estimates using a 14.8 percent lower bound and 24 percent upper 

bound increase in the number of reports under the proposed amendment. All baseline cost estimates are 

taken from Table 4-5. EPA estimates a cost to industry between $324,500 and $526,300, with a midpoint 

estimate of $0.43 million (see Table 4-25). 

Table F-6: Sensitivity Analysis of Industry Cost Estimates for Reporting Production Volume Used 

On-Site 

Number of Reports with 

Production Volume Used 

On-Site 

Total Industry Cost 

 (2008$) 

Cost per Report 

to Report 

Production 

Volume Used 

On-Site 

(2008$) 

Lower Limit 

(14.8% of 

all Reports) 

Upper Limit 

(24% of all 

Reports) 

Lower 

Limit 

(14.8% of 

all Reports) 

Upper Limit 

(24% of all 

Reports) 

Baseline $0.00 0 0 $0 $0 

Post-Amendment $84.68 3,833 6,215 $324,544 $526,288 

Change from the 

Baseline $84.68 3,833 6,215 $324,544 $526,288 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the post-amendment value.

In Section 5.4.13, EPA calculated the burden to the Agency of requiring the reporting of production 

volume used on-site, using 19.4 percent as the estimated amount of reports listing production volume 

used on-site is calculated in Section 5.4.13. The resulting burden was 4.51 hours. In Table F-7, EPA 

calculates the range of burden estimates to the Agency, using a range of 14.8 to 24 percent as the amount 

of reports listing production volume used on-site. The resulting burden is 3.44 to 5.57 hours per reporting 

cycle. The baseline burden per report is taken from Table 5-4. 
 F-5

Table F-7: Sensitivity Analysis of Agency Burden Estimates for Reporting Production Volume 

Used On-Site 

Number of Reports with 

Production Volume Used 

On-Site 

Burden per Report to Report 

Production Volume Used 

On-Site (hours) 

Burden per 

Report to Report 

Production 

Volume Used 

On-Site 

 (hours) 

Lower Limit 

(14.8% of all 

Reports) 

Upper Limit 

(24% of all 

Reports) 

Lower Limit 

(14.8% of 

all Reports) 

Upper Limit 

(24% of all 

Reports) 

Baseline 0.000 0 0 0.00 0.00 

Post-Amendment 0.001 3,833 6,215 3.44 5.57 

Change from the 

Baseline 0.001 3,833 6,215 3.44 5.57 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the post-amendment value.

Table F-8 contains the range in costs to EPA as a result of modifying the method for determining 

whether the threshold is met. Baseline costs to EPA are taken from Table 5-4. The proposed amendment 

is expected to increase the Agency cost between approximately $359 and $581 during the first reporting 

cycle. 

Table F-8: Sensitivity Analysis of Agency Cost Estimates for Reporting Production Volume Used 

On-Site 

Number of Reports with 

Production Volume Used 

 On-Site 

Cost per Report to Report 

Production Volume Used 

On-Site (2008$) 

Cost per Report to 

Report Production 

Volume Used 

On-Site 

(2008$) 

Lower Limit 

(14.8% of all 

Reports) 

Upper Limit 

(24% of all 

Reports) 

Lower Limit 

(14.8% of 

all Reports) 

Upper Limit 

(24% of all 

Reports) 

Baseline $0.00 0 0 $0.00 $0.00 

Post-Amendment $0.09 3,833 6,215 $359 $581 

Change from the 

Baseline $0.09 3,833 6,215 $359 $581 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the post-amendment value.

F.3 Modifying Industrial Function Categories 

EPA is proposing to modify the current industrial function categories (found in Part III, Section A of 

Form U), by eliminating seven existing categories and adding seven new categories, and requiring 

submitters to write in a free-text descriptor when they select “Other”. EPA anticipates these actions will 

reduce the number of submitters selecting “Other” by approximately 50 percent, from 1,206 reports to 

603 (EPA, 2008a). The burden increase of 4,400 hours and cost increase of $260,000 are calculated in 

Section 4.4.18. 

The Agency conducted a sensitivity analysis for these estimates, with the decrease in reports selecting 

“Other” ranging from a 25 percent reduction of the total (905 reports in total) to a 75 percent reduction in 

total (302 reports in total). The results of this analysis for industry burden are found in Table F-9. A 75 

percent reduction in the number of submitters claiming “Other” means 25 percent of submitters are now 

claiming “Other,” and a 25 percent reduction means 75 percent of submitters are now claiming “Other.” 

The columns in this table and the remaining tables in this Appendix are labeled to reflect the resulting 

numbers; e.g., they show the lower resulting number in the “Lower Bound” column and the higher 

resulting number in the “Upper Bound” column. 
 F-6

Baseline burden estimates are taken from Table 4-2 and the baseline number of reports is found in 

Table 4-6. EPA estimates the burden to industry will increase by between 4,300 and 4,400 hours. 

Table F-9: Sensitivity Analysis of Industry Burden Estimates for Requiring Write-in Text for 

“Other” as an Industrial Function Category 

Number of Reports with 

“Other” 

Write-in Text 

Total Industry Burden 

(hours) 

 

Burden for 

Rule 

Familiarization 

of Additional 

Categories 

(hours) 

Number 

of Reports 

with 

Industrial 

Function 

Categories 

Burden 

for 

Write-in 

Text for 

"Other" 

(hours) 

Lower 

Bound 

(25% of 

Submitters

Claim 

"Other") 

Upper 

Bound 

(75% of 

Submitters

Claim 

"Other") 

Lower 

Bound 

(25% of 

Submitters 

Claim 

"Other") 

Upper 

Bound 

(75% of 

Submitters 

Claim 

"Other") 

Baseline 8.59 17,075 0.00 0 0 146,661 146,661 

PostAmendment 8.84 17,075 0.15 302 905 150,975 151,066 

Change 

from the 

Baseline 

0.25 0 0.15 302 905 4,314 4,404 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the post-amendment value.

Table F-10 contains the range of cost estimates to industry with a lower bound estimate of a 75 

percent decrease in the number of reports with “Other” as industrial function categories and an upper 

bound of a 25 percent decrease in the number of reports with “Other” as industrial function categories. All 

baseline cost estimates are taken from Table 4-5. EPA estimates a cost to industry between $253,400 and 

$257,800, with a midpoint estimate of $256,000 (see Table 4-33). 

Table F-10: Sensitivity Analysis of Industry Cost Estimates for Requiring Write-in Text for “Other” 

as an Industrial Function Category 

Number of Reports with 

“Other” Write-in Text 

Total Industry Cost 

(2008$) 

 

Cost for Rule 

Familiarization 

of Additional 

Categories 

(2008$) 

Number 

of Reports 

with 

Industrial 

Function 

Categories 

Cost for 

Write-in 

Text for 

"Other" 

(2008$) 

Lower 

Bound 

(25% of 

Submitters

Claim 

"Other") 

Upper 

Bound 

(75% of 

Submitters

Claim 

"Other") 

Lower 

Bound 

(25% of 

Submitters 

Claim 

"Other") 

Upper 

Bound 

(75% of 

Submitters 

Claim 

"Other") 

Baseline $88.02 17,075 $0.00 0 0 $1,502,913 $1,502,913 

PostAmendment $102.73 17,075 $7.31 302 905 $1,756,287 $1,760,693 

Change 

from the 

Baseline 

$14.71 0 $7.31 302 905 $253,374 $257,780 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the post-amendment value.

Using a 50 percent decrease in the number of reports with “Other” selected, the burden to the Agency 

during a reporting cycle is 0.54 hours and is calculated in Section 5.4.18. Table F-11 contains the range of 

burden estimates to the Agency, 0.27 hour to 0.81 hours per reporting cycle. The baseline Agency burden 

estimates per report are taken from Table 5-4. 
 F-7

Table F-11: Sensitivity Analysis of Agency Burden Estimates for Requiring Write-in Text for 

“Other” as an Industrial Function Category 

Number of Reports with "Other" 

Write-in Text 

Total Agency Burden 

(hours) Burden to 

Process 

Write-in 

Text for 

"Other" 

(hours) 

Lower Bound 

(25% of 

Submitters 

Claim 

"Other") 

Upper Bound 

(75% of 

Submitters 

Claim 

"Other") 

Lower Bound 

(25% of 

Submitters 

Claim 

"Other") 

Upper Bound 

(75% of 

Submitters 

Claim 

"Other") 

Baseline 0.000 0 0 0.00 0.00 

Post-Amendment 0.001 302 905 0.27 0.81 

Change from the 

Baseline 0.001 302 905 0.27 0.81 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the post-amendment value.

Table F-12 contains the range in costs to EPA as a result of modifying the industrial function 

categories. Baseline costs to EPA are taken from Table 5-4. The proposed amendment is expected to 

increase the Agency cost between approximately $28 and $85 during the first reporting cycle. 

Table F-12: Sensitivity Analysis of Agency Cost Estimates for Requiring Write-in Text for “Other” 

as an Industrial Function Category 

Number of Reports with "Other" 

Write-in Text 

Total Agency Cost 

(2008$) Cost to 

Process 

Write-in 

Text for 

"Other" 

(2008$) 

Lower Bound 

(25% of 

Submitters 

Claim 

"Other") 

Upper Bound 

(75% of 

Submitters 

Claim 

"Other") 

Lower Bound 

(25% of 

Submitters 

Claim 

"Other") 

Upper Bound 

(75% of 

Submitters 

Claim 

"Other") 

Baseline $0.00 0 0 $0 $0 

Post-Amendment $0.09 302 905 $28 $85 

Change from the 

Baseline $0.09 302 905 $28 $85 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the post-amendment value

F.4 “Other” as a Consumer and/or Commercial Product Category 

EPA is proposing to revise the list of consumer and commercial product categories by combining 

categories leading to common exposure scenarios and adding categories not adequately described in the 

current set of categories. The resultant proposed list includes 33 product categories, including “Other.” 

Several consumer and commercial product categories have been renamed to better describe the products 

that should be reported in that category. EPA is also proposing to require that if the product category 

“Other” is selected; a descriptor for the consumer and/or commercial product containing the chemical 

substance also to be reported. According to 2006 IUR data (EPA, 2008c), 1,207 reports listed “Other” as 

a consumer and/or commercial product category. Based on EPA’s best professional judgment, EPA 

expects the new categories in the proposed amendment will reduce by half the number of submitters 

selecting “Other” as a consumer and/or commercial product category. Therefore, this amendment would 

affect 604 reports. The cost and burden to industry with a 50 percent reduction in the number of 

submitters is found in Section 4.4.20. 

The Agency conducted a sensitivity analysis for the decrease in reports selecting “Other” ranging 

from a 25 percent reduction of the total (905 reports in total) to a 75 percent reduction of the total (302 

reports in total). The results of this analysis for industry are found in Table F-13. Baseline burden 
 F-8

estimates are taken from Table 4-2 and the baseline number of reports is found in Table 4-6. EPA 

estimates the burden to industry will increase between 16,000 and 16,100 hours. 

Table F-13: Sensitivity Analysis of Industry Burden Estimates for Requiring Write-in Text for 

“Other” as a Consumer and/or Commercial Product Category 

Number of Reports with 

"Other" Write-in Text 

Total Industry Burden 

(hours) 

 

Burden for 

Rule 

Familiarization 

of Additional 

Categories 

(hours) 

Number of 

Reports 

with 

Consumer/ 

Commercial

Product 

Categories 

Burden 

for 

Write-in 

Text for 

"Other" 

(hours) 

Lower 

Bound 

(25% of 

Submitters

Claim 

"Other") 

Upper 

Bound 

(75% of 

Submitters

Claim 

"Other") 

Lower 

Bound 

(25% of 

Submitters 

Claim 

"Other") 

Upper 

Bound 

(75% of 

Submitters

Claim 

"Other") 

Baseline 8.59 17,075 0.00 0 0 146,661 146,661 

PostAmendment 9.52 17,075 0.15 302 905 162,672 162,762 

Change 

from the 

Baseline 

0.94 0 0.15 302 905 16,010 16,101 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the post-amendment value.

Table F-14 shows the range of cost estimates to industry with a lower bound estimate of a 75 percent 

decrease in the number of “Other” as a consumer and/or commercial product category and an upper 

bound of a 25 percent decrease in the number of “Other” as a consumer and/or commercial product 

categories. All baseline cost estimates are taken from Table 4-5. EPA estimates a cost to industry of 

between $843,000 and $848,000, with a midpoint estimate of $846,000 (see Table 4-35). 

Table F-14: Sensitivity Analysis of Industry Cost Estimates for Requiring Write-in Text for “Other” 

as a Consumer and/or Commercial Product Category 

Number of Reports with 

"Other" Write-in Text 

Total Industry Cost 

(2008$) 

 

Cost for Rule 

Familiarization 

of Additional 

Categories 

(2008$) 

Number of 

Reports 

with 

Consumer/ 

Commercial

Product 

 Categories 

Cost for 

Write-in 

Text for 

"Other" 

(2008$) 

Lower 

Bound 

(25% of 

Submitters

Claim 

"Other") 

Upper 

Bound 

(75% of 

Submitters

Claim 

"Other") 

Lower 

Bound 

(25% of 

Submitters 

Claim 

"Other") 

Upper 

Bound 

(75% of 

Submitters

Claim 

"Other") 

Baseline $70.64 17,075 $0.00 0 0 $1,206,177 $1,206,177 

PostAmendment $119.90 17,075 $7.31 302 905 $2,049,551 $2,053,962 

Change 

from the 

Baseline 

$49.26 0 $7.31 302 905 $843,374 $847,785 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the post-amendment value.

Using a 50 percent decrease in the number of reports with “Other” selected, the burden to the Agency 

during each reporting cycle is 0.54 hours and is calculated in Section 5.4.20. Table F-15 shows the range 

of burden estimates to the Agency; 0.27 hour to 0.81 hours per reporting cycle. The baseline Agency 

burden estimates per report are taken from Table 5-4. 
 F-9

Table F-15: Sensitivity Analysis of Agency Burden Estimates for Requiring Write-in Text for 

“Other” as a Consumer and/or Commercial Product Category 

Number of Reports with "Other" 

Write-in Text 

Total Agency Burden 

(hours) Burden to 

Process 

Write-in 

Text for 

"Other" 

(hours) 

Lower Bound 

(25% of 

Submitters 

Claim 

"Other") 

Upper Bound 

(75% of 

Submitters 

Claim 

"Other") 

Lower Bound 

(25% of 

Submitters 

Claim 

"Other") 

Upper Bound 

(75% of 

Submitters 

Claim 

"Other") 

Baseline 0.000 0 0 0.00 0.00 

Post-Amendment 0.001 302 905 0.27 0.81 

Change from the 

Baseline 0.001 302 905 0.27 0.81 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the post-amendment value.

Table F-16 shows the range in costs to EPA as a result of modifying the consumer and commercial 

product categories. Baseline costs to EPA are taken from Table 5-4. The proposed amendment is expected 

to increase the Agency cost between $28 and approximately $85 during the first reporting cycle. 

Table F-16: Sensitivity Analysis of Agency Cost Estimates for Requiring Write-in Text for “Other” 

as a Consumer and/or Commercial Product Category 

Number of Reports with "Other" Writein Text Total Agency Cost 

(2008$) 

Lower Bound 

(25% of 

Submitters 

Claim 

"Other") 

Upper Bound 

(75% of 

Submitters 

Claim 

"Other") 

Lower Bound 

(25% of Submitters 

Claim 

"Other") 

Upper Bound 

(75% of Submitters 

Claim 

"Other") 

Baseline 0 0 $0 $0 

Post-Amendment 302 905 $28 $85 

Change from the 

Baseline 302 905 $28 $85 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the post-amendment value.

F.5 Upfront CBI Substantiation 

EPA is requiring an upfront substantiation when a submitter claims processing and use information as 

confidential business information (CBI). In 2002, when EPA first required upfront substantiation for 

claiming plant site IDs as CBI, the Agency saw a 64 percent reduction in the number of CBI claims. The 

Agency expects the number of DPU CBI claims to decrease by the same amount as a result of this 

proposed amendment. According to 2006 IUR data (EPA, 2008c), a total of 8,133 reports had claimed 

processing and use information was CBI, with an average of three CBI claims for processing and use 

information per report. The estimates for industry cost of $773,000 and burden of 12,800 hours, 

associated with the 8,133 CBI claims are found in Section 4.4.25. 

The Agency conducted a sensitivity analysis, assuming the reduction in CBI claims has a lower 

bound of 84 percent, meaning 16 percent of submitters make a CBI claim in Part III, and an upper bound 

of 44 percent, meaning 56 percent of submitters make a CBI claim in Part III. Table F-17 contains range 

in burden increase to industry as a result of the proposed amendment. The burden is expected to increase 

by between 5,700 and 19,900 hours. 
 F-10

Table F-17: Sensitivity Analysis of Industry Burden Estimates for Requiring Upfront CBI 

Substantiation 

Number of Reports with CBI Claims 

in Part III 

Industry Burden 

 (hours) 

 

Burden for 

Upfront CBI 

Substantiation 

for CBI 

Claims in 

Part III 

(hours) 

Lower Limit 

 (16% of 

Submitters 

Claim CBI) 

Upper Limit 

(56% of 

Submitters 

Claim CBI) 

Lower Limit 

(16% of 

Submitters 

Claim CBI) 

Upper Limit 

(56% of 

Submitters 

Claim CBI) 

Baseline 0.00 8,133 8,133 0 0 

PostAmendment 4.38 1,301 4,554 5,700 19,949 

Change from 

the Baseline 4.38 -6,832 -3,579 5,700 19,949 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the post-amendment value.

Table F-18 shows the range of cost estimates to industry, with a lower bound estimate of an 84 

percent decrease in the number of DPU CBI claims and an upper bound of a 44 percent decrease in the 

number of DPU CBI claims. All baseline cost estimates are taken from Table 4-5. EPA estimates industry 

cost of between $343,400 and $1.2 million, with a midpoint estimate of $773,000 (see Table 4-33). 

Table F-18: Sensitivity Analysis of Industry Cost Estimates for Requiring Upfront CBI 

Substantiation 

Number of Reports with CBI Claims 

in Part III 

Industry Cost 

 (2008$) 

Cost for 

Upfront CBI 

Substantiation 

for CBI 

Claims in 

 Part III 

(2008$) 

Lower Limit 

(16% of 

Submitters 

Claim CBI) 

Upper Limit 

(56% of 

Submitters 

Claim CBI) 

Lower Limit 

(16% of 

Submitters 

Claim CBI) 

Upper Limit 

(56% of 

Submitters 

Claim CBI) 

Baseline $0.00 8,133 8,133 $0 $0 

PostAmendment $263.90 1,301 4,554 $343,413 $1,201,944 

Change from 

the Baseline $263.90 -6,832 -3,579 $343,413 $1,201,944 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the post-amendment value.

Using a 64 percent decrease in the number CBI claims, the Agency burden increase during each 

reporting cycle is calculated as eight hours in Section 5.4.25. Table F-19 contains the range of burden 

estimates to the Agency, which is 3.50 hours to 12.25 hours per reporting cycle. The baseline Agency 

burden estimates per report are taken from Table 5-4. 
 F-11

Table F-19: Sensitivity Analysis of Agency Burden Estimates for Requiring Upfront CBI 

Substantiation 

Number of Reports with CBI Claims 

in Part III 

Agency Burden 

 (hours) 

Burden for 

Upfront CBI 

Substantiation 

for CBI 

Claims in 

Part III 

(hours) 

Lower Limit 

(16% of 

Submitters 

Claim CBI) 

Upper Limit 

(56% of 

Submitters 

Claim CBI) 

Lower Limit 

(16% of 

Submitters 

Claim CBI) 

Upper Limit 

(56% of 

Submitters 

Claim CBI) 

Baseline 0.00 8,133 8,133 0 0 

PostAmendment 0.28 1,301 4,554 3.50 12.25 

Change 

from the 

Baseline 

0.28 -6,832 -3,579 3.50 12.25 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the post-amendment 

value.

Table F-20 contains the range in costs to EPA as a result of modifying the industrial function 

categories. Baseline costs to EPA are taken from Table 5-4. The proposed amendment is expected to 

increase the Agency cost between $365 and $1,278 during the first reporting cycle. 

Table F-20: Sensitivity Analysis of Agency Cost Estimates for Requiring Upfront CBI 

Substantiation 

Number of Reports with CBI Claims 

in Part III 

Agency Cost 

(2008$) 

Cost for 

Upfront CBI 

Substantiation 

for CBI 

Claims in 

 Part III 

Lower Limit 

(16% of 

Submitters 

Claim CBI) 

Upper Limit 

(56% of 

Submitters 

Claim CBI) 

Lower Limit 

(16% of 

Submitters 

Claim CBI) 

Upper Limit 

(56% of 

Submitters 

Claim CBI) 

Baseline $0.00 8,133 8,133 $0 $0 

PostAmendment $0.28 1,301 4,554 $365 $1,278 

Change 

from the 

Baseline 

$0.28 -6,832 -3,579 $365 $1,278 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the post-amendment 

value.
 G-1

Appendix G. – Alternative Regulatory Options 

In developing the proposed amendments to the IUR rule, EPA considered other regulatory options as 

alternatives to some of the proposed amendments. These options are considered both as alternatives to all 

the proposed amendments, and in addition to the proposed amendments outlined in Chapter 3. The burden 

and cost for these alternate regulatory options are described in the following sections. 

G.1 Require Submitters to Submit Full Data Annually 

As an alternative to the amendment described in Section 3.5.4, which would require submitters to 

report production volume for each of the years since the last IUR report, EPA considered an option in 

which submitters would be required to submit all Form U data for each year they meet or exceed the 

reporting threshold. EPA calculated the cost and burden of this option under two different scenarios. The 

first calculates the cost and burden to the industry and the Agency without considering the other proposed 

amendments. The second scenario estimates the cost and burden to all affected entities if all the proposed 

amendments outlined in Section 3. are enacted. 

G.1.1 Annual Reporting Cost and Burden when the Option is Considered by Itself 

Under this alternative option, EPA estimated the cost to the industry and the Agency of annual 

reporting when the option is considered by itself, with none of the other proposed amendments 

considered. The annual reporting cost and burden would be the same as in the baseline burden shown in 

Table 4-10. The number of submitters is not expected to change from year to year, after the first reporting 

cycle. While the Agency is aware that a site’s production volume may vary yearly, causing the site to 

meet or exceed the threshold in some years but not in others, EPA believes on average, the total number 

of sites and reports would remain unchanged from year to year. 

EPA analyzed the burden and costs over a 25-year period. EPA assumes submitters will become more 

efficient at reporting data over time, and therefore incur a smaller burden in future reporting cycles. 

Future-cycle reporting burden is taken from Table 4-11. 

The annual industry burden under the baseline and the alternative option is shown in Table G-1. In 

total, EPA estimates the industry burden would increase by approximately 22.94 million hours over 25 

years (five reporting cycles). Over one future five-year reporting cycle, the industry burden is expected to 

increase by 5.74 million hours (1.43 million hours x 4 years) compared to the baseline. 

Table G-1: Industry Burden under the Alternative Option to Require Submitters to Submit Full Data 

Annually 

Baseline Burden Post-Alternative 

Option Burden 

Change from 

Reporting Cycle Years Baseline 

(millions of hours) (millions of hours) (millions of hours) 

1 2007 to 2011 1.84 1.84 0.00 

2 2012 to 2016 1.43 7.17 5.74 

3 2017 to 2021 1.43 7.17 5.74 

4 2022 to 2026 1.43 7.17 5.74 

5 2027 to 2031 1.43 7.17 5.74 

Total 7.58 30.52 22.94 

Annual Average 0.30 1.22 0.92 
 G-2

The industry cost under the baseline and this alternative option is shown in Table G-2. EPA estimates 

the industry cost would increase by $1.33 billion over a 25-year period. The annualized cost increase 

ranges from $44.34 million with a seven percent discount rate to $49.54 million with a three percent 

discount rate. Over one five-year reporting cycle, this option would increase industry cost by 

approximately $331 million ($82.8 million x 4 years) compared to the baseline. 

Table G-2: Industry Cost under the Alternative Option to Require Submitters to Submit Full Data 

Annually 

Baseline Cost Post-Alternative 

Option Cost 

Change from 

Reporting Cycle Years Baseline 

(2008$ millions) (2008$ millions) (2008$ millions) 

1 2007 to 2011 $106.97 $106.97 $0.00 

2 2012 to 2016 $82.82 $414.09 $331.27 

3 2017 to 2021 $82.82 $414.09 $331.27 

4 2022 to 2026 $82.82 $414.09 $331.27 

5 2027 to 2031 $82.82 $414.09 $331.27 

Total $438.24 $1,763.32 $1,325.08 

Annual Average $17.53 $70.53 $53.00 

Annualized at 3% $16.80 $66.34 $49.54 

Annualized at 7% $15.88 $60.22 $44.34 

 The baseline burden to EPA during each reporting cycle is two FTEs, or 4,160 hours (see Section 

5-2). While the burden for each reporting cycle will not change as a result of this amendment, more 

frequent reporting would increase costs to the Agency. Table G-3 contains the total Agency burden of the 

annual reporting option, over a 25-year period. EPA estimates Agency burden would increase by a total of 

66,600 hours over a 25-year period (five reporting cycles). Over one five-year reporting cycle, the 

Agency burden would increase by 16,600 hours (4,160 hours x 4 years) compared to the baseline. 

Table G-3: Agency Burden under the Alternative Option to Require Submitters to Submit Full Data 

Annually 

Baseline Burden 

Post-Alternative 

Option 

Change 

from 

Baseline Reporting Cycle Years 

(hours) (hours) (hours) 

1 2007 to 2011 4,160 4,160 0 

2 2012 to 2016 4,160 20,800 16,640 

3 2017 to 2021 4,160 20,800 16,640 

4 2022 to 2026 4,160 20,800 16,640 

5 2027 to 2031 4,160 20,800 16,640 

Total 20,800 87,360 66,560 

Annual Average 832 3,494 2,662 

The annual Agency cost under the baseline and the alternative option is shown in Table G-4, and is 

taken from Table 5-3. In total, EPA estimates this option would increase the Agency cost by 

approximately $1.86 million over one five-year reporting cycle. Over a 25-year period, the annualized 

Agency cost is expected to increase between $359,900 with a seven percent discount rate, and $367,300 

with a three percent discount rate compared to the baseline. 
 G-3

Table G-4: Agency Cost under the Alternative Option to Require Submitters to Submit Full Data 

Annually 

Baseline Cost Post-Alternative Option 

Cost 

Change from 

Reporting Cycle Years Baseline 

(2008$) (2008$) (2008$) 

1 2007 to 2011 $466,133 $466,132 $0.00 

2 2012 to 2016 $466,133 $2,330,664 $1,864,532 

3 2017 to 2021 $466,133 $2,330,664 $1,864,532 

4 2022 to 2026 $466,133 $2,330,664 $1,864,532 

5 2027 to 2031 $466,133 $2,330,664 $1,864,532 

Total $2,330,664 $9,788,790 $7,458,126 

Annual Average $93,227 $391,552 $298,325 

Annualized at 3% $87,798 $366,630 $291,617 

Annualized at 7% $81,056 $466,133 $359,885 

G.1.2 Annual Reporting Cost and Burden when the All the Proposed Amendments are 

Considered 

EPA estimated the cost and burden of annual reporting in addition to the proposed amendments 

outlined in Chapter 3. Under this alternative, the annual reporting cost and burden would be the same as 

the burden when all the amendments are considered, as shown in Table 4-50. After the first reporting 

cycle, the number of submitters is not expected to change from year to year. 

The industry burden of annual reporting is shown in Table G-5. The annual reporting option is 

expected to increase the industry burden by approximately 39.58 million hours over a 25-year period, for 

a total industry burden of 56.01 million hours. EPA estimates over one four-year reporting cycle (note 

under the proposed amendments, a reporting cycle would be changed to four years) the industry burden 

would increase by approximately 7.92 million hours (2.64 million hours x 3 years) compared to the 

baseline. 

Table G-5: Industry Burden under the Alternative Option to Require Submitters to Submit Full Data 

Annually when all the Proposed Amendments are Considered 

Baseline Burden Post-Alternative 

Option Burden 

Change from 

Reporting Cycle Years Baseline 

(millions of hours) (millions of hours) (millions of hours) 

1 2007 to 2011 3.24 3.24 0.00 

2 2012 to 2015 2.64 10.56 7.92 

3 2016 to 2019 2.64 10.56 7.92 

4 2020 to 2023 2.64 10.56 7.92 

5 2024 to 2027 2.64 10.56 7.92 

6 2028 to 2031 2.64 10.56 7.92 

Total 16.43 56.01 39.58 

Annual Average 0.66 2.24 1.58 

The industry baseline cost is taken from Table 4-51. EPA estimates annual reporting would increase 

industry cost by approximately $2.43 billion over a 25-year period. The change in annualized cost ranges 

from $81.39 million with a seven percent discount rate to $90.90 million with a three percent discount 

rate as shown in Table G-6. Over one four-year reporting cycle, this option would increase industry cost 

by approximately $486 million ($162.08 x 3 years) compared to the baseline. 
 G-4

Table G-6: Industry Cost under the Alternative Option to Require Submitters to Submit Full Data 

Annually when all the Proposed Amendments are Considered 

Baseline Cost Post-Alternative 

Option Cost 

Change from 

Reporting Cycle Years Baseline 

(2008$ millions) (2008$ millions) (2008$ millions) 

1 2007 to 2011 $198.84 $198.84 $0.00 

2 2012 to 2015 $162.08 $648.33 $486.25 

3 2016 to 2019 $162.08 $648.33 $486.25 

4 2020 to 2023 $162.08 $648.33 $486.25 

5 2024 to 2027 $162.08 $648.33 $486.25 

6 2028 to 2031 $162.08 $648.33 $486.25 

Total $1,009.25 $3,440.49 $2,431.24 

Annual Average $40.37 $137.62 $97.25 

Annualized at 3% $38.40 $129.30 $90.90 

Annualized at 7% $35.83 $117.22 $81.39 

The Agency baseline burden when all the proposed amendments are considered is taken from Table 

5-40. The annual reporting option is expected to increase Agency burden by approximately 36,800 hours 

when all amendments are considered (see Table G-7). Over a four-year reporting cycle, EPA estimates 

Agency burden would increase by approximately 7,400 hours (2,456 hours x 3 years) compared to the 

baseline. 

Table G-7: Agency Burden under the Alternative Option to Require Submitters to Submit Full Data 

Annually when all the Proposed Amendments are Considered 

Baseline Burden Post-Alternative 

Option Burden 

Change from 

Reporting Cycle Years Baseline 

(millions of hours) (millions of hours) (millions of hours) 

1 2007 to 2011 2,439 2,439 0 

2 2012 to 2015 2,456 9,826 7,369 

3 2016 to 2019 2,456 9,826 7,369 

4 2020 to 2023 2,456 9,826 7,369 

5 2024 to 2027 2,456 9,826 7,369 

6 2028 to 2031 2,456 9,826 7,369 

Total 14,721 51,568 36,847 

Annual Average 589 2,063 1,474 

The baseline Agency cost when all the proposed amendments are enacted is taken from Table 5-41. 

The total Agency cost under the annual reporting option when all proposed amendments are considered is 

shown in Table G-8. Over a 25-year period, Agency cost would increase by approximately $4.33 million, 

with annualized costs increases ranging from approximately $205,000 with a seven percent discount rate 

to $227,000 with a three percent discount rate. Over one four-year reporting cycle, the Agency cost is 

expected to increase by $865,000 ($288,450 x 3 years) compared to the baseline. 
 G-5

Table G-8: Agency Cost under the Alternative Option to Require Submitters to Submit Full Data 

Annually when all the Proposed Amendments are Considered 

Baseline Cost 

Post-Alternative 

Option Cost 

Change from 

Reporting Cycle Years Baseline 

(2008$) (2008$ millions) (2008$ millions) 

1 2007 to 2011 $286,580 $286,580 $0 

2 2012 to 2015 $288,450 $1,153,800 $865,350 

3 2016 to 2019 $288,450 $1,153,800 $865,350 

4 2020 to 2023 $288,450 $1,153,800 $865,350 

5 2024 to 2027 $288,450 $1,153,800 $865,350 

6 2028 to 2031 $288,450 $1,153,800 $865,350 

Total $1,728,830 $6,055,580 $4,326,750 

Annual Average $69,153 $242,223 $173,070 

Annualized at 3% $65,011 $226,783 $161,773 

Annualized at 7% $59,642 $204,495 $144,853 

G.1.3 Small Entity Analysis 

The following section provides a preliminary assessment of the impact annual Form U submissions 

may have on small entities by examining the relationship between the compliance costs and company 

sales for small companies. This analysis is based on the methodology described in Chapter 8 of this 

report. All costs and burdens are estimated under the assumption all the proposed amendments are 

enacted. 

EPA estimated in Chapter 8 of this report there are 3.89 manufacturing sites per global parent 

company; 41.3 percent of global parent companies (466 companies) are considered small under the SBA 

employment-based definition,11 and 24.8 percent (280 companies) are considered small under the TSCA 

sales-based definition.12 EPA also estimated an average of approximately 1.76 sites per small company 

under the employment-based definition of small business, and approximately 1.92 sites per small 

company under the sales-based definition. EPA estimated average annual sales revenue of global parent 

companies considered small under either definition using data from Dun & Bradstreet, as also described 

in Chapter 8. 

Table 4-51 shows the annual incremental cost of the rule to industry. Because this cost would be 

incurred once every year under an annual reporting cycle, it was not discounted. As shown in Table G-9 

below, these costs were divided by the total number of sites expected to submit data, for the annualized 

costs per site. This was multiplied by the number of sites per small parent company to arrive at the 

annualized costs per small parent company. This value was divided by the annual sales per small parent 

company to derive the cost-to-sales ratio. 

As shown in Table G-9, under the employment-based definition, a small parent company affected by 

the rule on average has sales of more than $412.7 million. The annual costs of the proposed IUR rule 

amendments per small parent company, however, are $39,582. The cost-to-sales ratio for an average 

small company under the employment-based SBA definition would be 0.01 percent or less. Under the 

more conservative sales-based TSCA definition, small parent company sales are on average more than 

$11.8 million, with annualized costs associated with the proposed amendments of $43,181. The cost-tosales ratio for an average small company under the sales-based definition would be 0.364 percent or less. 

 

11 Threshold of 1,000 employees. 12 Total annual sales of the company, combined with those of any parent company, are below $40 million and annual 

production volume or importation volume at the facility is less than or equal to 100,000 lb.; or total annual sales of 

the company, combined with those of any parent company, are below $4 million. 
 G-6

Using the highest annual cost shown in Table G-9 of $43,181, a small company would have to have 

annual sales of less than $4.32 million in order to have a cost-to-sales ratio larger than one percent. 

Table G-9: Derivation of Cost-to-Sales Ratios for Small Manufacturers for Collection of Annual 

Reporting 

 

Employment-based 

Definition Sales-based Definition 

Total Incremental Annual Costs $91,871,064

Total Number of Sites 4,085 

Annual costs per site $21,490 

Number of sites per small parent company 1.76 1.92 

Annualized costs per small parent company $39,582 $43,181 

Annual sales per small parent company $412,713,310 $11,821,104 

Cost-to-sales ratio 0.010% 0.365% 

Number of companies potentially affected 466 280 

G.2 Modify Reporting Frequency to a Three-Year Cycle 

As an alternative to the proposed amendment described in Section 3.13, which would modify the 

reporting frequency to a four-year cycle, the Agency considered increasing the reporting frequency to 

once every three years, if the manufacturer exceeds the production volume threshold in any calendar year 

of the cycle. EPA estimates the burden of this option on all affected entities, both when the option is 

considered by itself and when all the proposed amendments are considered. 

G.2.1 Three-Year Reporting Cycle Cost and Burden when the Option is Considered by Itself 

EPA’s analysis of industry burden and cost for this amendment is similar to that described in Section 

4.4.31; the burden in any one reporting cycle will not change, but the longer-term burden to industry will 

increase because reporting will become more frequent. However, the Agency assumes no additional 

reports will be submitted as a result of reducing the length of the reporting cycle. (While the mix of 

chemicals might change, EPA assumes the total number of reports will remain relatively static.) To be 

comparable with the proposed four-year reporting cycle option, costs to industry are calculated over a 20-

year period. 

The annual industry burdens under the baseline and under this alternative option are shown in Table 

G-10. The industry burden is taken from Table 4-10 for the first reporting cycle and from Table 4-11 for 

all future reporting cycles. In total, EPA estimates under this option, industry would incur an additional 

burden of 2.87 million hours over a 20-year period. 
 G-7

Table G-10: Annual Industry Burden under the Alternative Option of a Three-Year Reporting Cycle 

Baseline Burden Post-Amendment 

Burden Change in Burden Reporting Cycle1 Years 

(millions of hours) (millions of hours) (millions of hours) 

1 2007 to 2011 1.84 1.84 0.00 

2012 to 2016 1.43 -- 2 

2012 to 2014 -- 1.43 0.00 

2017 to 2021 1.43 -- 3 

2015 to 2017 -- 1.43 0.00 

2022 to 2026 1.43 -- 4 

2018 to 2020 -- 1.43 0.00 

5 2021 to 2023 -- 1.43 1.43 

6 2024 to 2026 -- 1.43 1.43 

Total 6.14 9.01 2.87 

Annual Average 0.31 0.45 0.14 1

 The non-italicized reporting cycles are baseline, five-year cycles, and the italicized reporting cycles are alternative, three-year cycles.

The annual industry cost under the baseline and this alternative option are shown in Table G-11. In 

total, EPA estimates this option would increase costs to industry by $165.64 million over a 20-year 

period, with annualized costs increases ranging from $6.96 million with a seven percent discount rate to 

$7.75 million with a three percent discount rate. 

Table G-11: Industry Cost under the Alternative Option of a Three-Year Reporting Cycle 

Baseline Cost Post-Alternative 

Option Cost 

Change from 

Reporting Cycle Baseline 1 Years 

(2008$ millions) (2008$ millions) (2008$ millions) 

1 2007 to 2011 $106.97 106.97 0.00 

2012 to 2016 $82.82 -- 2 

2012 to 2014 -- $82.82 0.00 

2017 to 2021 $82.82 -- 3 

2015 to 2017 -- $82.82 0.00 

2022 to 2026 $82.82 -- 4 

2018 to 2020 -- $82.82 0.00 

5 2021 to 2023 -- $82.82 $82.82 

6 2024 to 2026 -- $82.82 $82.82 

Total $355.42 $521.05 $165.64 

Annual Average $17.77 $26.05 $8.28 

Annualized at 3% $17.00 $24.75 $7.75 

Annualized at 7% $16.03 $22.99 $6.96 1

 The non-italicized reporting cycles are baseline, five-year cycles, and the italicized reporting cycles are alternative, three-year cycles.

The baseline burden to EPA during reporting years is two FTEs or 4,160 hours (see Section 5-2). 

While the burden per reporting year would not change as a result of this alternative option, more frequent 

reporting would increase costs to the Agency. Table G-12 contains the total burden the Agency of the 

proposed option, over a 20-year period. During this period, EPA estimates Agency burden would increase 

by a total of approximately 8,300 hours. 
 G-8

Table G-12: Burden to the Agency under the Alternative Option of a Three-Year Reporting Cycle 

Baseline Burden Post-Amendment 

Burden Change in Burden 

Reporting Cycle1 Years 

(millions of 

hours) (millions of hours) (millions of hours) 

1 2007 to 2011 4,160 4,160 0 

2012 to 2016 4,160 -- 2 

2012 to 2014 -- 4,160 0 

2017 to 2021 4,160 -- 3 

2015 to 2017 -- 4,160 0 

2022 to 2026 4,160 -- 4 

2018 to 2020 -- 4,160 0 

5 2021 to 2023 -- 4,160 4,160 

6 2024 to 2026 -- 4,160 4,160 

Total 16,640 24,960 8,320 

Annual Average 832 1,248 416 1

 The non-italicized reporting cycles are baseline, five-year cycles, and the italicized reporting cycles are alternative, three-year 

cycles.

The annual Agency costs under the baseline and the alternative option are shown in Table G-13, and 

are taken from Table 5-3. In total, EPA estimates this option would increase Agency costs by $932,300 

over a 20-year period with an annual average of $46,600. 

Table G-13: Agency Cost under the Alternative Option of a Three-Year Reporting Cycle 

Baseline Cost 

Post-Alternative 

Option Cost 

Change from 

Reporting Cycle Baseline 1 Years 

(2008$) (2008$) (2008$) 

1 2007 to 2011 $466,133 $466,133 $0 

2012 to 2016 $466,133 -- 2 

2012 to 2014 -- $466,133 $0 

2017 to 2021 $466,133 -- 3 

2015 to 2017 -- $466,133 $0 

2022 to 2026 $466,133 -- 4 

2018 to 2020 -- $466,133 $0 

5 2021 to 2023 -- $466,133 $466,133 

6 2024 to 2026 -- $466,133 $466,133 

Total $1,864,532 $2,796,797 $932,266 

Annual Average $93,227 $139,840 $46,613 

Annualized at 3% $87,798 $131,412 $43,614 

Annualized at 7% $81,056 $120,247 $39,190 1

 The non-italicized reporting cycles are baseline, five-year cycles, and the italicized reporting cycles are alternative, three-year cycles.

G.2.2 Three-Year Cycle Cost and Burden when the All the Proposed Amendments are 

Considered 

EPA estimated the cost and burden of a three-year reporting cycle in addition to the proposed 

amendments outlined in Chapter 3. Under this alternative option, the reporting burden for industry would 

be the same as the combined post amendment burden shown in Table 4-50; however the reporting cycle 
 G-9

would be shortened from four years to three years. For both industry and the Agency, the post-amendment 

burden will increase from the baseline because of the increased reporting frequency. 

The total increase in industry burden over 17 years as a result of increasing the reporting frequency to 

three years from four years is 2.64 million hours (see Table G-14). This equates to an annual increase in 

the reporting burden of approximately 0.13 million hours. 

Table G-14: Annual Industry Burden under the Alternative Option of a Three-Year Reporting Cycle 

when the All the Proposed Amendments are Considered 

Baseline Burden Post-Amendment 

Burden 

Change in 

Burden 

Reporting Cycle1 Years 

(millions of hours) (millions of hours) (millions of 

hours) 

1 2007 to 2011 3.24 3.24 0.00 

2012 to 2015 2.64 -- 2 

2012 to 2014 -- 2.64 0.00 

2016 to 2019 2.64 -- 3 

2015 to 2017 -- 2.64 0.00 

2020 to 2023 2.64 -- 4 

2018 to 2020 -- 2.64 0.00 

5 2021 to 2023 -- 2.64 2.64 

Total 11.15 13.79 2.64 

Annual Average 0.56 0.69 0.13 1

 The non-italicized reporting cycles are baseline, four-year cycles, and the italicized reporting cycles are alternative, three-year cycles.

The industry cost for a three-year reporting cycle is shown in Table G-15. Baseline costs are taken 

from Table 4-50. Over a 17-year period, total costs would increase by $162.08 million, with an 

annualized increase of $8.93 million at a three percent discount rate and $8.07 million at a seven percent 

discount rate. 

Table G-15: Industry Cost under the Alternative Option of a Three-Year Reporting Cycle when the 

All the Proposed Amendments are Considered 

Baseline Cost 

Post-Alternative 

Option Cost 

Change from 

Reporting Cycle Baseline 1 Years 

(2008$ millions) (2008$ millions) (2008$ millions) 

1 2007 to 2011 $19.88 $19.88 $0.00 

2012 to 2015 $162.08 -- 2 

2012 to 2014 -- $162.08 $0.00 

2016 to 2019 $162.08 -- 3 

2015 to 2017 -- $162.08 $0.00 

2020 to 2023 $162.08 -- 4 

2018 to 2020 -- $162.08 $0.00 

5 2021 to 2023 -- $162.08 $162.08 

Total $506.13 $668.21 $162.08 

Annual Average $29.77 $39.31 $9.53 

Annualized at 3% $38.29 $47.23 $8.93 

Annualized at 7% $35.70 $43.76 $8.07 1

 The non-italicized reporting cycles are baseline, four-year cycles, and the italicized reporting cycles are alternative, three-year cycles.
 G-10

The Agency baseline burdens of 2,439 hours (first reporting cycle) and 2,456 (future reporting cycles) 

when all the proposed amendments are considered together is taken from Table 5-40. The annual 

reporting option is expected to increase Agency burden by approximately 2,500 hours over 17 years when 

all amendments are considered (see Table G-16). 

Table G-16: Agency Burden under the Alternative Option of a Three-Year Reporting Cycle when 

the All the Proposed Amendments are Considered 

Baseline Burden Post-Amendment 

Burden 

Change in 

Reporting Cycle1 Years Burden 

(hours) (hours) (hours) 

1 2007 to 2011 2,439 2,439 0 

2012 to 2015 2,456 -- 2 

2012 to 2014 -- 2,456 

0 

2016 to 2019 2,456 -- 3 

2015 to 2017 -- 2,456 

0 

2020 to 2023 2,456 -- 4 

2018 to 2020 -- 2,456 

0 

5 2021 to 2023 -- 2,456 2,456 

Total 9,807 12,264 2,456 

Annual Average 577 721 145 1

 The non-italicized reporting cycles are baseline, four-year cycles, and the italicized reporting cycles are alternative, three-year 

cycles.

Table G-17 contains the total Agency cost under a three-year reporting cycle. EPA estimates the 

Agency cost would increase by approximately $288,500 over a 17-year period. The annualized cost is 

expected to increase by $15,600 with a three percent discount rate and $14,400 with a seven percent 

discount rate. 

Table G-17: Agency Cost under the Alternative Option of a Three-Year Reporting Cycle when the 

All the Proposed Amendments are Considered 

Baseline Cost Post-Alternative 

Option Cost 

Change from 

Reporting Cycle Baseline 1 Years 

(2008$) (2008$) (2008$) 

1 2007 to 2011 $286,580 $286,580 $0 

2012 to 2015 $288,450 -- 2 

2012 to 2014 -- $288,450 

$0 

2016 to 2019 $288,450 -- 3 

2015 to 2017 -- $288,450 

$0 

2020 to 2023 $288,450 -- 4 

2018 to 2020 -- $288,450 

$0 

5 2021 to 2023 -- $288,450 $288,450 

Total $1,151,930 $1,440,380 $288,450 

Annual Average $67,761 $84,728 $16,968 

Annualized at 3% $63,741 $79,637 $15,896 

Annualized at 7% $58,612 $72,971 $14,359 1

 The non-italicized reporting cycles are baseline, four-year cycles, and the italicized reporting cycles are alternative, three-year 
 G-11

cycles.

 

G.2.3 Small Entity Anaylsis 

The following section provides a preliminary assessment of the impact a three-year reporting cycle 

may have on small entities by examining the relationship between the compliance costs and company 

sales for small companies. This analysis is based on the methodology found in Chapter 8 of this report 

and all costs and burdens are estimated under the assumption all the proposed amendments are enacted. 

EPA estimated 3.89 manufacturing sites per global parent company in Chapter 8 of this report; 41.3 

percent of global parent companies (466 companies) are considered small under the SBA employmentbased definition,13 and 24.8 percent (280 companies) are considered small under the TSCA sales-based 

definition.14 EPA also estimated an average of approximately 1.76 sites per small company under the 

employment-based definition of small business, and approximately 1.92 sites per small company under 

the sales-based definition. Average annual sales revenue of global parent companies considered small 

under either definition were estimated using data from Dun & Bradstreet, as also described in the EA. 

Table 4-51 shows the incremental cost to the industry. Because these costs would be incurred 

once every three years under a three-year reporting cycle, these costs were summed and 

annualized over three years at both a three percent and seven percent discount rate.15 As shown 

in 

Table G-18, these costs were divided by the total number of sites expected to submit data, for the 

annualized costs per site. This was multiplied by the number of sites per small parent company to arrive at 

the annualized costs per small parent company. This value was divided by the annual sales per small 

parent company to derive the cost-to-sales ratio. 

As shown in 

Table G-18, under the employment-based definition, a small parent company affected by the rule on 

average has sales of more than $412.7 million. The annualized costs of the proposed IUR rule 

amendments per small parent company, however, are $14,096 at a seven percent discount rate, and even 

lower under a three percent discount rate. The cost-to-sales ratio for an average small company under the 

employment-based SBA definition would be 0.0034 percent or less. Under the more conservative salesbased TSCA definition, small parent company sales are on average more than $11.8 million, with 

annualized costs associated with the proposed amendments of $32.7 million or lower. The cost-to-sales 

ratio for an average small company under the sales-based definition would be 0.13 percent or less. 

 

13 Threshold of 1,000 employees. 14 Total annual sales of the company, combined with those of any parent company, are below $40 million and annual 

production volume or importation volume at the facility is less than or equal to 100,000 lb.; or total annual sales of 

the company, combined with those of any parent company, are below $4 million. 15 A seven percent discount rate, reflecting the opportunity cost of capital, is consistent with OMB Circular A-4 

(OMB, 2003). A three percent discount rate was also used as a sensitivity analysis to examine the robustness of the 

results to a change in the annualization assumptions. 
 G-12

Using the highest annual cost shown in 

Table G-18 of $15,378, a small company would have to have annual sales of less than $1.58 million 

in order to have a cost-to-sales ratio larger than one percent. 

Table G-18: Derivation of Cost-to-Sales Ratios for Small Manufacturers for a Three-Year 

Reporting Cycle 

Employment-based Definition Sales-based Definition 

 

3% 

Discount 

Rate 

7% Discount 

Rate 

3% 

Discount 

Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Incremental Costs of Proposed 

Other Amendments $91,871,064 

Total Annualized Costs $31,533,214 $32,717,404 $31,533,214 $32,717,404 

Total Number of Sites 4,085 

Annualized Costs per Site $7,719 $8,009 $7,719 $8,009 

Number of Sites per Small 

Parent Company 1.76 1.92 

Annualized Costs per Small 

Parent Company $13,586 $14,096 $14,821 $15,378 

Annual Sales per Small Parent 

Company $412,713,310 $412,713,310 $11,821,104 $11,821,104 

Cost-to-Sales Ratio 0.0033% 0.0034% 0.1254% 0.1301% 

Number of Companies 

Potentially Affected 466 280 

G.3 Change the Threshold for Reporting to 10,000 lb. 

The Agency is also considering an option that would lower the reporting threshold from 25,000 lb. to 

10,000 lb. Prior to the amendments to the 2006 IUR rule, EPA required sites to submit a Form U for 

chemicals produced at 10,000 lb. or greater. The 2006 amendments increased the threshold for reporting 

to 25,000 lb. This alternative regulatory option would return to the previous threshold for reporting. 

G.3.1 10,000 lb. Reporting Threshold Cost and Burden when the Option is Considered by Itself 

EPA used data from the 2002 reporting cycle (EPA, 2009d) to estimate the additional number of 

reports that would be submitted under the alternative threshold option. The total number of reports and 

sites reporting at three different production levels (10,000 lb. ≤ P V < 25,000 lb., 25,000 lb. ≤ P V < 

300,000 lb., and PV ≥ 300,000 lb.) were analyzed to obtain the total range of reports submitted in 2002. 

Table G-19 contains the total number of reports and sites at all three production levels. In total, 882 sites, 

or 19 percent, of all the sites submitting reports data in 2002 produced chemicals in amounts between 
 G-13

10,000 lb. and 25,000 lb. Thirteen percent of all reports, or 3,595 reports, were submitted in 2002 for 

chemicals produced between 10,000 lb. and 25,000 lb. 

Table G-19: Number of Reports and Sites in 2002 

Production Volume Number of Sites Percent of Total Number of 

Reports 

Percent of 

Total 

10,000 lb.≤ P V < 25,000 

lb. 882 19% 3,595 13%

25,000 lb.≤ P V < 

300,000 lb. 1,392 30% 8,548 32%

PV ≤ 300,000 lb. 2,304 50% 14,818 55% 

Total 4,578 100% 26,961 100% 

Source: 

U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Information Management Division 2002 IUR Database Statistics for IUR 

Modifications Rule. Washington, DC. April 30, 2009 (EPA, 2009d). 

To estimate the total number of additional sites submitting reports as a result of the proposed option, 

EPA applied the percentage of total sites with production volumes between 10,000 lb. and 25,000 lb. in 

2002 (19 percent), to the total number of sites in 2006; 4,085 (baseline 2006 numbers are presented in 

Table 4-6). Therefore, the Agency estimates 787 additional sites will submit reports as a result of the 

proposed amendment. The same methodology was applied to calculating the additional number of reports; 

EPA estimates a 13 percent increase in the number of 2006 reports, for a total of 3,453 new reports. 

Because all reports submitted as a result of the proposed amendments will be for production volumes less 

than 300,000 lb., EPA assumes only additional partial reports (Part IIs) will be submitted. 

As described in Section 4.2.2, sites need to complete Part I of Form U only once, and complete Part II 

and Part III (as applicable) for each chemical manufactured (or imported). Taking this allocation of 

activities into consideration, and using the baseline unit burden estimates as shown in Table 4-2, Table 

G-20 shows the industry burden estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. The Agency estimates 

the amendment will cause an increase in industry burden of approximately 94,600 hours. 

Table G-20: Industry Burden as a Result of Changing the Threshold for Reporting to 10,000 lb. 

Number 

of Sites 

Burden per 

Part I of 

Report, 

Compliance 

Determination, 

Rule 

Familiarization, 

and Submission 

Number 

of 

Partial 

Reports 

Burden per 

Part II of 

Report and 

Recordkeeping 

Number 

of Full 

Reports 

Burden 

per 

Part III 

of 

Report 

Industry 

Burden 

(hours) 

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) 

(g) = (a*b) 

+ (c*d) + 

(e*f) 

Baseline 4,085 33.26 25,896 19.82 17,075 69.92 1,842,934 

PostAmendment 4,872 33.26 29,349 19.82 17,075 69.92 1,937,544 

Change 

from the 

Baseline 

787 0 3,453 0 0 0 94,611 

1

 Baseline unit burden derivations shown in Table 4.4 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value. 
 G-14

The cost of the amendment was calculated using the unit costs shown in Table 4-5. Table G-21 shows 

the industry cost estimate as a result of this proposed amendment. The cost to industry is expected to 

increase by $5.52 million. 

Table G-21: Industry Cost as a Result of Changing the Threshold for Reporting to 10,000 lb. 

Number 

of Sites 

Cost per Part I 

of Report, 

Compliance 

Determination, 

Rule 

Familiarization, 

and Submission 

(2008$) 

Number 

of Partial 

Reports 

Cost per 

Part II 

of Report and 

Recordkeeping 

(2008$) 

Number 

of Full 

Reports 

Cost per 

Part III 

of Report 

(2008$) 

Industry 

Cost 

(millions 

2008$) 

Baseline 4,085 $2,058.18 25,896 $1,129.42 17,075 $4,059.25 $106.97 

PostAmendment 4,872 $2,058.18 29,349 $1,129.42 17,075 $4,059.25 $112.49 

Change 

from the 

Baseline 

787 $0.00 3,453 $0.00 0 $0.00 $5.52 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value. 

The baseline burden to EPA of data processing and entry will not change from the baseline of 2,080 

hours (see Section 5-2). However, the increased number of reports and submitters will increase the burden 

to the Agency. While the burden per reporting cycle will not change as a result of this amendment, more 

frequent reporting will increase costs to the Agency. Table G-22 contains the total Agency of the 

proposed option. EPA’s burden is expected to increase by a total of 159 hours.

Table G-22: Change in Burden to the Agency as a Result of Changing the Threshold for Reporting 

to 10,000 lb. 

 

Burden to 

Process Part 

I Submission 

(hours)

Number 

of Sites 

Burden to 

Process 

Part II 

(hours per 

report)

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

Part II)

Burden 

to 

Process 

Part 

III 

(hours 

per 

report)

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

Part 

III)

Agency Burden 

 ( hours)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) 

=(a*b)+(c*d)+(e*(f)

Baseline 0.017 4,085 0.042 25,896 0.054 17,075 2,080 

PostAmendment 0.017 4,872 0.042 29,349 0.054 17,075 2,239 

Change 

from the 

Baseline 

0.000 787 0.000 3,453 0.000 0 159 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value. 

Table G-23 shows the estimated change in cost to EPA as a result of the proposed amendment. The 

Agency estimates a cost increase of approximately $16,600. 
 G-15

Table G-23: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Changing the Threshold for Reporting to 10,000 

lb. 

Cost to 

Process Part 

I Submission 

(2008$)

Number 

of Sites 

Cost to 

Process 

Part II 

(2008$ per 

report)

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

Part II)

Cost to 

Process 

Part 

III 

(2008$ 

per 

report)

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

Part 

III)

Agency Cost 

(2008$)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) 

=(a*b)+(c*d)+(e*f)

Baseline $1.78 4,085 $4.40 25,896 $5.61 17,075 $216,949 

PostAmendment $1.78 4,872 $4.40 29,349 $5.61 17,075 $233,529 

Change 

from the 

Baseline 

$0.00 787 $0.00 3,453 $0.00 0 $16,580 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value. 

G.3.2 Change the Threshold for Reporting to 10,000 lb. when All Proposed Amendments are 

Considered 

EPA estimated the cost and burden of lowering the reporting threshold to 10,000 lb. when all of the 

proposed amendments outlined in Chapter 3. have been considered. A 10,000 lb. reporting threshold is 

expected to increase the number of partial reports submitted by approximately 13 percent and the number 

sites submitting data by 19 percent (See Table G-19). In addition, EPA assumes this option would affect 

the proposed amendment to lower the threshold for reporting downstream processing and use information 

from 300,000 lb. to 25,000 lb. (See Section 3.3.2). Under this option, the threshold for reporting this 

information would be 10,000 lb. The total number of sites and reports, when all the proposed amendments 

and the 10,000 lb. threshold reporting option are considered, is found in Table G-25. To calculate the 

number of additional submitters and reports, EPA followed the method outlined in Section 4.5.1. While 

Steps 1 and 2 remain unchanged from what is described in Section 4.5.1, the other steps have been 

modified and an additional step has been added. The calculations for Steps 3, 4, and 5 are outlined below. 

Step 3: Consider the effect of decreasing the reporting threshold to 10,000 lb. This amendment is 

expected to increase the number of sites submitting Form U by approximately 19 percent and the number 

of partial reports by approximately 13 percent (See Table G-19). To estimate this effect on the proposed 

amendments, EPA multiplied the total number of sites calculated in Step 2 (0 in the first reporting cycle 

and 204 in future reporting cycles) by 1.19 and the number of partial reports calculated in step 2 (3,975 in 

the first reporting cycle and 5,469 in future reporting cycles) by 1.13. EPA then added the additional 

number of reports and sites calculated in Section G.3.1, which accounts for the increase from the baseline 

as a result of this option. The number of Part IIIs submitted is not affected by this step. 

Step 4: Consider the effect of eliminating the 300,000 lb. threshold for processing and use 

reporting (and avoid double-counting). Under this amendment, all submitters of non-exempt 

chemicals would be required to submit a Part III. Therefore, the number of Part IIIs must be increased by 

the increased number of Part IIs, to account for the effect of eliminating the 300,000 lb. threshold for 

processing and use reporting. EPA started with the Step 3 total for Part III reports (8,219 in the first 

reporting cycle and 9,484 in future reporting cycles), and added the Step 3 total for Part II reports (7,985 

in the first reporting cycle and 9,632 in future reporting cycles), minus the number of new Part III reports 

as a result of making ECAs ineligible for exemptions (16), the number of new Part II reports as a result of 

changing the method of determining whether a manufacturer is subject to reporting requirements (0 in the 
 G-16

first reporting cycle and 1,295 in future reporting cycles) and the number of new Part II reports that will 

be for EAC chemicals as a result of the 10,000 lb. threshold (80 in in the first reporting cycle and 86 in 

future reporting cycles). The number of ECA chemicals as a result of the 10,000 lb. threshold in the first 

reporting cycle is calculated by multiplying the number of ECA chemicals by 1.13. In future reporting 

cycles, the number of ECA chemicals as a result of the 10,000 lb. threshold is calculated by multiplying 

the number of ECA chemicals after the five percent has been taken into account, 649, by 1.13. to calculate 

the total number of ECA chemicals take into account the five percent. This number, 649, is then 

multiplied by 1.13. The number of reports with Part III will increase by 16,801 in the first reporting cycle 

and 17,737 in future reporting cycles.

Step 5: Calculate the number of reports when all amendments are considered together. The total 

number of additional reports from Step 4 is added to the number of reports in the baseline to calculate the 

total number of reports when all the proposed amendments are considered together. There will now be a 

total of 4,872 Part Is, 33,854 Part IIs and 33,156 Part IIIs in the first reporting cycle. In future reporting 

cycles there will be a total of 5,115 Part Is, 35,528 Part IIs and 34,812 Part IIIs. The difference between 

the total number of Part IIs and Part IIIs, 698 reports, is equal to the number of ECA chemicals times 1.13 

(618 x 1.13=698). In future cycles, the difference of 735 reports is equal to the number of partially 

exempt reports with the five and 13 percent increase taken into account ((618 x 1.05) x 1.13)) = 735). 

Table G-24: Change in the Number of Sites and Reports Submitted of All Amendments Combined 

with the 10,000 lb. Reporting Threshold (First Reporting Cycle) 

Modification Number of Sites Number of Reports Number of Reports 

with Part III 

Baseline 4,085 25,896 17,075 

Step 1: Sum affected amendments 

Eliminate 300,000 lb. Threshold for Downstream 

Processing and Use Reporting (see Section 4.4.6) 

-- -- 8,203 

Eliminate the 25,000 lb. Threshold for Certain 

Regulated Chemicals (see Section 4.4.5) 

-- 4,018 -- 

Make Chemicals Subject to ECAs Ineligible for 

Exemptions (see Section 4.4.6) 

-- -- 16 

Full Exemption for Manufactured Water (see Section 

4.4.7). 

-- (43) -- 

STEP 1 TOTAL -- 3,975 8,219 

Step 2: Account for change in the method for determining whether you are subject to the IUR reporting requirements 

Step 1 Total Multiplied by 1 -- 3,975 8,219

Method for Determining Whether you are Subject to 

the IUR Reporting Requirements (see Section 4.4.3) 

0 0 0 

STEP 2 TOTAL 0 3,975 8,219 

Step 3: Account for 10,000 lb. reporting threshold 

Step 2 Total Multiplied by 1.19 for sites and 1.13 for 

reports

0 4,505 --

10,000 lb. threshold reporting threshold (See Section 

G.3.1)

787 3,453 --

STEP 3 TOTAL(Step 3 + Step 2 Total ) 787 7,985 8,219 

Step 4: Consider the effect of eliminating the 300,000 lb. threshold for processing and use reporting (and avoid doublecounting). 

Step 3 total for Part II reports minus number of new 

Part III reports as a result of making ECAs ineligible 

for exemptions and the number of new Part II reports as 

a result of changing the method of determining whether 

-- -- 7,826 
 G-17

Modification Number of Sites Number of Reports Number of Reports 

with Part III 

subject to reporting requirements 

STEP4 TOTAL (Step 4 + Step 3 Total ) 787 7,985 16,801 

Step 5:Calculate the total number of reports by adding the Step 3 Total to the Baseline 

STEP 5 TOTAL (Baseline + Step 3 Total) 4,872 33,854 33,156

Table G-25: Change in the Number of Sites and Reports Submitted of All Amendments Combined 

with the 10,000 lb. Reporting Threshold (Future Reporting Cycles) 

Modification Number of Sites Number of Reports Number of Reports 

with Part III 

Baseline 4,085 25,896 17,075 

Step 1: Sum affected amendments 

Eliminate 300,000 lb. Threshold for Downstream 

Processing and Use Reporting (see Section 4.4.6) 

-- -- 8,203 

Eliminate the 25,000 lb. Threshold for Certain 

Regulated Chemicals (see Section 4.4.5) 

-- 4,018 -- 

Make Chemicals Subject to ECAs Ineligible for 

Exemptions (see Section 4.4.6) 

-- -- 16 

Full Exemption for Manufactured Water (see Section 

4.4.7). 

-- (43) -- 

STEP 1 TOTAL -- 3,975 8,219 

Step 2: Account for change in the method for determining whether you are subject to the IUR reporting requirements 

Step 1 Total Multiplied by 1.05 -- 4,174 8,630 

Method for Determining Whether you are Subject to 

the IUR Reporting Requirements (see Section 4.4.3) 

204 1,295 854 

STEP 2 TOTAL 204 5,469 9,484 

Step 3: Account for 10,000 lb. reporting threshold 

Step 2 Total Multiplied by 1.19 for sites and 1.13 for 

reports

243 6,179 --

10,000 lb. threshold reporting threshold (See Section 

G.3.1)

787 3,453 --

STEP 3 TOTAL(Step 3 + Step 2 Total ) 1,030 9,632 9,484

Step 4: Consider the effect of eliminating the 300,000 lb. threshold for processing and use reporting (and avoid doublecounting). 

Step 3 total for Part II reports minus number of new 

Part III reports as a result of making ECAs ineligible 

for exemptions and the number of new Part II reports as 

a result of changing the method of determining whether 

subject to reporting requirements 

-- -- 8,253 

STEP4 TOTAL (Step 4 + Step 3 Total ) 1,030 9,632 17,737 

Step 5:Calculate the total number of reports by adding the Step 3 Total to the Baseline 

STEP 5 TOTAL (Baseline + Step 3 Total) 5,115 35,528 34,812

EPA estimated the cost to the industry of the 10,000 lb. threshold when all the amendments are 

considered in Table G-26. The baseline values are taken from Table 4-50. Lowering the reporting 

threshold to 10,000 lb. will not increase the industry per-form burden; however it will increase the 
 G-18

number of Form Us submitted. EPA estimates this option would increase the industry burden by 0.44 

million hours in the first reporting cycle and by 0.35 million hours in all future reporting cycles. 

Table G-26: Industry Burden as a Result of Changing the Threshold for Reporting to 10,000 lb. 

when All Proposed Amendments are Considered 

 

Burden 

per Part I 

of Report 

and 

Submission 

(hours per 

site )

Number 

of Sites 

Burden 

for Part 

II and 

Record 

Keeping 

(hours per 

report)

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

Part II)

Burden 

for 

Part 

III 

(hours 

per 

report)

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

Part 

III)

Total Burden 

 (millions of hours)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) 

=(a*b)+(c*d)+(e*(f)

First-year 

Baseline 35.17 4,085 22.19 29,871 83.02 29,253 3.24 

First year, 

Post 

Amendment 

35.17 4,872 22.19 33,854 83.02 33,156 3.68 

Change from 

the Baseline, 

First year 

0.00 787 0.00 3,983 0.00 3,903 0.44

Future-Cycle 

Baseline 11.05 4,289 18.35 31,365 65.63 30,716 2.64 

Future Cycle, 

Post 

Amendment 

11.05 5,115 18.35 35,547 65.63 34,812 2.99 

Change from 

the Baseline, 

Future Cycles 

0.00 826 0.00 4,182 0.00 4,096 0.35

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value. 

Baseline costs are taken from Table 4-51. The 10,000 lb. reporting threshold is expected to increase 

industry cost by $27.06 million during the first reporting cycle and by $21.79 million during all future 

reporting cycles (See Table G-27). 
 G-19

Table G-27: Industry Cost as a Result of Changing the Threshold for Reporting to 10,000 lb. when 

All Proposed Amendments are Considered 

 

Cost per 

Part I of 

Report and 

Submission 

(2008$)

Number 

of Sites 

Cost for 

Part II and 

Record 

Keeping 

(2008$)

Number 

of Reports 

(with 

Part II)

Cost 

for 

Part III 

and 

(2008$)

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

Part 

III)

Total Burden 

 (millions of 2008$)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) 

=(a*b)+(c*d)+(e*(f)

First-year 

Baseline $2,192 4,085 $1,346 29,871 $5,117 29,253 $198.84 

First year, 

Post 

Amendment 

$2,192 4,872 $1,346 33,854 $5,117 33,156 $225.89 

Change 

from the 

Baseline, 

First year 

$0 787 $0 3,983 $0 3,903 $27.06 

FutureCycle 

Baseline 

$695 4,289 $1,109 31,365 $4,047 30,716 $162.08 

Future 

Cycle, PostAmendment 

$695 5,115 $1,109 35,547 $4,047 34,812 $183.87 

Change 

from the 

Baseline, 

Future 

Cycles 

$0 826 $0 4,182 $0 4,096 $21.79 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value. 

The annual industry burden over a 25-year period is shown in Table G-28. Over a 25-year period, the 

total industry burden will increase by 2.12 million hours when all the proposed amendments are 

considered. 

Table G-28: Industry Burden under the Alternative Option of a Lowered Reporting Threshold and 

All Other Amendments when All Proposed Amendments are Considered 

Baseline Cost Post-Alternative 

Option Cost 

Change from 

Baseline Reporting 

Cycle Years 

(millions of hours) (millions of hours) (millions of hours) 

1 2007 to 2011 3.24 3.68 0.44 

2 2012 to 2015 2.64 2.99 0.35 

3 2016 to 2019 2.64 2.99 0.35 

4 2020 to 2023 2.64 2.99 0.35 

5 2023 to 2027 2.64 2.99 0.35 

6 2026 to 2031 2.64 2.99 0.35 

Total 16.43 18.64 2.21 

Annual Average 0.66 0.75 0.09 

Table G-29 shows the annual industry cost over a 25-year period as a result of lowering the reporting 

threshold. EPA estimates a 10,000 lb. reporting threshold would increase costs by approximately $136.00 
 G-20

million. Annualized costs range from $5.18 million with a three percent discount rate to $4.84 million 

with a seven percent discount rate. 

Table G-29: Change in Industry Cost as a Result of Changing the Threshold for Reporting to 

10,000 lb. and All Other Amendments when All Proposed Amendments are Considered 

Baseline Cost 

Post-Alternative 

Option Cost 

Change from 

Baseline Reporting 

Cycle Years 

(2008$ millions) (2008$ millions) (2008$ millions) 

1 2007 to 2011 $198.84 $225.89 $27.06 

2 2012 to 2015 $162.08 $183.87 $21.79 

3 2016 to 2019 $162.08 $183.87 $21.79 

4 2020 to 2023 $162.08 $183.87 $21.79 

5 2023 to 2027 $162.08 $183.87 $21.79 

6 2026 to 2031 $162.08 $183.87 $21.79 

Total $1,009.25 $1,145.25 $136.00 

Annual Average $40.37 $45.81 $5.44 

Annualized at 3% $38.40 $43.58 $5.18 

Annualized at 7% $35.83 $40.66 $4.84 

As previously explained in Section G.3.1, the Agency burden per-report will not change as a result of 

lowering the reporting threshold. However, the number of reports and the number of sites submitting 

reports will increase. Table G-30 contains the Agency burden as a result of lowering the threshold for 

reporting when all the other amendments are considered. EPA estimates the Agency burden will increase 

by 48 hours in the first reporting cycle and 51 hours during each future reporting cycle. 

Table G-30: Agency Burden as a Result of Lowered Threshold Reporting and All Other 

Amendments when All Proposed Amendments are Considered 

 

Burden to 

Process 

Part I 

Submission 

(hours)

Number 

of Sites 

Burden 

to 

Process 

Part II 

(hours 

per 

report)

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

Part II)

Burden to 

Process 

Part III 

(hours 

per 

report)

Number 

of Reports 

(with 

 Part III)

Agency Burden 

 (hours)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) 

=(a*b)+(c*d)+(e*(f)

Baseline 0.002 4,085 0.0056 29,871 0.0063 29,253 2,439 

PostAmendment 0.002 4,872 0.0056 33,854 0.0063 33,156 2,487 

Change from 

the Baseline 0 787 0 3,983 0 3,903 48.29 

Future-cycle 

Baseline 0.002 4,289 0.006 31,365 0.006 30,716 2,456

Future cycle, 

Post 

Amendment 0.002 5,115 0.006 35,547 0.006 34,812 2,507

Change from 

the Baseline, 

Future cycles 0 826 0 4,182 0 4,096 50.69 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value. 
 G-21

Table G-31 contains the Agency cost as a result of lowering the reporting threshold. Baseline 

values are taken from Table 5-41. Lowering the 10,000 lb. threshold is expected to increase the Agency

cost by approximately $5,000 during the first reporting cyle and $5,300 in future reporting cycles. 

Table G-31: Agency Cost as a Result of Lowered Threshold Reporting and All Other Amendments 

when All Proposed Amendments are Considered 

 

Cost to 

Process 

Part I 

Submission 

(2008$)

Number 

of Sites 

Cost to 

Process 

Part II 

(2008$ 

per 

report)

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

Part II)

Cost to 

Process 

Part 

III 

(2008$ 

per 

report)

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

Part 

III)

Agency Burden 

 (2008$)

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) 

=(a*b)+(c*d)+(e*(f)

Baseline $0.203 4,085 $0.58 29,871 $0.66 29,253 $37,396 

PostAmendment $0.203 4,872 $0.58 33,854 $0.66 33,156 $42,433 

Change from 

the Baseline 0 826 $0.00 4,163 $0.00 4,096 $5,037

Future-cycle 

Baseline $0.203 4,289 $0.58 31,365 $0.66 30,716 $39,266 

Future cycle, 

Post 

Amendment $0.203 5,115 $0.58 35,547 $0.66 34,812 $44,554 

Change from 

the Baseline, 

Future cycles $0.00 826 $0.00 4,182 $0.00 4,096 $5,287 

Note: Values in Change from the Baseline rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value. 

The annual Agency burden over a 25-year period is shown in Table G-32. Over a 25-year period, the 

total Agency burden would increase by 302 hours when all the proposed amendments are considered. 

Table G-32: Agency Burden under the Alternative Option of a Lowered Reporting Threshold and 

All Other Amendments when All Proposed Amendments are Considered

Baseline Burden Post-Alternative 

Option Burden 

Change from 

Reporting Cycle Years Baseline 

hours hours Hours 

1 2007 to 2011 2,439 2,487 48.29 

2 2012 to 2015 2,456 2,507 50.69 

3 2016 to 2019 2,456 2,507 50.69 

4 2020 to 2023 2,456 2,507 50.69 

5 2023 to 2027 2,456 2,507 50.69 

6 2026 to 2031 2,456 2,507 50.69 

Total 14,720.86 15,022.62 301.76 

Annual Average 588.83 600.90 12.07 

Table G-33 contains the annual Agency cost over a 25-year period as a result of lowering the 

reporting threshold. EPA estimates a 10,000 lb. reporting threshold will increase the Agency cost by 

approximately $31,500 over 25 years. Annualized increases in costs range from $1,100 with a seven 

percent discount rate to $1,200 with a three percent discount rate. 
 G-22

Table G-33: Change in Agency Cost as a Result of Changing the Threshold for Reporting to 10,000 

lb. and All Other Amendments when All Proposed Amendments are Considered 

Baseline Cost Post-Alternative 

Option Cost 

Change from 

Reporting Cycle Years Baseline 

(2008$) (2008$) (2008$) 

1 2007 to 2011 $37,396 $42,433 $5,037 

2 2012 to 2015 $39,266 $44,554 $5,287 

3 2016 to 2019 $39,266 $44,554 $5,287 

4 2020 to 2023 $39,266 $44,554 $5,287 

5 2023 to 2027 $39,266 $44,554 $5,287 

6 2026 to 2031 $39,266 $44,554 $5,287 

Total $233,727 $265,201 $31,474 

Annual Average $9,349 $10,608 $1,259 

Annualized at 3% $8,770 $9,951 $1,181 

Annualized at 7% $8,020 $9,100 $1,080 

G.3.3 Small Entity Analysis 

The following section provides a preliminary assessment of the impact a 10,000 lb. reporting 

threshold may have on small entities by examining the relationship between the compliance costs and 

company sales for small companies. This analysis is based on the methodology found in Chapter 8 of this 

report. All costs and burdens are estimated under the assumption all the proposed amendments have been 

enacted. EPA estimated 3.89 manufacturing sites per global parent company in Chapter 8 of this report; 

41.3 percent of global parent companies (466 companies) are considered small under the SBA 

employment-based definition16, and 24.8 percent (280 companies) are considered small under the TSCA 

sales-based definition17. EPA also estimated an average of approximately 1.76 sites per small company 

under the employment-based definition of small business, and approximately 1.92 sites per small 

company under the sales-based definition. Average annual sales revenue of global parent companies 

considered small under either definition were estimated using data from Dun & Bradstreet, as also 

described in Chapter 8. 

Table G-29 shows the cost to the industry as a result of annual reporting. Because these costs would 

be incurred once every four years under a proposed four-year reporting cycle, these costs were summed 

and annualized over four years at both a three percent and seven percent discount rate18. As shown in 

Table G-34, these costs were divided by the total number of sites expected to submit data, for the 

annualized cost per site. This was multiplied by the number of sites per small parent company to arrive at 

the annualized costs per small parent company. This value was divided by the annual sales per small 

parent company to derive the cost-to-sales ratio. 

As shown in Table G-34 under the employment-based definition, a small parent company affected by 

the rule on average has sales of more than $412.7 million. The annualized costs of the proposed IUR rule 

amendments per small parent company, however, are $11,854 at a seven percent discount rate, and even 

lower under a three percent discount rate. The cost-to-sales ratio for an average small company under the 

 

16 Threshold of 1,000 employees. 17 Total annual sales of the company, combined with those of any parent company, are below $40 million and annual 

production volume or importation volume at the facility is less than or equal to 100,000 lb.; or total annual sales of 

the company, combined with those of any parent company, are below $4 million. 18 A seven percent discount rate, reflecting the opportunity cost of capital, is consistent with OMB Circular A-4 

(OMB, 2003). A three percent discount rate was also used as a sensitivity analysis to examine the robustness of the 

results to a change in the annualization assumptions. 
 G-23

employment-based SBA definition would be 0.003 percent or less. Under the more conservative salesbased TSCA definition, small parent company sales are on average more than $11.8 million, with 

annualized costs associated with the proposed amendments of $12,931 or lower. The cost-to-sales ratio 

for an average small company under the sales-based definition would be 0.11 percent or less. 

Using the highest annual cost shown in Table G-34 of $12,931 a small company would have to have 

annual sales of less than $1.29 million in order to have a cost-to-sales ratio larger than one percent. 

Table G-34: Derivation of Cost-to-Sales Ratios for Small Manufacturers for a 10,000 lb. Reporting 

Threshold 

Employment-based Definition Sales-based Definition 

 3% Discount Rate 

7% Discount 

Rate 

3% Discount 

Rate 

7% 

Discount 

Rate 

Incremental Costs of 10,000 lb. threshold $27,055,019 

Incremental Costs of Proposed Other 

Amendments $91,871,064 

Total Annualized Costs $31,062,459 $32,813,387 $31,062,459 $32,813,387 

Total Number of Sites 4,872 

Annualized Costs per Site $6,376 $6,735 $6,376 $6,735 

Number of Sites per Small Parent Company 1.76 1.92 

Annualized Costs per Small Parent 

Company $11,221 $11,854 $12,241 $12,931 

Annual Sales per Small Parent Company $412,713,310 $11,821,104 

Cost-to-Sales Ratio 0.0027% 0.0029% 0.1036% 0.1094%

Number of Companies Potentially Affected 466 280 
 H-1

Appendix H. Additional Exposure-Related Data Elements 

EPA is considering the collection of additional exposure-related data, similar to the data collected 

under the TSCA section 5 New Chemicals Program, to further enhance the Agency’s capabilities in 

conducting screening-level risk assessments of chemical substances reported to the TSCA Inventory 

Update, and would substantially improve EPA’s ability to quantify chemical risks. The ability to quantify 

chemical risks would further improve the Agency’s ability to identify and manage those risks. 

The additional exposure-related data elements and brief descriptions are as provided in Table H-1: 

EPA is soliciting comment in the preamble for the proposed IUR rule amendments on the suitability of 

these data elements for enabling the Agency to develop more comprehensive and complete screening 

assessments of the risks that may be encountered in manufacture, processing, and use of chemicals. 

Additionally, the Agency is interested in whether any additional data should be collected, and in any other 

considerations relating to the collection of additional data. EPA is also soliciting comment on the best 

method to collect these data, and whether processors, in addition to manufacturers, should be required to 

report processing and use data. The Agency is considering three approaches to collecting the data. They 

are: 1) integrating these data elements into the IUR, 2) promulgating a new reporting mechanism under 

TSCA section 8(a), and, 3) using TSCA section 11(c) subpoena authority to collect these data from 

known manufacturers (including importers). These additional data elements are not included as part of the 

current proposal; therefore, they are not addressed in the main part of this economic analysis. 

This Appendix provides a preliminary estimate of the burden and cost of collecting data for these 

additional data elements under the first approach of integrating the data elements into the IUR rule 

requirements. 

Table H-1: Description of Additional Data Elements 

Data Element Description 

Manufacturing Process Information 

1 Description of 

manufacturing process 

Provide a process flow diagram which describes the manufacturing operations 

involving the chemical substance. “Unit operation” means a functional step in 

which substances undergo chemical changes and/or changes in location, 

temperature, pressure, physical state, or similar characteristics. Include steps in 

which the substance is formulated into gels, mixtures, suspensions, solutions, etc. 

and in which the substance is transferred into interim storage or shipping 

containers. Indicate in the diagram the entry and exit points of the chemical 

substance. Number all points from which the chemical substance will be released 

to the environment or to control equipment, including small or intermittent 

releases (e.g. some cleaning releases, drum residues, etc.) and trace amounts of 

the substance. 

2 Continuous or batch 

process 

Indicate whether the chemical substance is manufactured in discrete batches or is 

produced by continuously adding reactants and removing the reaction product. 

3 

Amount of substance 

produced per day or per 

batch 

If the chemical substance is produced in discrete batches, indicate the amount of 

the substance in pounds produced in each batch; if the substance is produced in a 

continuous process, indicate the amount of substance in pounds manufactured 

each day. 

4 Batch or daily run time 

If the chemical substance is produced in discrete batches, indicate the batch time 

(hours/batch); if the substance is produced in a continuous process, indicate the 

daily run time (hours/day). 

5 

Days of operation per 

year or number of batches 

per year 

If the chemical substance is produced in discrete batches, indicate the number of 

batches necessary to produce the reported production volume; if the chemical 

substance is produced in a continuous process, indicate the number of days of 

operation per year needed to produce the reported production volume. 
 H-2

Data Element Description 

6 Unit operations 

List the unit operations needed to produce the chemical substance. Unit operation 

means a functional step in manufacturing, processing, or use operation where 

substances undergo chemical changes, or changes in temperature, pressure, 

physical state, concentration, purity, or similar characteristics. Examples of unit 

operations include blending, distillation, filtration, and drying. 

7 Storage and shipping 

containers 

List the types of containers used to transport or store the chemical substance and 

their capacity. Examples of containers include 1-liter bottles, 5-gallon pails, 55-

gallon drums, 200-pound totes, 5000-gallon tank trucks, and 20,000-gallon 

railcars. 

Manufacturing Worker Exposure Information 

8 Worker activities 

Describe each specific activity in the operation during which workers may be 

exposed to the chemical substance. Such activities may include charging reactor 

vessels, sampling for quality control, transferring substances from one container 

to another, changing filters, filling drums, loading and loading tank cars or trucks, 

etc. Activities must be described even if workers wear protective equipment. 

9 Duration and frequency 

of worker exposure 

For each worker activity, enter the maximum duration in hours and number of 

days per year that any one worker will engage in the activity during a normal 

work day based on the reported production volume. 

10 Physical form For each worker activity, indicate the physical form of the substance at the time 

of exposure. 

11 Maximum concentration For each worker activity, indicate the maximum concentration of the substance in 

the product at the time of exposure. 

12 

Personal protective 

equipment and 

engineering controls used 

by workers 

For each worker activity, identify the specific types of protective equipment and 

engineering controls that will be employed to protect the worker from potential 

exposure to the chemical substance, i.e. gloves, goggles, protective garment, local 

ventilation, respirator, etc. 

13 Worker monitoring data 

available 

Indicate whether monitoring data on occupational exposure of workers is 

available. 

14 

Summary of occupational 

exposure monitoring 

included 

Indicate whether a summary of occupational exposure monitoring data is 

included. Summary should include information on the number of workers 

involved, number of samples taken, types of samples (area or personal), average 

and standard deviations of exposure. 

Manufacturing Releases to the Environment 

15 Release source (or release 

point) 

For each point of release containing the chemical substance, identify and describe 

the point in the process description at which the release occurs (e.g. releases due 

to spillage, residues, separation losses, and other sources from each batch or each 

day). 

16 Media and type of release 

For each release, indicate the type (gas or vapor, aqueous or liquid solution, or 

solid) and media (stack air, fugitive air, surface water, on-site or off-site land or 

incineration, POTW, or other (specify)) which describes the release stream 

containing the chemical.

17 For each release, provide the quantity (in pounds) of chemical substance released: 

a) directly to the environment; or 

18 

Quantity of substance 

released a) directly to the 

environment or b) into 

control technology to the 

environment b) into control technology to the environment in pounds per day for continuous 

operation or pounds per batch for batch operations. 

19 Control technology 

For each release, describe the type of technology used to control the release of the 

substance to the environment. Examples of control technologies include carbon 

filter, scrubber and biological treatment (primary, secondary, etc.). 

20 Efficiency of control 

technology 

Indicate the established efficiency of the control technology in removing or 

destroying the chemical substance. 
 H-3

Data Element Description 

21 Destination of release 

For aqueous releases containing the chemical substance, indicate whether release 

enters a navigable waterway, a publicly-owned treatment works (POTW), or 

other. Identify the name of the POTW and/or National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) number as appropriate. For other releases, indicate 

whether the release goes to a municipal or hazardous waste landfill, a commercial 

incinerator, enters the atmosphere, or is otherwise disposed (specify). 

22 Additional release related 

information attached 

Indicate whether a description of the releases, calculations or monitoring data on 

the quantities of releases, or additional information on control technologies and/or 

treatment is attached. 

Industrial Processing or Use Activities 

23 Description of Processing 

or Use 

Provide a process flow diagram which describes the processing or use operation 

involving the chemical substance. “Unit operation” means a functional step in 

which substances undergo chemical changes and/or changes in location, 

temperature, pressure, physical state, or similar characteristics. Include steps in 

which the substance is formulated into gels, mixtures, suspensions, solutions, etc. 

and in which the substance is transferred into interim storage or shipping 

containers. Indicate in your diagram the entry and exit points of the chemical 

substance. Number all points from which the chemical substance will be released 

to the environment or to control equipment, including small or intermittent 

releases (e.g. some cleaning releases, drum residues, etc.) and trace amounts of 

the substance. 

24 

Processing or use at sites 

controlled by 

manufacturer 

Indicate whether the sites at which the chemical is processed or used are owned 

by the manufacturer or others. 

25 Continuous or batch 

process 

Indicate whether the industrial process in which the chemical is processed or used 

is a batch or continuous process. 

26 

Amount of substance 

processed per day or per 

batch 

Provide the amount of the substance in pounds processed or used per batch for 

batch operation or processed or used per day for continuous operation, 

respectively. 

27 Batch or daily run time 

If the chemical substance is processed in discrete batches, indicate the batch time 

(hours/batch); if the substance is processed in a continuous process, indicate the 

daily run time (hours/day). 

28 

Days of operation per 

year or number of batches 

per year 

If the chemical substance is processed in discrete batches, indicate the number of 

batches necessary to process the reported production volume; if the chemical 

substance is produced in a continuous process, indicate the number of days of 

operation per year needed to process the reported production volume. 

29 Unit operations 

List the unit operations needed to process the chemical substance. Unit operation 

means a functional step in manufacturing, processing, or use operation where 

substances undergo chemical changes, or changes in temperature, pressure, 

physical state, concentration, purity, or similar characteristics. Examples of unit 

operations include blending, distillation, filtration, and drying. 

30 Storage and shipping 

containers used 

List the types of containers used to transport or store the chemical substance and 

their capacity. Examples of containers include 1-liter bottles, 5-gallon pails, 55-

gallon drums, 5,000-gallon tank trucks, and 20,000-gallon railcars. 

Industrial Processing or Use Occupational Exposures Information 

31 Worker activities 

Describe each specific activity in the operation during which workers may be 

exposed to the chemical substance. Such activities may include charging reactor 

vessels, sampling for quality control, transferring substances from one container 

to another, changing filters, filling drums, loading and loading tank cars or trucks, 

etc. Activities must be described even if workers wear protective equipment. 

32 Duration and frequency 

of worker exposure 

For each worker activity, provide the number of hours per day and the number of 

days per year during which the worker is engaged in processing or using the 

chemical substance. 
 H-4

Data Element Description 

33 Physical form For each worker activity, indicate the physical form of the substance at the time 

of exposure. 

34 Maximum concentration For each worker activity, indicate the maximum concentration of the substance in 

the product at the time of exposure. 

35 

Personal protective 

equipment and 

engineering controls used 

by workers 

For each worker activity, identify the specific types of protective equipment and 

engineering controls that will be employed to protect the worker from potential 

exposure to the chemical. 

36 Worker monitoring data 

available 

Indicate whether monitoring data on occupational exposure of workers is 

available. 

37 

Summary of occupational 

exposure monitoring 

included 

Indicate whether a summary of occupational exposure monitoring data is 

included. Summary should include information on the # of workers involved, # of 

samples taken, types of samples (area or personal), average and standard 

deviations of exposure. 

Industrial Processing or Use Releases to the Environment Information 

38 Release source (or point) 

For each point of release containing the chemical substance, identify and describe 

the point in the process description at which the release occurs (e.g. releases due 

to spillage, residues, separation losses, and other sources from each batch or each 

day). 

39 Media and type of release 

For each release, indicate the type (gas or vapor, aqueous or liquid solution, or 

solid) and media (stack air, fugitive air, surface water, on-site or off-site land or 

incineration, POTW, or other (specify)) which describes the release stream 

containing the chemical. 

40 For each release, provide the quantity (in pounds) of chemical substance released: 

a) directly to the environment; or 

41 

Quantity of substance 

released a) directly to the 

environment or b) into 

control technology to the 

environment 

b) into control technology to the environment in pounds per day for continuous 

operation or pounds per batch for batch operations. 

42 Control technology 

For each release, describe the type of technology used to control the release of the 

substance to the environment. Examples of control technologies include carbon 

filter, scrubber and biological treatment (primary, secondary, etc.). 

43 Efficiency of control 

technology 

Indicate the established efficiency of the control technology in removing or 

destroying the chemical substance. 

44 Destination of release 

For aqueous releases containing the chemical substance, indicate whether release 

enters a navigable waterway, a publicly-owned treatment works (POTW), or 

other. Identify the name of the POTW and/or NPDES # as appropriate. For other 

releases, indicate whether the release goes to a municipal or hazardous waste 

landfill, a commercial incinerator, enters the atmosphere, or is otherwise disposed 

(specify). 

45 Additional release related 

information attached 

Indicate whether a description of the releases, calculations or monitoring data on 

the quantities of releases, or additional information on control technologies and/or 

treatment is attached. 

Commercial Use Occupational Exposure Information 

46 Description of 

commercial use Describe the commercial use(s) of products containing the chemical substance. 

47 Function of chemical in 

commercial product 

Describe the function of the chemical in the commercial product, e.g., dispersive 

dye, solvent, stabilizer, hardener, plasticizer, filler, etc. 

48 

Number of potentially 

exposed commercial 

workers 

Indicate the number of workers in commercial establishments who are reasonably 

likely to be exposed to the chemical substance. 

49 Physical form of 

commercial product Indicate the physical form of the product containing the chemical substance. 
 H-5

Data Element Description 

50 Method of commercial 

product application 

Describe the application method (e.g. sprayed applied via pump sprayer or 

aerosols, poured or applied manually) of the product containing the chemical 

substance and whether the commercial use is destructive, contained, dispersive, 

etc. 

51 

Duration and frequency 

of commercial product 

use 

Indicate the duration of use, e.g. 5 minutes or less, 30 minutes or less, 1 hour or 

less, etc. and frequency of commercial use, e.g. used more than once a day, used 

once a day, used several times a week, etc. 

Consumer Use and Exposure Information 

52 Description of consumer 

use Describe the consumer use(s) of products containing the chemical substance. 

53 Function of chemical in 

consumer product 

Describe the function of the chemical in the consumer product, e.g., dispersive 

dye, solvent, stabilizer, hardener, plasticizer, filler, etc. 

54 Number of potentially 

exposed consumers 

Indicate the number of consumers reasonably likely to be exposed to the chemical 

substance. 

55 

Physical form of 

consumer product(s) 

containing the chemical 

substance 

Indicate the physical form, e.g., gel, foam, powder, etc. of the consumer product 

containing the chemical substance. 

56 Method of consumer 

product application 

Describe the application of the consumer product containing the chemical 

substance, for example, chemicals in products that will be sprayed via pump 

sprayer or aerosols; products that are poured, mixed, applied by hand/mechanical 

device; chemicals that can be released via diffusion, evaporation, abrasion, etc., 

from articles; or chemicals that are incorporated into articles with no potential for 

release, etc. 

57 Duration and frequency 

of consumer product use 

Indicate the duration of consumer use, e.g., used for 5 minutes or less, 30 minutes 

or less, less than 1 hour, etc. and frequency of consumer use, e.g. used more than 

once a day, used once a day, used several times a week, etc. 
 H-6

H.1 Estimated Number of Affected Entities 

 In order to estimate the burden and cost of collecting the additional data, EPA assumes the impacts 

on manufacturers and processors would be different. Manufacturers would be required to complete an 

integrated Form U, which would be a Form U revised to incorporate the new data elements. For the 

purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes all of the amendments currently being proposed also would be 

included. EPA assumes processors, on the other hand, would be required to complete a tailored Form U 

focusing only on the additional processing and use information. 

Manufacturers 

For manufacturers, EPA assumes the numbers of sites and reports that would be affected by the 

requirement to provide additional exposure-related data would be the same as the numbers of 

manufacturing sites and reports as estimated in Section 4.5 of this report. As shown in Table 4-46, a total 

of 4,085 manufacturers are expected to submit 29,871 reports in the first reporting cycle, including both 

full and partial reports, when all the proposed amendments are considered. As shown in Table 4-47, in 

future reporting cycles a total of 4,289 manufacturers are expected to submit a total of 31,365 reports. To 

the extent any specific chemicals would be exempt from the requirement to provide these additional data 

elements, the number of manufacturers and reports may be an overestimate. 

Processors 

The number of processors that may be affected by a requirement to submit the additional data 

elements was estimated using data from EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reporting program. Under 

the TRI program, EPA collects information annually on toxic chemical releases and waste management 

activities from manufacturers, processors, and users of a set of 581 toxic chemicals and 30 toxic chemical 

categories. The chemicals regulated under the TRI program are a smaller set than those regulated under 

the IUR rule, but the TRI data collection activity currently is the most comprehensive information 

collection EPA administers for chemical processors. Therefore, EPA assumes information on processors 

who report under TRI is a suitable proxy for processors who may report under an amended IUR rule. 

EPA used TRI Form R submission data from the 2007 TRI Public Data Release for 2002 through 

2005 (to be consistent with the time period of the most recent IUR reporting cycle). EPA filtered the data 

to include only IUR chemicals (i.e., the chemicals listed in the public 2006 IUR database).19 Processors 

submitted TRI data on an average of 220 of the IUR chemicals during each of the four years of interest. 

For this analysis, EPA counted as a “processor” each TRI submitter indicating it processes a toxic 

chemical as a reactant, as a formulation component, as an article component, for repackaging, or as an 

impurity; or, that it otherwise uses the chemical as a chemical processing aid.20 Because EPA assumes 

any company that both manufactures and processes a chemical will be considered a manufacturer for the 

purposes of IUR reporting of the additional data elements, TRI submitters who indicated they also 

manufactured or otherwise used a chemical were filtered out of the dataset. 

The TRI data revealed an average of 137 processors reported information per TRI chemical. 

However, the average value is greatly skewed by certain high-volume chemicals processed by a large 

number of processors.21 Therefore, EPA chose to use the median number of 15 processors per chemical, 

 

19 The TRI program may collect data on certain chemicals for which IUR reporting is not required. A list of 

CASRNs for the non-confidential IUR chemicals was found at “Non-confidential 2006 IUR Records by Chemical, 

including Manufacturing, Processing and Use Information” http://cfpub.epa.gov/iursearch/index.cfm?s=chem 

Accessed August 30, 2009. 

20 TRI submitters indicate their activities and uses of the toxic chemical at the facility in Part II Section 3 of Form 

R.

21 For example, an average of 3,240 processors per year reported for lead alone. 
 H-7

assuming it to be more representative of the universe of chemical processors who would report under the 

IUR rule. 

Information was reported for a total of 6,140 chemicals under the IUR rule in 2006. By applying the 

average number of processors per chemical derived from TRI data, EPA estimates a total of 92,100 

reports would be submitted by processors as a result of this option (15 x 6,140 = 92,100). 

This approach is limited to the extent the universe of processors is different under the TRI regulation 

and IUR rule. Because the sets of chemicals covered under the TRI and IUR rules are different, the 

median number of processors per chemical may be an over- or underestimate. (EPA attempted to 

minimize this by filtering the TRI data to only include known IUR chemicals, but not all IUR chemicals 

would be subject to TRI reporting requirements.) Additionally, the TRI rule applies to facilities included 

within a specific set of NAICS codes; the IUR rule presently does not limit its applicability to a defined 

set of NAICS codes. This may cause the number of processors estimated here to be an underestimate. 

Furthermore, “processor” may be defined differently by the two rules; any specific criteria EPA may use 

to define a “processor” for the purpose of the IUR rule may cause the median number of processors per 

chemical estimated here to be an overestimate. Finally, the data used in this analysis was for submissions 

of TRI Form R only. This was done because Form A, the other, simpler, TRI reporting form, does not 

request information that would identify the submitter as a processor or manufacturer. Form R is used for 

high-volume chemicals (i.e., those manufactured, processed, or otherwise used in amounts greater than 

one million pounds) or for chemicals meeting other specific criteria; as a result, processors of small 

volumes may not be included, causing the median number to be an underestimate. 

H.2 Industry Burden Estimate 

Manufacturers 

Given the similarity between the additional exposure-related data elements and the exposure data 

collected under EPA’s New Chemical Program, EPA assumes the incremental cost for the additional data 

elements will be similar to the estimated burden to complete a premanufacture notice (PMN).22 Therefore, 

EPA calculated the burden to complete an “integrated Form U” (that is, a Form U modified to include the 

additional data elements) by adding the base burden for a full form (estimated in Section 4.5 of this 

report) to the burden to complete a PMN. EPA assumes every site will be required to complete the 

additional exposure information. 

The burden of completing a paper PMN form was estimated in the supporting statement for 

Premanufacture Review Reporting and Exemption Requirements for New Chemical Substances and 

Significant New Use Reporting Requirements for Chemical Substances, EPA ICR No: 574.12 (EPA,. 

2003). According to this source, the total burden to complete a PMN form in the first reporting cycle is 

107 hours. To be consistent with the proposed amendment to require electronic submission (discussed in 

Section 4.4.27 of this economic analysis), EPA reduced the estimated burden to 93 hours. Because paper 

filing would not be permitted under the amendment, all clerical burden is eliminated. Consistent with the 

method described in Section 4.2.6 of this report, the future cycle burden was calculated by applying a 

weighting factor of 80 percent to the first cycle burden, resulting in an estimated burden of 74.4 hours. 

Using the numbers of manufacturing sites and reports as estimated in Section 4.5 of this report, EPA 

estimates the total burden to manufacturers to submit additional exposure-related data as part of their IUR 

 

22 Anyone who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose is 

required by section 5 of TSCA to provide EPA with notice before initiating the activity. This premanufacture notice, 

or PMN, must be submitted at least 90 days prior to the manufacture or import of the chemical. 
 H-8

reporting is 2.78 million hours in the first reporting cycle and 2.33 million hours in all future reporting 

cycles (See Table H-2: ). 

This approach is limited to the extent the data elements requested in any modification to the IUR 

match the PMN form and the burden it imposes. Furthermore, the PMN form includes some site and 

chemical identification data which may overlap with the data provided on IUR Part I; however, this 

overlap was considered to be minimal. 

Table H-2: Change in Industry Burden to Manufacturers as a Result of Additional ExposureRelated Data Elements 

Burden for 

Rule 

Familiarization, 

Compliance 

Determination, 

Submission and 

to Prepare 

 Part I 

(hours per site)

Number 

of Sites 

Burden 

for 

Record 

Keeping 

and to 

Prepare 

Part II 

(hours 

per 

report) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

Part II) 

Burden 

to 

Prepare 

Part III 

(hours 

per 

report) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

Part 

III) 

Burden 

to 

Complete 

New 

Data 

Elements 

(hours 

per 

report) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

New 

Data 

elements) 

Industry 

Burden 

(millions 

of 

hours) 

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) 

(g) = 

(a* b)+ 

(c*d)+ 

(e*f)+ 

(g*h) 

Manufacturer Burden (First Cycle) 

Considering all Proposed Amendments 

(As Estimated in Table 4-47) 

35.17 4,085 22.19 29,871 83.02 29,253 0.00 0 3.24 

Total Manufacturer Burden (First 

Cycle) Including Additional Data 

Elements 

35.17 4,085 22.19 29,871 83.02 29,253 93 29,871 6.01 

Incremental Increase due to Additional 

Data Elements (First Cycle) 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 93.00 29,871 2.78 

Manufacturer Burden (Future Cycles) 

Considering all Proposed Amendments 

(As Estimated in Table 4-47) 

11.05 4,289 18.35 31,365 65.63 30,716 0 0 2.64 

Total Manufacturer Burden (Future 

Cycles) Including Additional Data 

Elements 

11.05 4,289 18.35 31,365 65.63 30,716 74.4 31,365 4.97 

Incremental Increase due to Additional 

Data Elements (Future Cycles) 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 74.40 31,365 2.33 

Note: Values in Incrememtal Increase rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the post-amendment value.

Table H-3 contains the annual burden to manufacturers of the additional enhanced data elements over 

a 25-year period. The baseline burden estimates for completing Form U after all the proposed 

amendments are considered is taken from Table 4-55. EPA estimates over a 25-year period, the total 

burden to manufacturers for completing Form U, including the additional data elements, would be 30.88 

million hours. The data elements add 14.45 million hours to the industry burden over this period. 
 H-9

Table H-3: Schedule of Annual Industry Burden to Manufacturers if All Proposed Amendments Are 

Implemented 

Reporting Cycle Years 

Baseline Form U 

Burden 

(When all 

Amendments are 

Considered) 

(millions of hours)

Burden for 

Enhanced Data 

Elements 

(millions of hours)

Total Industry 

Burden 

(millions of 

hours)

1 2007 to 2011 3.24 2.78 6.01 

2 2012 to 2015 2.64 2.33 4.97 

3 2016 to 2019 2.64 2.33 4.97 

4 2020 to 2023 2.64 2.33 4.97 

5 2023 to 2027 2.64 2.33 4.97 

6 2026 to 2031 2.64 2.33 4.97 

Total 16.43 14.45 30.88 

Annual Average 0.66 0.58 1.24 

Manufacturers and Processors Combined 

Because processors would not need to complete manufacturing information on Form U, Section II 

and other elements of Form U may not be applicable. For the purpose of this estimation, EPA assumes the 

burden on processors to complete an IUR form tailored to processing and use information would be 

similar to that of a PMN form alone. 

Using the number of processors and number of reports as estimated in Section H.1, the total burden to 

processors to submit exposure-related data elements is estimated to be 8.57 million hours in the first 

reporting cycle and 6.85 million hours in future reporting cycles, and is shown in Table H-4. 

This approach is also limited to the extent the data elements requested from processors in any 

modification to the IUR match the PMN form and the burden it imposes. 

Table H-4: Change in Industry Burden to Processors as a Result of Additional Exposure-Related 

Data Elements 

 

Burden to 

Complete 

Enhanced 

Data 

Elements 

 (hours per 

report) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

Enhanced 

Data 

Elements) 

Industry 

Burden 

(millions of 

hours) 

Processor Burden (First Cycle) 

Considering all Proposed Amendments 0 0 0.00 

Total Processor Burden (First Cycle) Including Additional Data Elements 93 92,100 8.57 

Incremental Increase due to Additional Data Elements (First Cycle) 93 92,100 8.57 

Processor Burden (Future Cycles) 

Considering all Proposed Amendments 0 0 0.00 

Total Processor Burden (Future Cycles) Including Additional Data 

Elements 74 92,100 6.85 

Incremental Increase due to Additional Data Elements (Future Cycles) 74 92,100 6.85 

Note: Values in Incremental Increase rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.
 H-10

Table H-5 contains the annual burden to processors of the additional enhanced data elements over a 

25-year period. EPA estimates over a 25-year period, the total burden to processors for completing Form 

U, including the additional data elements, would be 42.83 million hours. This burden consists of labor to 

complete only the additional data elements because processors currently are not required to submit Form 

U. 

Table H-5: Schedule of Annual Industry Burden to Processors 

Reporting Cycle Years 

Baseline Form U 

Burden 

(When all 

Amendments are 

Considered) 

(millions of hours) 

Burden for 

Enhanced 

Data 

Elements 

(millions of 

hours) 

Total Industry Burden 

(millions of hours) 

1 2007 to 2011 0.00 8.57 8.57 

2 2012 to 2015 0.00 6.85 6.85 

3 2016 to 2019 0.00 6.85 6.85 

4 2020 to 2023 0.00 6.85 6.85 

5 2023 to 2027 0.00 6.85 6.85 

6 2026 to 2031 0.00 6.85 6.85 

Total 0.00 42.83 42.83 

Annual Average 0.00 1.71 1.71 

The total industry burden to both manufacturers and processors if EPA were to require them to 

provide the additional exposure data is calculated by summing the total additional burdens for 

manufacturers and processors. The result is an estimated 11.34 million hours in the first reporting cycle 

and 9.19 million hours all future reporting cycles. The derivation of these numbers is found in Table H-6. 

Table H-6: Change in Industry Burden to Manufacturers and Processors as a Result of Additional 

Exposure-Related Data Elements 

 

Total Burden to 

Manufacturers 

(millions of hours) 

Total Burden to 

Processors 

(millions of 

hours) 

Total Industry 

Burden 

(millions of 

hours) 

Burden (First Cycle) 

Considering all Proposed Amendments 3.24 0.00 3.24 

Total Burden (First Cycle) Including Additional 

Data Elements 6.32 8.57 14.88 

Incremental Increase due to Additional Data 

Elements (First Cycle) 2.78 8.57 11.34 

Burden (Future Cycles) 

Considering all Proposed Amendments 2.64 0.00 2.64 

Total Burden (Future Cycles) Including 

Additional Data Elements 4.97 6.85 11.83 

Incremental Increase due to Additional Data 

Elements (Future Cycles) 2.33 6.85 9.19 

Note: Values in Incremental Increase rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Table H-7 contains the annual burden to industry of the additional enhanced data elements over a 25-

year period. The baseline burden estimates for completing Form U after all the proposed amendments are 

considered is taken from Table 4-52. EPA estimates over a 25-year period, the total burden to industry for 

completing Form U, including the additional data elements, would be 73.70 million hours. The additional 

data elements add 57.27 million hours to the industry burden over this period. 
 H-11

Table H-7: Schedule of Annual Industry Burden to Manufacturers and Processors if All Proposed 

Amendments Are Implemented 

Reporting Cycle Years 

Baseline Form U 

Burden 

(When all Amendments 

are Considered) 

(millions of hours) 

Form U 

Burden with 

Enhanced 

Data 

Elements 

(millions of 

hours) 

Total Industry Burden 

(millions of hours) 

1 2007 to 2011 3.24 11.34 14.58 

2 2012 to 2015 2.64 9.19 11.82 

3 2016 to 2019 2.64 9.19 11.82 

4 2020 to 2023 2.64 9.19 11.82 

5 2023 to 2027 2.64 9.19 11.82 

6 2026 to 2031 2.64 9.19 11.82 

Total 16.43 57.27 73.70 

Annual Average 0.66 2.29 2.95 

H.3 Industry Cost Estimate 

EPA calculated the per-report cost to industry of the additional data elements by multiplying the 

managerial and technical burdens found in Premanufacture Review Reporting and Exemption 

Requirements for New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Reporting Requirements for 

Chemical Substances, EPA ICR No: 574.12 (EPA, 2003) by the wage rates for technical and managerial 

staff described in Section 4.2.1. No clerical cost was calculated because EPA assumes the proposed 

electronic submission requirement will eliminate all clerical burden for processing and submitting Form 

U. As shown in Table H-8, EPA estimates the additional per report cost to be $5,673 in the first reporting 

cycle and $4,539 in all future reporting cycles, as a result of the requirement to report the additional data. 

Table H-8: Per-Report Cost for Additional Data Elements, based on PMN Burden 

Technical Managerial Total 

Burden 

(hours) 

Wage 

Rate 

(2008$) 

Cost 

(2008$) 

Burden 

(hours) 

Wage 

Rate 

(2008$) 

Cost 

(2008$) 

Burden 

(hours) 

Cost 

(2008$) 

PMN Burden/Cost 

per Report 

(First Cycle) 

75 $58.84 $4,413 18 $70.03 $1,260 93 $5,673 

PMN Burden/Cost 

per Report 

(Future Cycles) 

60 $58.84 $3,530 14.4 $70.03 $1,008 74.4 $4,539 

Manufacturers 

The cost to manufacturers of the additional data elements was derived as shown in Table H-9. EPA 

estimates the option will cost manufacturers an additional $169 million during the first reporting cycle 

and an additional $142 million during all future reporting cycles. 
 H-12

Table H-9: Change in Industry Cost to Manufacturers as a Result of Additional Exposure-Related 

Data Elements 

Cost for 

Submission, 

Compliance 

Determination, 

Rule 

Familiarization, 

and to Prepare 

Part I 

(2008$) 

Number 

of Sites 

Cost for 

Record 

Keeping 

and to 

Prepare 

Part II 

(2008$) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

Part II) 

Cost to 

Prepare 

Part III 

(2008$) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

Part III) 

Cost to 

Complete 

New Data 

Elements 

(2008$) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

New Data 

Elements) 

Industry 

Cost 

(millions 

of 2008$) 

(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (g) = (a* b) 

+(c*d)+ 

(e*f)+(g*h) 

Manufacturer Cost (First Cycle) 

Considering all Proposed Amendments 

(As Estimated in Table 4-48) 

$2,192 4,085 $1,346 29,871 $5,117 29,253 0 0 $198.84 

Total Manufacturer Cost (First Cycle) 

Including Additional Data Elements $2,192 4,085 $1,346 29,871 $5,117 29,253 $5,673 29,871 $368.31 

Incremental Increase due to 

Additional Data Elements (First Cycle) $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 $0.00 $5,673.44 29,871 $169.47 

Manufacturer Cost (Future Cycles) 

Considering all Proposed Amendments 

(As Estimated in Table 4-48) 

$695 4,289 $1,109 31,365 $4,047 $30,716 0 0 $162.08 

Total Manufacturer Cost (Future 

Cycles) Including Additional Data 

Elements 

$695 4,289 $1,109 31,365 $4,047 30,716 $4,538.75 31,365 $304.44 

Incremental Increase due to 

Additional Data Elements (Future 

Cycles) 

$0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $4,539 31,365 $142.36 

Note: Values in Incremental Increase rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the post-amendment value.

Table H-10 presents the annual and annualized costs estimates to manufacturers of competing Form 

U with the additional exposure-related data elements. The baseline cost estimates for completion of Form 

U come from Table 4-56. Over a 25-year period, EPA estimates the annualized cost to manufacturers will 

be $72 million at a three percent discount rate, and $67 million at a seven percent discount rate. 

Table H-10: Annual Increase in Industry Cost to Manufacturers if All Proposed Amendments Are 

Implemented (2008$) 

Reporting 

Cycle Years 

Baseline Form U Cost 

(When all 

Amendments are 

Considered) 

(millions 2008$) 

Form U Cost for 

Enhanced Data 

Elements 

 (millions 2008$) 

Total Cost To 

Industry 

(millions 2008$) 

1 2007 to 2011 $198.84 $169.47 $368.31 

2 2012 to 2015 $162.08 $142.36 $304.44 

3 2016 to 2019 $162.08 $142.36 $304.44 

4 2020 to 2023 $162.08 $142.36 $304.44 

5 2023 to 2027 $162.08 $142.36 $304.44 

6 2026 to 2031 $162.08 $142.36 $304.44 

Total $1,009.25 $881.26 $1,890.51 

Annual Average $40.37 $35.25 $75.62 

Annualized at 3% $38.40 $33.47 $71.88 

Annualized at 7% $35.83 $31.15 $66.98 
 H-13

Manufacturers and Processors Combined 

To calculate the cost to processors, EPA multiplied the per report cost ($5,673 in the first reporting 

cycle and $4,539 during all future reporting cycles) by the total number of reports EPA expects to be 

submitted by processors, 141,220. As shown in Table H-11, EPA estimates the cost to processors to be 

$523 million in the first reporting cycle and $418 million in all future reporting cycles. 

Table H-11: Change in Industry Cost to Processors as a Result of Additional Exposure-Related 

Data Elements 

 

Cost to 

Prepare 

New Data 

Elements 

(2008$) 

Number of 

Reports 

(with New 

Data 

Elements) 

Industry Cost 

(millions 2008$) 

Processor Cost (First Cycle) 

Considering all Proposed Amendments 0 0 $0 

Total Processor Cost (First Cycle) Including Additional Data 

Elements $5,673 92,100 $523 

Incremental Increase due to Additional Data Elements (First 

Cycle) $5,673 92,100 $523 

Processor Cost (Future Cycles) 

Considering all Proposed Amendments 0 0 $0 

Total Processor Cost (Future Cycles) Including Additional Data 

Elements $4,539 92,100 $418 

Incremental Increase due to Additional Data Elements (Future 

Cycles) $4,539 92,100 $418 

Note: Values in Incremental Increase rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Table H-12 presents the annual and annualized costs estimates to processors of competing Form U 

with the additional exposure-related data elements. Over a 25-year period, EPA estimates the annualized 

cost to processors will be $116 million at a three percent discount rate, and $125 million at a seven 

percent discount rate. 

Table H-12: Annual Increase in Industry Cost to Processors if All Proposed Amendments Are 

Implemented (2008$) 

Reportng 

Cycle Years 

Baseline Form U Cost 

(When all Amendments are 

Considered) 

(millions 2008$) 

Form U Cost 

for Enhanced 

Data Elements 

(millions 2008$) 

Total Cost To 

Industry 

(millions 2008$) 

1 2007 to 2011 $0.00 $523.00 $523.00 

2 2012 to 2015 $0.00 $418.00 $418.00 

3 2016 to 2019 $0.00 $418.00 $418.00 

4 2020 to 2023 $0.00 $418.00 $418.00 

5 2023 to 2027 $0.00 $418.00 $418.00 

6 2026 to 2031 $0.00 $418.00 $418.00 

Total $0.00 $2,613.00 $2,613.00 

Annual Average $0.00 $104.52 $104.52 

Annualized at 3% $0.00 $116.03 $116.03 

Annualized at 7% $0.00 $125.45 $125.45 
 H-14

Total estimated industry cost is presented in Table H-13 and is calculated by summing the costs to 

both manufactures and processors. EPA estimates the cost to the industry of the additional exposure 

elements, if both manufacturers and processor are required to provide the data, will be $692 million in the 

first reporting cycle and $560 million in all future reporting cycles. 

Table H-13: Change in Industry Cost to Manufacturers and Processors as a Result of Additional 

Exposure-Related Data Elements 

 

Total Cost to 

Manufacturers 

(millions 2008$) 

Total Cost to 

Processors 

(millions 2008$) 

Total Industry 

Cost 

(millions 2008$) 

Cost (First Cycle) 

Considering all Proposed Amendments $199 $0 $199 

Total Cost (First Cycle) Including Additional Data 

Elements $368 $523 $891 

Incremental Increase due to Additional Data 

Elements (First Cycle) $169 $523 $692 

Cost (Future Cycles) 

Considering all Proposed Amendments $162 $0 $162 

Total Cost (Future Cycles) Including Additional 

Data Elements $304 $418 $722 

Incremental Increase due to Additional Data 

Elements (Future Cycles) $142 $418 $560 

Note: Values in Incremental Increase rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Table H-14 presents the annual and annualized costs estimates to industry of competing Form U with 

the additional exposure-related data elements. The baseline cost estimates for completion of Form U 

come from Table 4-53. Over a 25-year period, EPA estimates the annualized cost to the industry will be 

$166 million at a three percent discount rate, and $150 million at a seven percent discount rate. 

Table H-14: Annualized Increase in Industry Cost to Manufacturers and Processors if All 

Amendments Are Implemented (2008$) 

Reporting 

Cycle Years 

Baseline Form U Cost 

(When all Amendments Are 

Considered) 

(millions 2008$) 

Form U Burden with 

Enhanced Data 

Elements 

(millions 2008$) 

Total Cost To 

Industry 

(millions 2008$) 

1 2007 to 2011 $198.84 $692.47 $891.31 

2 2012 to 2015 $162.08 $560.36 $722.44 

3 2016 to 2019 $162.08 $560.36 $722.44 

4 2020 to 2023 $162.08 $560.36 $722.44 

5 2023 to 2027 $162.08 $560.36 $722.44 

6 2026 to 2031 $162.08 $560.36 $722.44 

Total $1,009.25 $3,494.26 $4,503.51 

Annual Average $40.37 $139.77 $180.14 

Annualized at 3% $37.28 $129.14 $166.43 

Annualized at 7% $33.48 $116.05 $149.53 
 H-15

H.4 Agency Burden Estimate 

Agency burden for both contractor and EPA staff related to document receipt, tracking and data entry 

quality control of data entry would increase with the promulgation of additional exposure-related data 

elements. To calculate the additional Agency burden associated with the additional data elements, EPA 

used the per-data element burden to the EPA after all the proposed amendments are considered, 0.00008 

hours, as derived in Section 5.5). This burden was multiplied by the number of new data elements, 57 (as 

listed in Table H-1) to calculate the total per-report burden of processing the new data elements for 

manufacturers, 0.0048 hours. EPA assumes there will be no change in the fixed Agency costs associated 

with this modification to the IUR rule, as described in Table 5-3. 

Manufacturers 

All manufactures are expected to submit the additional data, increasing the Agency burden by 150 

hours for all report years, as estimated in Table H-15. EPA does not expect the future reporting cycle 

burden to differ from first reporting cycle burden. 

Table H-15: Change in Agency Burden to Process Manufacturer Data as a Result of Additional 

Exposure-Related Data Elements 

Burden to 

Process 

Part I 

(hours) 

Number 

of Sites 

Burden to 

Process 

Part II 

 (hours) 

Number of 

Reports 

(with 

Part II) 

Burden to 

Process 

Part III 

(hours) 

Number of 

Reports 

(with 

 Part III) 

Burden to 

Process 

New Data 

Elements 

(hours) 

Number of 

Reports 

(With New 

Data 

Elements) 

Agency 

Burden 

(hours) 

First Year, 

Baseline 

Burden (All 

Proposed 

Amendments) 

0.0019 4,085 0.0056 29,871 0.0063 29,253 0 0 2,439 

First year, 

With 

Enhanced 

Data 

Elements 

0.0019 4,085 0.0056 29,871 0.0063 29,253 0.0048 29,871 2,582 

Change, first 

year 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0048 29,871 143 

Future-cycle 

Baseline 0.0019 4,289 0.0056 31,365 0.0063 30,716 0 0 2,456 

Future cycle, 

Post 

Amendment 

0.0019 4,289 0.0056 31,365 0.0063 30,716 0.0048 31,365 2,607 

Change from 

the Baseline, 

Future cycles 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0048 31,365 150 

Table H-16 presents the estimated annual burden to the Agency of processing Form U with the 

additional exposure-related data elements. Over a 25-year period, EPA estimates the total Agency burden 

to process manufacturer data will be 15,600 hours. 
 H-16

Table H-16: Annual Increase in Agency Burden to Process Manufacturer Data if All Proposed 

Amendments Are Implemented 

Reporting Cycle Years 

Baseline Form 

U Burden 

(When all 

Amendments 

are Considered) 

(hours) 

Form U 

Burden with 

Enhanced 

Data 

Elements 

(hours) 

Total 

Industry 

Burden 

(hours) 

1 2007 to 2011 2,439 143 2,582 

2 2012 to 2015 2,456 150 2,607 

3 2016 to 2019 2,456 150 2,607 

4 2020 to 2023 2,456 150 2,607 

5 2023 to 2027 2,456 150 2,607 

6 2026 to 2031 2,456 150 2,607 

Total 14,721 896 15,617 

Annual Average 589 36 625 

Manufacturers and Processors Combined 

Table H-17 shows the estimated burden to the Agency of processing the additional data submitted by 

processors. As described above, EPA expects to receive a total of 92,100 processor reports. The Agency 

burden, per-report, to process the additional data elements is 0.0048 hours, and is the same for both 

processors and manufactures. Therefore, as shown in Table H-10, the Agency burden to process the 

processor data is approximately 442 hours for all reporting cycles. 

Table H-17: Change in Agency Burden to Process Processor Data as a Result of Additional 

Exposure-Related Data Elements 

 

Per-Report 

Burden to Process 

New Data 

Elements 

(hours) 

Number of 

Reports (with 

New Data 

Elements) 

Agency Burden 

(hours) 

Agency Burden to Process Processor Data 

Considering all Proposed Amendments 0.0000 0 0 

Total Agency Burden Including Processing Additional Data 

Elements for Processors 0.0048 92,100 442 

Incremental Increase due to Additional Data Elements 0.0048 92,100 442 

Note: Values in Incremental Increase rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Table H-18 presents the estimated annual burden to the Agency of processing Form U with the 

additional exposure-related data elements. Over a 25-year period, EPA estimates the total Agency burden 

to process processor data will be 2,651 hours. 
 H-17

Table H-18: Annual Increase in Agency Burden to Process Processor Data if All Proposed 

Amendments Are Implemented 

Reporting Cycle Years 

Baseline Form U 

Burden 

(When all 

Amendments are 

Considered) 

(hours) 

Form U Burden with 

Enhanced Data 

Elements 

(hours) 

Total Industry 

Burden 

(hours) 

1 2007 to 2011 0.00 442 442 

2 2012 to 2015 0.00 442 442 

3 2016 to 2019 0.00 442 442 

4 2020 to 2023 0.00 442 442 

5 2023 to 2027 0.00 442 442 

6 2026 to 2031 0.00 442 442 

Total 0.00 2,651 2,651 

Annual Average 0.00 106 106 

Table H-19 presents the burden to EPA of processing the additional data elements from both the 

processors and the manufacturers. This option is expected to increase the Agency burden by 592 hours for 

all reporting cycles. 

Table H-19: Change in Agency Burden to Process Manufacturer and Processor Data as a Result of 

Additional Exposure-Related Data Elements 

Total Agency 

Burden 

 

Total Burden of Processing 

Manufacturer Data 

(hours) 

Total Burden of 

Processing Processor 

Data (hours) (hours) 

Burden (First Cycle) 

Considering all Proposed 

Amendments 

2,439 0 2,439 

Total Burden (First Cycle) 

Including Additional Data 

Elements 

2,582 442 3,024 

Incremental Increase due to 

Additional Data Elements 

(First Cycle) 

143 442 585 

Burden (Future Years) 

Considering all Proposed 

Amendments 

2,456 0 2,456 

Total Burden (Future Years) 

Including Additional Data 

Elements 

2,607 442 3,049 

Incremental Increase due to 

Additional Data Elements 

(Future Years) 

150 442 592 

Table H-20 presents the estimated annual burden to the Agency of processing Form U with the 

additional exposure-related data elements from both manufacturers and processors. Over a 25-year period, 

EPA estimates the total Agency burden to process manufacturer and processor data will be 18,269 hours. 
 H-18

Table H-20: Annual Increase in Agency Burden to Process Data if All Proposed Amendments Are 

Implemented 

Reporting 

Cycle Years 

Baseline Burden 

(When all Amendments are 

Considered) 

Form U Burden with 

Enhanced Data 

Elements (hours) 

Total Agency 

Burden 

 (hours) 

1 2007 to 2011 2,439 585 3,024 

2 2012 to 2015 2,456 592 3,049 

3 2016 to 2019 2,456 592 3,049 

4 2020 to 2023 2,456 592 3,049 

5 2023 to 2027 2,456 592 3,049 

6 2026 to 2031 2,456 592 3,049 

Total 14,721 3,548 18,269 

Annual Average 589 142 731 

H.5 Agency Cost Estimate 

The additional exposure data elements are expected to increase the cost to both EPA and contractor 

staff. To calculate the additional Agency cost associated with the additional data elements, EPA used the 

per-data element cost to the EPA after all the proposed amendments are considered, $0.009, as derived in 

Section 5.5). This unit cost was multiplied by the number of new data elements, 57 (as listed in Table 

H-1) to calculate the total per-report cost of processing the new data elements for manufacturers, $0.51. 

Manufacturers 

The total cost to EPA of processing these new data elements for manufacturers is approximately 

$15,100 in the first reporting cycle and $15,800 in future reporting cycles, as shown in Table H-21. This 

table reflects both the variable cost to the Agency, which is dependent on the number of reports, and a 

fixed cost to the Agency of $249,200 (see Section 5.3) which will not change as a result of including the 

additional data option in the IUR. 

Table H-21: Change in Agency Cost of Processing Manufacturer Data as a Result of Additional 

Exposure-Related Data Elements 

Cost to 

Process 

Part I 

(2008$) 

Number 

of Sites 

Cost to 

Process 

Part II 

(2008$) 

Number of 

Reports 

(with Part 

II) 

Cost to 

Process 

Part III 

(2008$) 

Number of 

Reports 

(with Part 

III) 

Cost to Process 

New Data 

Elements 

(2008$) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

new data 

elements) 

Agency 

Burden 

(millions 

of 2008$) 

First Year, 

Baseline Cost (All 

Proposed 

Amendments) 

$0.20 4,085 $0.58 29,871 $0.66 29,253 $0.00 0 $241,393 

First year, with 

 Enhanced Data 

Elements 

$0.20 4,085 $0.58 29,871 $0.66 29,253 $0.51 29,871 $256,481 

Change, first year $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.51 29,871 $15,089 

Future-Cycle 

Baseline $0.20 4,289 $0.58 31,365 $0.66 30,716 0.00 0 $243,263 

Future-Cycle, 

Post Amendment $0.20 4,289 $0.58 31,365 $0.66 30,716 0.51 31,365 $259,106 
 H-19

Cost to 

Process 

Part I 

(2008$) 

Number 

of Sites 

Cost to 

Process 

Part II 

(2008$) 

Number of 

Reports 

(with Part 

II) 

Cost to 

Process 

Part III 

(2008$) 

Number of 

Reports 

(with Part 

III) 

Cost to Process 

New Data 

Elements 

(2008$) 

Number 

of 

Reports 

(with 

new data 

elements) 

Agency 

Burden 

(millions 

of 2008$) 

Change from the 

Baseline, Future 

Cycles 

$0.00 0 $0.00 0 $0.00 0 0.51 31,365 $15,843 

Table H-22 presents the annual and annualized costs estimates to the Agency of processing 

manufacturer Form U with the additional exposure-related data elements. Over a 25-year period, EPA 

estimates the annualized cost to the Agency will be $58,350 at a three percent discount rate, and $53,517 

at a seven percent discount rate. 

Table H-22: Annual Increase in Agency Cost to Process Manufacturer Data if All Proposed 

Amendments Are Implemented (2008$) 

Reporting Cycle Years Baseline Cost 

(2008$) 

PostAlternative 

Option Cost 

(2008$) 

Change 

from 

Baseline 

(2008$) 

1 2007 to 2011 $241,393 $15,089 $256,481 

2 2012 to 2015 $243,263 $15,843 $259,106 

3 2016 to 2019 $243,263 $15,843 $259,106 

4 2020 to 2023 $243,263 $15,843 $259,106 

5 2023 to 2027 $243,263 $15,843 $259,106 

6 2026 to 2031 $243,263 $15,843 $259,106 

Total $1,457,707 $94,306 $1,552,013 

Annual Average $58,308 $3,772 $62,081 

Annualized at 3% $54,812 $3,538 $58,350 

Annualized at 7% $50,281 $3,236 $53,517 

Manufacturers and Processors Combined 

Table H-23 shows the Agency cost of processing the processor data. To estimate this cost, EPA 

multiplied the number of processors derived in Section H.1 (141,220) by the per report cost of processing 

the additional data, $0.51. EPA estimates the total Agency cost to process the processor data is $46,500. 
 H-20

Table H-23: Change in Agency Cost to Process Processor Data as a Result of Additional 

Exposure-Related Data Elements 

 

Per-Report Cost to 

Process New Data 

Elements 

(2008$) 

Number of 

Reports 

(with New 

Data 

Elements) 

Agency Cost 

(2008$) 

Agency Cost to Process Processor Data 

Considering all Proposed Amendments $0.00 0 $0 

Total Agency Cost Including Processing Additional Data 

Elements for Processors $0.51 92,100 $46,522 

Incremental Increase due to Additional Data Elements $0.51 92,100 $46,522 

Note: Values in Incremental Increase rows are calculated by subtracting the corresponding baseline value from the postamendment value.

Table H-24 presents the annual and annualized costs estimates to the Agency of processing a 

processor Form U with the additional exposure-related data elements. Over a 25-year period, EPA 

estimates annualized cost to the Agency will be $10,500 at a three percent discount rate, and $9,600 at a 

seven percent discount rate. 

Table H-24: Annual Increase in Agency Cost to Process Processor Data if All Proposed 

Amendments Are Implemented (2008$) 

Reporting 

Cycle Years Baseline Cost(2008$ ) 

PostAlternative 

Option 

Cost(2008$) 

Change from 

Baseline(2008$) 

1 2007 to 2011 $0 $46,522 $46,522 

2 2012 to 2015 $0 $46,522 $46,522 

3 2016 to 2019 $0 $46,522 $46,522 

4 2020 to 2023 $0 $46,522 $46,522 

5 2023 to 2027 $0 $46,522 $46,522 

6 2026 to 2031 $0 $46,522 $46,522 

Total $0 $279,132 $279,132 

Annual Average $0 $11,165 $11,165 

Annualized at 3% $0 $10,500 $10,500 

Annualized at 7% $0 $9,638 $9,638 

Table H-25 shows the cost to EPA of processing the additional data elements from both the 

processors and the manufactures. This option is expected to increase the Agency cost by $61,600 in the 

first reporting cycle and $62,400 in all future reporting cycles. 
 H-21

Table H-25: Change in Agency Cost of Processing Manufacture and Processor Data as a Result of 

Additional Exposure-Related Data Elements 

Total Agency Burden Total Burden of 

Processing Manufacturer 

data (2008$) 

Total Burden of 

Processing Processor data 

(2008$) (2008$) 

Cost (First Cycle) 

Considering all Proposed 

Amendments 

$241,393 $0 $241,393 

Total Cost (First Cycle) 

Including Additional Data 

Elements 

$256,481 $46,522 $303,004 

Incremental Increase due to 

Additional Data Elements 

(First Cycle) 

$15,089 $46,522 $61,611 

Cost (Future Years) 

Considering all Proposed 

Amendments 

$243,263 $0 $241,393 

Total Cost (Future Years) 

Including Additional Data 

Elements 

$259,106 $46,522 $305,629 

Incremental Increase due to 

Additional Data Elements 

(Future Years) 

$15,843 $46,522 $62,366 

Table H-26 presents the annual and annualized costs estimates to the Agency of processing 

manufacturer and processor Form Us with the additional exposure-related data elements. Over a 25-year 

period, EPA estimates annualized cost to the Agency will be $68,900 at a three percent discount rate, and 

$63,200 at a seven percent discount rate. 
 H-22

Table H-26: Annual Increase in Agency Cost to Process Manufacturer and Processor Data if All 

Proposed Amendments Are Implemented (2008$) 

Reporting Cycle Years 

Baseline Burden 

(When all 

Amendments are 

Considered) 

(2008$)

Form U Burden with Enhanced 

data Elements 

 (2008$)

Total Agency Burden 

(2008$)

1 2007 to 2011 $241,393 $61,611 $303,004 

2 2012 to 2015 $243,263 $62,366 $305,629 

3 2016 to 2019 $243,263 $62,366 $305,629 

4 2020 to 2023 $243,263 $62,366 $305,629 

5 2023 to 2027 $243,263 $62,366 $305,629 

6 2026 to 2031 $243,263 $62,366 $305,629 

Total $1,457,707 $373,440 $1,831,147 

Annual Average $58,308 $14,938 $73,246 

Annualized at 3% $54,812 $14,039 $68,850 

Annualized at 7% $50,281 $12,874 $63,155 

H.6 Small Entity Analysis 

As described in Chapter 8 of this economic analysis, EPA assessed the impact the proposed 

amendments to the IUR rule may have on small entities by examining the relationship between the 

compliance costs and company sales for small companies. EPA performed a similar analysis to determine 

the impact of the collection of additional exposure-related data elements on small entities. 

Manufacturers

For manufacturers, EPA estimated (in Chapter 8) 3.89 manufacturing sites per global parent company; 

41.3 percent of global parent companies (466 companies) are considered small under the SBA 

employment-based definition,23 and 24.8 percent (280 companies) are considered small under the TSCA 

sales-based definition.24 EPA also estimated an average of approximately 1.76 sites per small company 

under the employment-based definition of small business and approximately 1.92 sites per small company 

under the sales-based definition. Average annual sales revenue of global parent companies considered 

 

23 Threshold of 1,000 employees. 24 Total annual sales of the company, combined with those of any parent company, are below $40 million and annual 

production volume or importation volume at the facility is less than or equal to 100,000 lb.; or total annual sales of 

the company, combined with those of any parent company, are below $4 million. 
 H-23

small under either definition were estimated using data from Dun & Bradstreet, as also described in 

Chapter 8. 

Table H-13 shows the incremental cost to manufacturers as a result of adding the additional exposure 

related data elements to Form U. Table 4-48 (in the main text of the report) shows the incremental cost to 

manufacturers related to the other proposed amendments. Because these costs would be incurred once 

every four years under a proposed four-year reporting cycle, these costs were summed and annualized 

over four years at both a three percent and seven percent discount rate.25 As shown in Table H-27, these 

costs were divided by the total number of sites expected to submit data, for the annualized costs per site. 

This was multiplied by the number of sites per small parent company to arrive at the annualized costs per 

small parent company. This value was divided by the annual sales per small parent company to derive the 

cost-to-sales ratio. 

As shown in Table H-27, under the employment-based definition, a small parent company affected by 

the rule on average has sales of more than $412.7 million. The annualized costs of the proposed IUR rule 

amendments per small parent company, however, are $31,067 at a seven percent discount rate, and even 

lower under a three percent discount rate. The cost-to-sales ratio for an average small company under the 

employment-based SBA definition would be 0.008 percent or less. Under the more conservative TSCA 

sales-based definition, small parent company sales are on average more than $11.8 million, with 

annualized parent company costs associated with the proposed amendments of $33,892 or lower. The 

cost-to-sales ratio for an average small company under the sales-based definition would be 0.29 percent or 

less. 

Using the highest annual cost shown in Table H-27 of $33,892 a small company would have to have 

annual sales of less than $3.39 million in order to have a cost-to-sales ratio larger than one percent. 

Table H-27. Derivation of Cost-to-Sales Ratios for Small Manufacturers for Collection of Additional 

Data Elements 

Employment-based Definition Sales-based Definition 

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Incremental Costs of 

Enhanced Data Elements $169,471,347.15

Incremental Costs of 

Proposed Other 

Amendments 

$91,871,064.30 

Total Annualized Costs $68,260,366 $72,108,063 $68,260,366 $72,108,063 

Total Number of Sites 4,085 

Annualized Costs per Site $16,710 $17,652 $16,710 $17,652 

Number of Sites per Small 

Parent Company 1.76 1.92 

Annualized Costs per Small 

Parent Company $29,410 $31,067 $32,083 $33,892 

Annual Sales per Small 

Parent Company $412,713,310 $11,821,104 

Cost-to-Sales Ratio 0.007% 0.008% 0.271% 0.287% 

Number of Companies 

Potentially Affected 466 280 

 

25 A seven percent discount rate, reflecting the opportunity cost of capital, is consistent with OMB Circular A-4 

(OMB, 2003). A three percent discount rate was also used as a sensitivity analysis to examine the robustness of the 

results to a change in the annualization assumptions. 
 H-24

Processors 

EPA is limited in its efforts to estimate the impact of the collection of additional exposure-related 

data elements on processors by the availability of data. As described above, EPA used TRI submission 

data to estimate the number of processors that may be affected by the requirement. However, data 

provided under the TRI program does not include information about a submitter’s parent company or 

annual revenues. For this screening-level analysis, EPA assumes the chemical processor industry shares 

many characteristics with the chemical manufacturing industry. To the extent this is not the case, this 

analysis may over- or underestimate the impact of additional data elements on processors. 

Specifically, EPA assumes 3.89 manufacturing sites per global parent company. EPA also assumes 

41.3 percent of global parent companies are considered small under an employment-based definition, and 

24.8 percent are considered small under a sales-based definition. EPA further assumes 1.76 sites per small 

parent company under the employment-based definition, and 1.92 sites per small parent company under 

the sales-based definition, consistent with manufacturer information. Given the large number of 

companies identified as processors according to TRI submissions, EPA was unable to examine Dun & 

Bradstreet data to estimate annual parent company revenue for this analysis. EPA used manufacturer 

revenue as a proxy, so this analysis provides only a preliminary estimate of impacts. 

EPA divided the number of expected processor reports (92,100) by the average number of chemicals 

for which a processor submitted TRI data (2.45) to obtain the estimated number of processors (37,592) 

who would report under an amended IUR rule. EPA divided this number by 3.89 (the number of sites per 

global parent company) for an estimated 9,664 global parent companies. This number was then multiplied 

by 41.3 percent and 24.8 percent to estimate the number of small global parent companies (the number of 

companies potentially affected), under the employment-based and sales-based definitions, respectively. 

To calculate cost-to-sales ratios, EPA followed the same methodology for processors as described above 

for manufacturers. Results are presented in Table H-28. 

Table H-28: Derivation of Cost-to-Sales Ratios for Small Processors for Collection of Additional 

Data Elements 

Employment-based Definition Sales-based Definition 

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Incremental Costs of 

Enhanced Data Elements $522,523,888 

Incremental Costs of Proposed 

Other Amendments $0.00 

Total Annualized Costs $136,478,697 $144,171,723 $136,478,697 $144,171,723 

Total Number of Sites 37,592 

Annualized Costs per Site $3,631 $3,835 $3,631 $3,835 

Number of Sites per Small 

Parent Company 1.76 1.92 

Annualized Costs per Small 

Parent Company $6,390 $6,750 $6,971 $7,364 

Annual Sales per Small Parent 

Company $412,7613,310 $11,821,104 

Cost-to-Sales Ratio 0.002% 0.002% 0.059% 0.062% 

Number of Companies 

Potentially Affected 3,990 2,397 

As shown in Table H-28, under the employment-based definition, a small parent company affected by 

the rule on average has sales of more than $412.7 million. The annualized costs of the proposed IUR rule 

amendments per small parent company, however, are $6,750 at a seven percent discount rate, and even 

lower under a three percent discount rate. The cost-to-sales ratio for an average small company under the 

employment-based definition would be 0.002 percent or less. Under the more conservative sales-based 
 H-25

definition, small parent company sales on average are more than $11.8 million, with annualized costs 

associated with the proposed amendments of $7,364 or lower. The cost-to-sales ratio for an average small 

company under the sales-based definition would be 0.062 percent or less. 

As described in Chapter 8, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not define the terms “significant” or 

“substantial” analytically with regard to extent of economic impact and number of small entities affected. 

However, EPA typically defines a threshold as compliance costs of one percent of sales to establish 

whether the level of economic impacts faced by the small entities can be presumed as not significant 

(EPA, 2006b). Using the highest annual cost shown in Table H-28, $7,346, a small company would have 

to have annual sales of less than $734,600 in order to have a cost-to-sales ratio larger than one percent. 
 I-1

Appendix I. - Estimated Burden and Cost of a Section 8(a) Rule for 

Exposure-Related Data Elements 

EPA is considering the annual collection of exposure-related data elements for approximately 100 

chemicals under a TSCA section 8(a) rulemaking. TSCA section 8(a) gives EPA the authority to require, 

by rulemaking, manufacturers (including importers) and processors of chemical substances to maintain 

records and/or report such data as EPA may reasonably require to carry out the TSCA mandates. Section 

8(a) regulations can be tailored to meet unique information needs (e.g., via chemical-specific rules) or 

information can be obtained via use of “model” or standardized reporting rules. The Agency is requesting 

comment on a “model” reporting rule that would enable the Agency to undertake periodic data collection 

of information similar to that collected under the TSCA section 5 New Chemicals Program. The 

information would enhance the Agency’s capabilities to conduct screening-level risk assessments of 

selected chemical substances. Each data collection would be specific to a unique set of IUR chemicals for 

which the information is needed; EPA would request the information through one or more notices or letter 

writing actions per year, for an approximate total of 100 chemical substances per year. 

The additional data elements are the same as those proposed under the option outlined in Appendix H. 

A brief description of the exposure-related data elements that may be included in such a section 8(a) rule 

are provided in Table H-1. 

I.1 Estimated Number of Affected Entities 

For the purpose of this analysis, EPA assumes a section 8(a) rule would apply to both manufacturers 

and processors of the subject chemicals. 

Manufacturers 

Because the applicability of a section 8(a) rule would be similar to that of the IUR rule (i.e., it would 

apply to manufacturers or importers of a subject chemical when produced in volumes greater than 25,000 

lb.), EPA estimated the number of manufacturers who would report and the number of reports it expects 

to be submitted using data from Section 4.2.5 of this report. On average, 0.66 sites submit data under the 

IUR rule per regulated chemical, and an average of 4.21 full reports are submitted for each chemical. 

Therefore, EPA estimates a total of 66 sites will submit 421 reports for the estimated 100 chemicals. To 

the extent the specific chemicals subject to a section 8(a) rule do not have an average number of 

manufacturers, this may be an over- or underestimate. 

Processors 

The number of processors that may be affected by a section 8(a) rule was estimated using data from 

EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reporting program. Under the TRI program, EPA collects 

information annually on toxic chemical releases and waste management activities from manufacturers, 

processors, and users of a set of 581 toxic chemicals and 30 toxic chemical categories. The chemicals 

regulated under the TRI program are a smaller set than those regulated under the IUR rule, but the TRI 

data collection activity currently is the most comprehensive collection of information EPA administers for 

chemical processors. Therefore, EPA assumes information on processors who report under TRI is a 

suitable proxy for processors who may report under a section 8(a) rule. 

EPA used TRI Form R submission data from the 2007 TRI Public Data Release in this analysis. To 

be consistent with the Economic Analysis for the Proposed IUR Modifications Rule (from which other 

data for this analysis is derived), EPA used TRI data for the years 2002 through 2005 (the time period of 

the most recent IUR reporting cycle), filtered to include only IUR chemicals (i.e., the chemicals listed in 
 I-2

the public 2006 IUR database).26 Processors submitted TRI data on an average of 220 of the IUR 

chemicals during each of the four years of interest. For this analysis, EPA counted as a “processor” each 

TRI submitter who indicated it processes a toxic chemical as a reactant, as a formulation component, as 

an article component, for repackaging, or as an impurity; or, that it otherwise uses the toxic chemical as a 

chemical processing aid.27 Because EPA assumes any company that both manufactures and processes a 

chemical will be considered a manufacturer for the purposes of a section 8(a) rule, TRI submitters who 

indicated they also manufactured or otherwise used a chemical were filtered out of the dataset. 

The TRI data revealed an average of 137 processors reported information per TRI chemical. 

However, the average value is greatly skewed by certain high-volume chemicals processed by a large 

number of processors.28 Therefore, EPA chose to use the median number of 15 processors per chemical, 

assuming it to be more representative of the universe of TSCA chemical processors. Using the median of 

15 processors per chemical, EPA expects a total of 1,500 reports will be submitted for an estimated 100 

chemicals. According to the TRI data, each processor processes approximately 2.45 chemicals; therefore, 

EPA expects a section 8(a) rule to affect 612 sites. 

This approach is limited to the extent the universe of TRI processors is different from that of a section 

8(a) rule. Because the set of chemicals covered under the rules is different, the median number of 

processors per chemical may be an over- or underestimate. Additionally, the TRI rule is applicable to 

facilities included within a specific set of NAICS codes; a section 8(a) rule may not limit its applicability 

to a defined set of NAICS codes, which could cause the number of processors estimated here to be an 

underestimate. Furthermore, “processor” may be defined differently by the two rules; any specific criteria 

EPA may use to define a “processor” for the purpose of a section 8(a) rule may cause the median number 

of processors per chemical estimated here to be an overestimate. Finally, the data used in this analysis 

was for submissions of TRI Form R only. This was done because Form A, the other, simpler, TRI 

reporting form, does not request information that would identify the submitter as a processor or 

manufacturer. Form R is used for high-volume chemicals (i.e., those manufactured, processed, or 

otherwise used in amounts greater than one million pounds) or for chemicals meeting other specific 

criteria; as a result, processors of small volumes may not be included, causing the median number to be an 

underestimate. 

I.2 Industry Burden Estimate 

The section 8(a) rule would require submitters (both manufacturers and processors) to provide data 

similar to the exposure-related data elements that are collected under EPA’s New Chemicals Program 

through a premanufacture notice (PMN) and under the IUR rule. Therefore, the burden associated with a 

section 8(a) rule is calculated by estimating the burden to complete a PMN. 

The burden to complete a paper PMN form was estimated in the supporting statement for 

Premanufacture Review Reporting and Exemption Requirements for New Chemical Substances and 

Significant New Use Reporting Requirements for Chemical Substances, EPA ICR No: 574.12 (EPA, 

2003). According to this source, the total burden to complete a PMN form is 107 hours. EPA assumes a 

section 8(a) rule would require electronic submission, so EPA reduced the estimated burden to 93 hours. 

This reduction is consistent with the assumption in section 4.4.27; all clerical burden will be eliminated 

because paper filing will not be permitted with electronic submission. 

 

26 The TRI program may collect data on certain chemicals for which IUR reporting is not required. A list of 

CASRNs for the non-confidential IUR chemicals was found at “Non-confidential 2006 IUR Records by Chemical, 

including Manufacturing, Processing and Use Information” http://cfpub.epa.gov/iursearch/index.cfm?s=chem 

Accessed August 30, 2009. 

27 TRI submitters indicate their activities and uses of the toxic chemical at the facility in Part II Section 3 of Form R. 28 For example, an average of 3,240 processors reported under TRI per year for lead alone.
 I-3

Using the number of manufacturer reports as estimated in Section I-1 of this appendix, the total 

burden to manufacturers to submit additional exposure-related data elements as part of their IUR 

reporting is estimated to be 39,200 hours. Using the number of processor reports as estimated in Section 

I-1 above, the total burden to processors to submit exposure-related data elements is estimated to be 

139,500 hours (See Table I-1). Because each individual collection under the rule would be for a different 

set of chemicals, EPA assumes different sites will be submitting reports every year, so the burden would 

be the same in future individual collections. 

This approach is limited to the extent the data elements requested in a section 8(a) rule match the IUR 

Form U and the PMN form, and the burden they incur. 

Table I-1: Annual Industry Burden as a Result of a TSCA Section 8(a) Data Collection 

Entity Subject to the Data Collection 

Burden to Complete 

Exposure-Related 

Data Elements 

(hours per report) 

Number of Reports Total Burden 

 (hours) 

Manufacturers 93 421 39,166 

Processors 93 1,500 139,500 

Total for Manufacturers and Processors 93 1,921 178,666 

Annual Industry Burden Estimates 

EPA estimated the total annual burden and cost to industry of a section 8(a) rule over a 25-year 

period. A 25-year period was used so the burden and cost to the industry are directly comparable to the 

annual burden presented in Table 4-52 and the annual cost estimates for the proposed amendments to the 

IUR rule, found in Table 4-53. Table I-2 contains the annual burden to industry over 20 years as a result 

of a section 8(a) rule and of completing Form U. Over a 25-year period, EPA estimates the total burden to 

industry of both the IUR data collection and a section 8(a) collection will be 20.04 million hours. The 

section 8(a) rule adds 3.57 million hours to the industry burden during this time period. 

Table I-2: Schedule of Annual Industry Burden 

Baseline 

Cost (When 

all 

Amendments 

are 

Considered) 

Manufacturer 

Section 8(a) 

Cost 

Processor 

Section 8(a) 

Cost 

Manufacturer 

and Processor 

Section 8(a) 

Cost 

Total Cost to 

Industry 

(Manufacturer 

and Processor 

+ Baseline) 

Reporting 

Cycle Years 

(millions of 

hours) 

(millions of 

hours) 

(millions of 

hours) 

(millions of 

hours) 

(millions of 

hours) 

1 2007 to 2011 3.24 0.04 0.14 0.18 3.41 

2 2012 to 2015 2.61 0.16 0.56 0.71 3.32 

3 2016 to 2019 2.61 0.16 0.56 0.71 3.32 

4 2020 to 2023 2.61 0.16 0.56 0.71 3.32 

5 2023 to 2027 2.61 0.16 0.56 0.71 3.32 

6 2026 to 2031 2.61 0.16 0.56 0.71 3.32 

Total 16.29 0.82 2.93 3.75 20.04 

Annual Average 0.65 0.03 0.12 0.15 0.80 
 I-4

I.3 Industry Cost Estimate 

EPA calculated the per-report cost to industry of the additional data elements by multiplying the 

managerial and technical burdens found in Premanufacture Review Reporting and Exemption 

Requirements for New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Reporting Requirements for 

Chemical Substances, EPA ICR No: 574.12 (EPA, 2003), by the wage rates for technical and managerial 

staff described in Section 4.2.1. No clerical cost was calculated because of the proposed electronic 

submission requirement (see Section 4.4.27) which EPA assumes all clerical burden for preparing and 

submitting Form U is eliminated. As shown in Table I-3, EPA estimates the additional per report cost to 

be $5,673. 

Table I-3: Per-Report Cost for Additional Data Elements, based on PMN Burden 

Technical Managerial Total 

Burden 

(hours) 

Wage 

Rate 

(2008$) 

Cost 

(2008$) 

Burden 

(hours) 

Wage 

Rate 

(2008$) 

Cost 

(2008$) 

Burden 

(hours) 

Cost 

(2008$) 

PMN Burden/Cost 

per Report 75 $58.84 $4,413 18 $70.03 $1,260 93 $5,673 

The cost to manufacturers and processors to submit the exposure-related data elements was derived as 

shown in Table I-4. EPA estimates the section 8(a) rule would cost manufacturers $2.39 million and 

processors $8.51 million each year. 

Table I-4: Annual Industry Cost as a Result of a TSCA Section 8(a) Data Collection 

Entity Subject to the Data Collection

Cost to Prepare 

Exposure-related Data 

Elements (2008$) 

Number of Reports Industry Cost 

(millions of 2008$) 

Manufacturers $5,673 421 $2.39 

Processors $5,673 1,500 $8.51 

Total for Manufacturers and Processors $5,673 1,921 $10.90 

Annual Industry Cost Estimates 

Table I-5 presents the annual and annualized cost estimates to industry of completing Form U and a 

section 8(a) collection. The cost estimates for completion of Form U come from Table 4-53. Over a 25-

year period, EPA estimates total annualized cost to the industry will be $46.98 million, with a three 

percent discount rate, and $43.56 million with a seven percent discount rate. 
 I-5

Table I-5: Annual Increase in Industry Cost if All Amendments Are Implemented (2008$) 

Baseline Cost 

(When all 

Amendments 

are 

Considered) 

Manufacturer 

Section 8(a) 

Cost 

Processor 

Section 8(a) 

Cost 

Manufacturer 

and Processor 

Section 8(a) 

Cost 

Total Cost to 

Industry 

(Manufacturer 

and Processor 

+ Baseline) 

Reporting 

Cycle Years 

(2008$ 

millions) 

(2008$ 

millions) 

(2008$ 

millions) 

(2008$ 

millions) 

(2008$ 

millions) 

1 2007 to 2011 $198.84 $2.39 $8.51 $10.90 $209.74 

2 2012 to 2015 $162.08 $9.56 $34.04 $43.60 $205.68 

3 2016 to 2019 $162.08 $9.56 $34.04 $43.60 $205.68 

4 2020 to 2023 $162.08 $9.56 $34.04 $43.60 $205.68 

5 2023 to 2027 $162.08 $9.56 $34.04 $43.60 $205.68 

6 2026 to 2031 $162.08 $9.56 $34.04 $43.60 $205.68 

Total $1,009.25 $50.19 $178.71 $228.90 $1,238.15 

Annual Average $40.37 $2.01 $7.15 $9.16 $49.53 

Annualized at 3% $38.40 $1.88 $6.69 $8.57 $46.98 

Annualized at 7% $35.83 $1.70 $6.04 $7.73 $43.56 

I.4 Agency Burden Estimate 

For the purposes of this analysis, EPA assumed the Agency burden was similar to that associated with 

the IUR rule, and would include contractor and EPA staff burden related to document receipt, tracking 

and quality control of data entry. To calculate the Agency burden associated with the exposure-related 

data elements, EPA used the per-data element burden to EPA after all the proposed amendments are 

considered, 0.00008 hours, as calculated in Section 5.5. The number of exposure-related data elements is 

57, as shown in Table H-1. The section 8(a) burden per-report is estimated as shown in Table I-6. 

Table I-6: Per-Report Burden for Data Elements Similar to Those Included in a TSCA Section 8(a) 

Data Collection 

Data Elements Number of Data 

Elements 

Per-Data Element 

Burden (hours) 

Per-report Burden 

(hours) 

Exposure-related Data Elements 57 0.00008 0.0048 

Table I-7 shows the estimated burden to the Agency of processing the data submitted by chemical 

manufacturers and processors. As described above, EPA expects a total of 421 manufacturer reports and 

1,500 processor reports. The Agency burden to process the exposure-related data elements, per-form, 

0.0048 hours, is the same for both processors and manufacturers. Therefore, the Agency burden to 

process the manufacturer data is 2.02 hours, and for processor data, is approximately 7.20 hours. 
 I-6

Table I-7: Agency Burden to Process Data as a Result of a TSCA Section 8(a) Data Collection 

 

Per-Report Burden to 

Process 

Exposure-Related 

 Data Elements (hours) 

Number of 

Reports 

Agency Burden 

(hours) 

Agency Burden to Process Manufacturer 

Data 

0.0048 421 2.02 

Agency Burden to Process Processor Data 0.0048 1,500 7.20 

Total Agency Burden 0.0048 1,921 9.22 

Annual Agency Burden Estimates 

Table I-8 presents the annual Agency burden estimates for data entry and extramural costs during all 

principal reporting and non-principal reporting years over a 25-year period. The Agency burden for 

processing Form U is taken from Table 5-42. In total, EPA estimates the Agency burden for the IUR rule 

and a section 8(a) rule will be 15,000 hours over a 25-year period. The total burden as a result of a section 

8(a) rule will be 240 hours over a 25-year period. 

Table I-8: Schedule of Annual Agency Burden 

Baseline 

Cost (When 

all 

Amendments 

are 

Considered) 

Manufacturer 

Section 8(a) 

Cost 

Processor 

Section 

8(a) Cost 

Manufacturer 

and Processor 

Section 8(a) 

Cost 

Total Cost to 

Industry 

(Manufacturer 

and Processor + 

Baseline) 

Reporting 

Cycle Years 

(hours) (hours) (hours) (hours) (hours) 

1 2007 to 2011 2,439 2.02 7.20 9.22 2,448 

2 2012 to 2015 2,456 10.10 35.98 46.08 2,503 

3 2016 to 2019 2,456 10.10 35.98 46.08 2,503 

4 2020 to 2023 2,456 10.10 35.98 46.08 2,503 

5 2023 to 2027 2,456 10.10 35.98 46.08 2,503 

6 2026 to 2031 2,456 10.10 35.98 46.08 2,503 

Total 14,721 52.52 187.12 239.64 14,960 

Annual Average 589 2.10 7.48 9.59 598 
 I-7

I.5 Agency Cost Estimate 

To calculate the Agency cost associated with processing the data received from a section 8(a) rule, 

EPA used the cost per-data element to the EPA estimated in the IUR EA, $0.0089 (Section 5.5). This unit 

cost was multiplied by the number of data elements to calculate the total per-report cost of processing the 

data elements, as shown in Table I-9.

Table I-9: Per-Report Cost for Data Elements Similar to Those Included in a TSCA Section 8(a) 

Data Collection 

Data Elements Number of Data 

Elements 

Per-Data Element 

Cost (2008$) 

Per-Report Cost 

(2008$) 

Exposure-related Data Elements 57 $0.0089 $0.51 

Table I-10 shows the Agency cost of processing the processor data. EPA estimates the total Agency 

cost to process the manufacturer data is $213, and the total cost to the Agency of processing the processor 

data is $758. The total Agency data processing cost is $970. 

Table I-10: Agency Cost to Process Data as a Result of the TSCA Section 8(a) Data Collection 

 

Per-Report Cost 

to Process 

Exposure-Related 

 Data Elements 

(2008$) 

Number of 

Reports Agency Cost 

(2008$) 

Agency Cost to Process Manufacturer Data $0.51 421 $213

Agency Cost to Process Processor Data $0.51 1,500 $758

Total Agency Cost $0.51 1,921 $970 

Annual Agency Cost Estimates

Table I-11 presents the estimated annual and annualized costs to the Agency of processing Form U 

and a section 8(a) data collection. The cost estimates for completion of Form U come from Table 4-53. 

Over a 25-year period, EPA estimates total cost to the Agency will be $65,800, with a three percent 

discount rate, and $60,300 with a seven percent discount rate. 

Table I-11: Annual Increase in Agency Cost (2008$) 

Baseline 

Cost (When 

all 

Amendments 

are 

Considered) 

Manufacturer 

Section 8(a) 

Cost 

Processor 

Section 8(a) 

Cost 

Manufacturer 

and Processor 

Section 8(a) 

Cost 

Total Cost to 

Industry 

(Manufacturer 

and Processor 

+ Baseline) 

Reporting 

Cycle 

Years (2008$) (2008$) (2008$) (2008$) (2008$) 

1 2007 to 2011 $286,580 $213 $758 $970 $287,550 

2 2012 to 2015 $288,450 $1,065 $3,790 $4,855 $293,305 

3 2016 to 2019 $288,450 $1,065 $3,790 $4,855 $293,305 

4 2020 to 2023 $288,450 $1,065 $3,790 $4,855 $293,305 

5 2023 to 2027 $288,450 $1,065 $3,790 $4,855 $293,305 
 I-8

6 2026 to 2031 $288,450 $1,065 $3,790 $4,855 $293,305 

Total $1,728,831 $5,538 $19,708 $25,245 $1,754,076 

Annual Average $69,153 $222 $788 $1,010 $70,163 

Annualized at 3% $65,011 $168 $596 $763 $65,774 

Annualized at 7% $59,643 $151 $538 $688 $60,331 

I.6 Small Entity Analysis 

The following section provides a preliminary assessment of the impact a section 8(a) rule may have 

on small entities by examining the relationship between the compliance costs and company sales for small 

companies. This analysis is based on the methodology found in Chapter 8 of this report. 

Manufacturers 

For manufacturers, EPA estimated 3.89 manufacturing sites per global parent company in Chapter 8; 

41.3 percent of global parent companies (466 companies) are considered small under the SBA 

employment-based definition,29 and 24.8 percent (280 companies) are considered small under the TSCA 

sales-based definition,30 EPA also estimated an average of approximately 1.76 sites per small company 

under the employment-based definition of small business, and approximately 1.92 sites per small 

company under the sales-based definition. Average annual sales revenue of global parent companies 

considered small under either definition were estimated using data from Dun & Bradstreet, as also 

described in Chapter 8. 

Table I-4 shows the cost to manufacturers as a result of a section 8(a) rule. These costs were summed 

and annualized over four years (the likely timeframe for the rule) at both a three percent and seven 

percent discount rate.31 As shown in Table I-12, these costs were divided by the total number of sites 

eected to submit data, for the annualized costs per site. This was multiplied by the number of sites per 

small parent company to arrive at the annualized costs per small parent company. This value was divided 

by the annual sales per small parent company to derive the cost-to-sales ratio. 

As shown in Table I-12, under the employment-based definition, a small parent company affected by 

the rule on average has sales of more than $412.7 million. The annualized costs of the proposed IUR rule 

amendments per small parent company, however, are $19,443 at a seven percent discount rate, and even 

lower under a three percent discount rate. The cost-to-sales ratio for an average small company under the 

employment-based SBA definition would be 0.005 percent or less. Under the more conservative salesbased TSCA definition, small parent company sales are on average more than $11.8 million, with 

annualized costs associated with the proposed amendments of $19,047 or lower. The cost-to-sales ratio 

for an average small company under the sales-based definition would be 0.16% or less. 

Using the highest annual cost shown in Table I-12 of $19,443, a small company would have to have 

annual sales of less than $1.94 million in order to have a cost-to-sales ratio larger than one percent. 

 

29 Threshold of 1,000 employees. 30 Total annual sales of the company, combined with those of any parent company, are below $40 million and annual 

production volume or importation volume at the facility is less than or equal to 100,000 lb.; or total annual sales of 

the company, combined with those of any parent company, are below $4 million. 31 A seven percent discount rate, reflecting the opportunity cost of capital, is consistent with OMB Circular A-4 

(OMB, 2003). A three percent discount rate was also used as a sensitivity analysis to examine the robustness of the 

results to a change in the annualization assumptions. 
 I-9

This approach is limited to the extent the universe of manufacturers identified under the economic 

analysis for the IUR rule would be similar to the manufacturers subject to a section 8(a) rule. 

Table I-12: Derivation of Cost-to-Sales Ratios for Small Manufacturers for Collection of ExposureRelated Data Elements 

Employment-based Definition Sales-based Definition 

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Cost of Section 8(a) Rule $2,388,518.53 

Total Annualized Costs $623,860 $659,026 $623,860 $659,026 

Total Number of Sites 66 

Annualized Costs per site $9,391 $9,920 $9,391 $9,920 

Number of Sites per Small 

Parent Company 1.76 1.92 

Annualized Costs per Small 

Parent Company $16,528 $19,443 $18,030 $19,047 

Annual Sales per Small 

Parent Company $412,713,310 $11,821,104 

Cost-to-sales Ratio 0.004% 0.005% 0.153% 0.161% 

Number of Companies 

Potentially Affected 7 4 
 I-10

Processors 

To estimate the impact of the collection of exposure-related data elements on processors, EPA is 

limited by the availability of data. As described above, EPA estimated the number of processors that may 

be impacted by the requirement using TRI submission data. However, data provided under the TRI 

program does not include information about a submitter’s parent company or annual revenues. 

For this screening-level analysis, EPA assumes the chemical processor industry shares many 

characteristics with the chemical manufacturing industry subject to the IUR rule. To the extent this is not 

the case, this analysis may over- or underestimate the impact of additional data elements on processors. 

Specifically, EPA assumes 3.89 manufacturing sites per global parent company. EPA also assumes 41.3 

percent of global parent companies are considered small under an employment-based definition, and 24.8 

percent are considered small under a sales-based definition. EPA further assumes 1.76 sites per small 

parent company under the employment-based definition, and 1.92 sites per small parent company under 

the sales-based definition, consistent with manufacturer information. Given the large number of 

companies identified as processors according to TRI submissions, EPA was unable to examine Dun & 

Bradstreet data to estimate annual parent company revenue for this analysis, so manufacturer revenue was 

used as a proxy. Therefore, this analysis provides only a preliminary estimate of impacts. 

EPA divided the number of expected processor reports (1,500) by the average number of 

chemicals for which a processor submitted TRI data (2.45) to obtain the estimated number of 

processors (612). EPA divided this number by 3.89 (the number of sites per global parent 

company) for an estimated 157 global parent companies. This number was then multiplied by 41.3 

percent and 24.8 percent to estimate the number of small global parent companies (the number of 

companies potentially affected), under the employment-based definition and sales-based 

definition, respectively. To calculate cost-to-sales ratios, EPA followed the same methodology for 

processors as described above for manufacturers. Results are presented in 

Table I-13. 

Table I-13: Derivation of Cost-to-Sales Ratios for Small Processors for Collection of ExposureRelated Data Elements 

Employment-based Definition Sales-based Definition 

3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate 

Cost of Section 8(a) Rule $8,510,161 

Total Annualized Costs $2,222,780 $2,348,074 $2,222,780 $2,348,074 

Total Number of Sites 612 

Annualized Costs per Site $3,631 $3,835 $3,631 $3,835 

Number of Sites per Small 

Parent Company 1.76 1.92 

Annualized Costs per 

Small Parent Company $6,390 $6,750 $6,971 $7,364 

Annual Sales per Small 

Parent Company $412,713,310 $11,821,000 

Cost-to-sales Ratio 0.0015% 0.0016% 0.059% 0.062% 

Number of Companies 

Potentially Affected 65 39 

As shown in 

Table I-13, under the employment-based definition, a small parent company affected by the rule on 

average has sales of more than $412.7 million. The annualized costs of the proposed IUR rule 

amendments per small parent company, however, are $6,750 at a seven percent discount rate, and even 
 I-11

lower under a three percent discount rate. The cost-to-sales ratio for an average small company under the 

employment-based definition would be 0.0016 percent or less. Under the more conservative sales-based 

definition, small parent company sales are on average more than $11.8 million, with annualized costs 

associated with the proposed amendments of $7,364 or lower. The cost-to-sales ratio for an average small 

company under the sales-based definition would be 0.062 percent or less. 

As described in Chapter 8, the Regulatory Flexibility Act does not define the terms “significant” or 

“substantial” analytically with regard to extent of economic impact and number of small entities affected. 

However, EPA typically defines a threshold as compliance costs of one percent of sales to establish 

whether the level of economic impacts faced by the small entities can be presumed as not significant 

(U.S. EPA, 2006b). Using the highest annual cost shown in Table I-13, $7,364, a small company would 

have to have annual sales of less than $736,400 in order to have a cost-to-sales ratio larger than one 

percent.