Document ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2003-0003-0002
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-02-06T05:00Z

February
2003
Statement
Supporting
the
Renewal
of
the
Information
Collection
Procedure
for
Title
III
Trade
Secrecy
Regulations
1.
Identification
of
the
Information
Collection
1
(
a)
Trade
Secret
Claims
for
Community
Right­
to­
Know
and
Emergency
Planning
(
EPCRA
Section
322)
­
EPA
No.
1428.06
1
(
b)
Short
Characterization
This
information
collection
request
pertains
to
trade
secrecy
claims
submitted
under
section
322
of
the
Emergency
Planning
and
Community
Right­
to­
Know
Act
of
1986
(
EPCRA),
also
known
as
Title
III
of
SARA,
the
Superfund
Amendments
and
Reauthorization
Act.
Title
III
contains
provisions
requiring
facilities
to
report
to
State
and
local
authorities,
and
EPA,
the
presence,
use
and
release
of
extremely
hazardous
substances
(
described
in
sections
302
and
304)
and
hazardous
and
toxic
chemicals
(
described
in
sections
311,
312
and
313
respectively).
Section
322
of
Title
III
allows
a
facility
to
withhold
the
specific
chemical
identity
from
these
Title
III
reports
if
the
facility
asserts
a
claim
of
trade
secrecy
for
that
chemical
identity.
The
provision
establishes
the
requirements
and
procedures
that
facilities
must
follow
to
request
trade
secrecy
treatment
of
chemical
identities,
as
well
as
the
procedures
for
submitting
public
petitions
to
the
Agency
for
review
of
the
"
sufficiency"
of
trade
secrecy
claims.
EPA
published
the
trade
secrecy
regulations
on
July
29,
1988
(
58
FR
28772),
codified
in
40
CFR
Part
350.

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

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

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

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

o
312
Tier
II
emergency
and
hazardous
chemical
inventory
forms;
and,

o
313
Toxic
chemical
release
inventory
forms.

Section
322
requires
that
facilities
requesting
trade
secrecy
protection
submit
to
EPA,
in
conjunction
with
their
Title
III
report,
an
explanation
showing
that
their
claim
for
the
chemical
identity
meets
the
four
statutory
criteria
of
trade
secrecy
enumerated
in
subsection
(
b)
of
that
provision.
2
February
2003
Facility
owners
and
operators
submit
trade
secrecy
claims
only
to
EPA.
Claims
consist
of
either
one
or
two
versions
of
the
Title
III
report
depending
on
the
type
of
report,
and
two
versions
of
an
up­
front
substantiation
of
the
trade
secrecy
claim.
The
substantiation
is
designed
to
gather
sufficient
factual
support
to
indicate
whether
the
claim
will
meet
the
four
statutory
criteria
of
trade
secrecy.
It
is
an
EPA­
developed
form,
and
is
discussed
in
detail
in
Part
3(
b)(
i)
below.

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

EPA
is
required
by
section
322(
h)
to
identify
the
adverse
health
and
environmental
effects
associated
with
the
section
313
toxic
chemicals
claimed
as
trade
secret
and
to
include
this
information
in
the
Toxic
Chemical
Release
Inventory
database
required
by
section
313(
j).
This
provision
also
instructs
the
governor
or
State
Emergency
Response
Commission
to
identify
the
adverse
health
effects
of
the
chemicals
claimed
as
trade
secret
under
sections
303,
311
and
312
and
provide
this
information
to
persons
requesting
the
information.

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

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

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

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

Two
preconditions
must
be
met
in
order
for
health
professionals
to
gain
access
to
trade
secret
chemical
identity
in
non­
emergency
and
preventative
measure
situations:
they
must
submit
a
written
statement
of
need
and
a
written
confidentiality
agreement
to
the
facility
owner
or
operator
prior
to
obtaining
the
information.
No
such
requirements
exist
in
the
medical
emergency
situation,
but
the
owner
or
operator
disclosing
the
information
may
require
a
written
confidentiality
agreement
and
statement
of
need
as
soon
as
circumstances
permit.

The
Offices
that
will
use
trade
secret
information
are
the
Chemical
Emergency
Preparedness
and
Prevention
Office
(
CEPPO)
in
the
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response
(
OSWER)
and
the
TRI
Program
Division
in
the
Office
of
Environmental
Information.
Trade
(
OEI)
secrecy
claims
are
stored
in
areas
designed
to
assure
the
confidentiality
of
the
3
February
2003
collected
information.

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

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

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

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

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

o
Disclosure
of
the
information
is
likely
to
cause
substantial
harm
to
the
competitive
position
of
the
facility;
and,

o
The
chemical
identity
is
not
readily
discoverable
through
reverse
engineering.

A
facility
is
required
under
section
322(
a)(
2)(
A)
to
make
its
claim
of
trade
secrecy
by
submitting,
in
conjunction
with
its
Title
III
report,
an
explanation
containing
the
reasons,
including
specific
descriptions,
why
the
subject
information
satisfies
the
four
statutory
criteria.
Within
30
days
after
receipt
of
a
public
petition,
EPA
is
required
under
section
322(
d)
to
review
the
information
contained
in
a
claimant's
explanation
to
determine
whether
a
claim
is
"
sufficient."
4
February
2003
If
the
Agency
determines
a
claim
is
sufficient,
section
322(
d)(
3)(
A)
provides
for
the
claimant's
submission
of
supplemental
information
to
establish
the
veracity
of
the
assertions
contained
in
the
substantiation.
If
the
Agency
determines
that
a
claim
is
insufficient,
or
that
the
chemical
identity
is
not
a
trade
secret,
and
further
determines
that
the
claim
is
frivolous,
section
325(
d)
requires
that
the
Agency
assess
a
civil
or
administrative
penalty
for
the
claim.

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

The
regulations
contained
in
40
CFR
Part
350
provides
for
the
submission
of
two
versions
of
the
report
and
the
substantiation,
enables
EPA,
State
Emergency
Response
Commissions
(
SERCs)
and
LEPCs
to
fulfill
the
statutory
mandate
that
public
access
be
readily
available
to
documents
containing
only
the
generic
chemical
descriptions,
and
that
the
specific
chemical
identity
and
other
designated
trade
secret
information
be
accorded
confidential
treatment.
The
regulations
also
provides
for
submission
to
EPA
of
a
sanitized
and
an
unsanitized
version
of
the
substantiation
form,
a
sanitized
and
where
indicated,
an
unsanitized
version
of
the
Title
III
report
by
a
facility
requesting
trade
secrecy
protection
for
a
Title
III
reported
chemical.
The
sanitized
and
unsanitized
versions
of
these
documents
are
identical
in
all
respects
except
that
the
trade
secret
chemical
identification
information
reported
in
the
unsanitized
version
is
deleted
from
the
sanitized
version
and
a
generic
class
or
category
name
is
substituted
in
its
place.
Also,
other
information
provided
in
the
unsanitized
substantiation
that
is
designated
as
a
trade
secret
by
a
facility
is
deleted
from
the
sanitized
substantiation.
Claimants
submit
only
a
sanitized
version
of
section
303(
d)(
2)
and
(
d)(
3)
reports,
and
section
311
MSDS'
to
appropriate
State
and
local
authorities.

Answers
to
the
substantiation
questions
described
below
provide
the
"
specific
description"
stipulated
in
section
322(
a)(
2)(
ii)
on
why
a
facility
believes
trade
secrecy
should
apply.
Without
this
information,
the
Agency
would
not
be
in
a
position
to
evaluate
whether
or
not
a
claim
to
withhold
the
chemical
identity
is
sufficient,
nor
would
it
have
the
time
(
statutorily
set
at
30
days)
required
to
request
and
review
the
data
in
response
to
a
petition
for
identity
disclosure.
Further,
this
information
is
needed
in
order
for
the
Agency
to
evaluate
claims
for
frivolousness
and
seek
related
penalties
under
section
325.
On
a
broader
scale,
the
information
collection
request
is
also
necessary
in
order
for
EPA
to
evaluate
whether
the
claim
is
complete
under
sections
322(
a)(
1)
and
(
a)(
2).
5
February
2003
The
Agency
developed
a
standardized
claim
substantiation
form
to
help
it
assess
the
sufficiency,
validity
and
frivolousness
of
claims.
The
Agency
anticipated
that
the
form
would
reduce
confusion
about
what
information
is
to
be
supplied
to
meet
the
four
statutory
criteria.
The
Agency
also
anticipated
that
the
form
would
help
submitters
more
easily
determine
if
they
have
a
sufficient
basis
to
make
trade
secrecy
claims,
ensure
that
all
submissions
are
evaluated
on
the
basis
of
comparable
information,
and
"
flag"
the
documents
for
procedural
safeguards
to
quickly
identify,
review
and
protect
the
confidentiality
of
the
claim.

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

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

3.
Respondents/
SIC
Codes;
Information
Requested
3
(
a)
Respondents/
SIC
Codes
Sections
303,
311
and
312
claims
are
submitted
by
both
the
manufacturing
sector,
(
SIC
codes
20­
39)
and
the
non­
manufacturing
sector.
No
range
of
SIC
codes
exists
for
the
nonmanufacturing
sector.
Examples
of
this
sector
include
the
construction
industry
and
dry
cleaners.
Examples
of
the
manufacturing
sector
include
chemical
manufacturers
and
paper
manufacturers.
Section
313
claims
are
submitted
by
covered
sectors,
which,
as
of
reporting
year
2002,
include:
metal
mining
((
SIC
code
10
(
except
1011,
1081,
and
1094));
coal
mining
((
SIC
code
12
(
except
1241));
manufacturers
(
SIC
codes
20­
39);
electric
utilities
(
SIC
codes
4911
(
limited
to
facilities
that
combust
coal
and/
or
oil
for
the
purpose
of
generating
electricity
for
distribution
in
commerce),
4931
(
limited
to
facilities
that
combust
coal
and/
or
oil
for
the
purpose
of
generating
electricity
for
distribution
in
commerce),
and
4939
(
limited
to
facilities
that
combust
coal
and/
or
oil
for
the
purpose
of
generating
electricity
for
distribution
in
commerce));
commercial
hazardous
waste
treatment
(
SIC
code
4953
(
limited
to
facilities
regulated
under
the
RCRA
Subtitle
C,
42
U.
S.
C.
section
6921
et
seq.));
chemical
and
allied
products­
wholesale
(
SIC
code
5169);
petroleum
bulk
terminals
and
plants
(
also
known
as
stations)­
wholesale
(
SIC
code
5171);
and,
solvent
recovery
services
(
SIC
code
7389
(
limited
to
facilities
primarily
engaged
in
solvents
6
February
2003
recovery
services
on
a
contract
or
fee
basis)).
In
addition,
federal
facilities
were
added
to
the
respondent
community
by
Executive
Order
12856,
and
were
required
to
report
beginning
calendar
year
1994.

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

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

Question
three
corresponds
to
the
statute's
second
criterion
that
the
submitter
show
either
that
a
State
or
Federal
agency
has
not
already
determined
that
the
chemical
identity
is
not
a
trade
secret,
or
that
no
existing
State
or
Federal
statutes
prohibit
claiming
the
chemical
identity
as
a
trade
secret.

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

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

In
addition,
blocks
on
the
first
page
of
the
form
provide
space
for
accurate
identification
of
the
claimed
trade
secret
chemical
(
CAS
number,
chemical
identity),
a
field
for
substitution
of
the
generic
class
or
category,
a
check­
off
box
to
clearly
identify
the
type
of
Title
III
report
for
which
the
claim
is
being
asserted,
and
the
facility's
Dun
and
Bradstreet
number
(
for
precise
facility
and
record
identification).
Collecting
this
information
generates
no
additional
burden
because
it
is
transferred
directly
from
the
reports
required
under
the
various
sections
of
Title
III
for
which
a
7
February
2003
claim
is
being
made.

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

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

o
The
name,
address
and
telephone
number
of
the
petitioner;

o
The
name
and
address
of
the
company
claiming
the
chemical
identity
as
trade
secret;

o
A
copy
of
the
relevant
sanitized
Title
III
report
(
e.
g.,
MSDS,
Tier
II
or
toxic
chemical
release
form);
and,

o
A
specific
indication
of
the
chemical
identity
that
is
being
requested
for
disclosure.

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

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

o
Review
the
claims
for
completeness,
sufficiency,
and
frivolousness;

o
Respond
to
requests
for
confidential
information
from
State
governors,
and
nonconfidential
information
from
the
public;

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

o
Prepare
adverse
health
and
environmental
effects
data
for
relevant
chemical
identities
claimed
as
trade
secret.
8
February
2003
4
(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
The
collection
of
trade
secrecy
claims
is
accomplished
by
respondents
sending
their
claim
submissions
to
EPA.
The
sanitized
or
non­
trade
secret
versions
of
the
Title
III
report
and
the
substantiation
are
stored
so
as
to
be
easily
accessible
to
the
public.
Data
reported
on
the
sanitized
version
of
a
Title
III,
section
313
report
are
entered
in
the
Toxic
Chemical
Inventory
database.
The
unsanitized
versions
of
the
Title
III
report
and
the
substantiation
are
handled,
labeled
and
stored
in
a
manner
protective
of
their
confidentiality.

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

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

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

EPA­
initiated
reviews
are
conducted
following
the
same
steps
involved
in
the
public
petition
process
and
may
result
in
an
Agency
decision
regarding
the
sufficiency
of
the
trade
secrecy
claims.
However,
EPA­
initiated
reviews
may
be
less
formal
and
culminate
in
the
withdrawal
of
a
claim
by
a
facility
prior
to
the
issuance
of
a
formal
Agency
decision
on
the
merits
9
February
2003
of
the
claim.
The
less
formal
reviews
usually
involve
claims
which
are
determined
incomplete
upon
EPA
review
or
complete
claims
which
are
thought
by
EPA
to
demonstrate
obvious
problems
or
weaknesses.
In
these
circumstances,
the
Agency
has
contacted
the
facilities
by
telephone
or
by
issuing
a
Notice
of
Noncompliance
(
NON).
The
facilities
have
responded
by
formally
withdrawing
their
claims
prior
to
a
formal
decision
on
the
merits
of
the
claims.

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

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

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

In
the
case
of
sections
312
and
313,
the
reporting
is
annual
and
facilities
submit
a
current
claim
annually
with
those
reports.
Under
section
311,
a
claim
must
be
resubmitted
to
EPA
if
an
MSDS
or
list
is
updated.
Under
sections
311
and
312,
an
initial
MSDS
or
list
must
be
updated
within
three
months
after
the
facility
owner
or
operator
discovers
significant
new
information
regarding
an
aspect
of
a
hazardous
chemical.
Under
section
303(
d)(
2)
and
(
d)(
3),
a
claim
need
not
be
resubmitted
to
EPA
after
the
initial
communication
to
the
relevant
LEPC
unless
further
communication
follows
between
the
facility
and
LEPC
which
discusses
the
specific
chemical
identity
in
question.
10
February
2003
5.
Nonduplication,
Consultations,
and
other
Collection
Criteria
5
(
a)
Nonduplication
The
information
that
EPA
requires
from
trade
secrecy
claim
submitters
is
not
duplicated
by
any
other
Agency
collection
because
the
collection
of
information
is
entirely
Title
III
oriented.
In
addition,
unlike
other
statutes
permitting
confidential
business
information
claims,
Title
III:
(
1)
permits
trade
secrecy
claims
only
for
specific
chemical
identification
information;
(
2)
permits
claims
for
a
chemical
identity
only
in
very
narrowly
defined
circumstances
which
are
stipulated
in
the
statute;
and,
(
3)
requires
an
up­
front
substantiation
of
the
applicability
of
those
narrowly
defined
circumstances
by
a
claimant
at
the
time
the
report
for
a
chemical
claimed
as
trade
secret
is
filed.

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

5(
c)
Public
Notice
In
compliance
with
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.),
the
Agency
has
notified
the
public
through
the
Federal
Register
notice
on
the
renewal
of
this
ICR
on
XX
XX,
20XX(
XX
FR
XXXXX).
This
renewal
ICR
based
upon
the
previous
ICRs
burden
estimations
developed
from
the
consultations
and
public
comments
that
were
received
previously.

5(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
Although
submitting
answers
to
the
questions
on
the
trade
secrecy
substantiation
form
is
a
necessary
step
towards
ensuring
eventual
protection
of
a
chemical
identity,
the
decision
to
seek
that
protection
is
entirely
voluntary.
The
submission
process
involves
one
initial
collection
of
information
for
sufficiency,
with
the
possibility
of
a
request
for
supplementary
information
[
as
provided
in
section
322
(
d)(
3)(
A)]
to
establish
veracity
of
the
assertions
stated
in
the
substantiation
if
EPA
determines
that
a
claim
is
initially
sufficient
during
a
review
initiated
by
public
petition
or
the
Agency.
11
February
2003
5
(
e)
Confidentiality
and
Sensitive
Questions
All
trade
secrecy
claims
submitted
to
EPA
under
Title
III
are
handled
and
stored
according
to
procedures
set
out
in
the
Interim
OSWER
Procedures
For
Protecting
Title
III
Trade
Secret
Documents.
These
procedures
were
developed
expressly
for
Title
III
trade
secrecy
claims
with
the
knowledge
that
these
documents
are
sensitive.
Handling
and
review
of
documents
containing
Title
III
trade
secret
information
is
permitted
only
by
persons
who
have
obtained
formal
clearance
to
access
the
information
based
on
a
work­
related
need
to
engage
in
these
activities.
When
not
being
processed
or
reviewed
by
authorized
individuals,
the
claim
submissions
containing
trade
secret
information
are
stored
in
restricted
access
areas.
To
ensure
that
appropriate
handling
procedures
are
activated
and
the
confidentiality
of
Title
III
trade
secret
submissions
is
maintained,
the
Agency
attaches
a
cover
sheet
to
the
top
of
each
trade
secret
document
and
otherwise
marks
the
document
to
clearly
identify
the
document
as
Title
III
confidential.

6.
Estimating
the
Burden
and
Cost
of
the
Collection
6(
a)
Estimated
Number
of
Trade
Secrecy
Claims
Costs
to
the
Government
and
to
respondents
are
based
on
actual
numbers
of
trade
secrecy
claims
received
during
reporting
years
(
RYs)
1999
through
2001and
on
estimates
of
future
activity
for
the
upcoming
three­
year
period.
The
reporting
year
corresponds
to
the
calendar
year.
The
deadline
for
submitting
claims
for
a
given
reporting
year
falls
in
the
following
calendar
year.
For
example,
the
deadline
for
submitting
claims
under
section
311/
312
for
RY
2000
is
March
1,
2001
(
the
deadline
for
submitting
the
hazardous
chemical
inventory
reports
under
section
312),
and
the
deadline
for
section
313
claims
is
July
1,
2001
(
the
deadline
for
submitting
Toxic
Chemical
Release
Reporting
Form).
Any
facilities
that
wish
to
file
trade
secrecy
claims
in
these
reporting
forms
must
submit
the
trade
secrecy
claim
package
with
these
reports.

The
cost
and
burden
of
processing
the
claims
submitted
for
RY
2000
are
incurred
in
FY01.
There
is
a
one­
year
lag
between
the
reporting
year
for
submitting
claims
(
e.
g.,
RY00)
and
the
fiscal
year
for
processing
claims
under
sections
311/
312
(
e.
g.
FY01).
There
may
be
a
twoyear
lag
between
the
reporting
year
(
e.
g.,
2000)
for
submitting
claims
and
the
fiscal
year
for
processing
claims
under
section
313
if
some
of
the
claims
submitted
in
July
2001
are
processed
in
October
or
later
of
2001,
which
is
FY02.
However,
to
be
consistent,
in
this
ICR
all
section
311/
312
and
section
313
claims
from
one
reporting
year
will
be
treated
as
having
been
processed
in
the
following
fiscal
year.

Table
1
presents
the
actual
number
of
submissions
indicating
trade
secret
claims
for
all
sections
of
Title
III
for
FY00
to
FY02
(
corresponding
to
RY99
through
RY01).
For
the
threeyear
period,
the
total
number
of
claims
submitted
under
section
313
was
eight,
with
three
in
FY00
and
FY01
each,
and
two
in
FY02.
In
previous
ICRs,
the
number
of
claims
submitted
under
12
February
2003
section
313
was
reported
to
be
much
higher,
because
the
number
included
claims
that
were
later
withdrawn
by
submitters.
This
year,
all
claims
fell
under
one
of
two
categories.
They
were
either
submitted
complete,
with
the
necessary
supporting
documentation,
or
submitters
had
mistakenly
checked
the
trade
secret
claim
box
on
Form
R
or
Form
A
but
had
no
intention
of
actually
submitting
a
claim.
EPA
is
not
reporting
as
actual
trade
secret
claims
cases
where
the
box
was
checked
purely
in
error
and
no
supporting
documentation
was
submitted.
No
burden
was
incurred
by
the
facility,
and
EPA
corrected
the
error
with
a
Notice
of
Data
Change
(
NDC).
The
facility
has
an
opportunity
to
refute
the
NDC,
but
no
facilities
chose
to
do
so.
(
Memorandum
from
Larry
Reisman
and
Wendy
Timm,
OEI/
EPA
2/
6/
03).

Table
2
shows
the
estimated
numbers
of
trade
secret
claims
under
sections
303,
311
and
312
expected
to
be
filed
by
facilities
in
the
new
ICR
period
of
FY03
through
FY05.
No
claims
are
expected
to
be
filed
under
section
303.
(
Memoranda
from
Sicy
Jacob,
OSWER/
EPA,
2/
6/
03.)

.

Table
1
Actual
Number
of
Trade
Secret
Claims
FY
2000
­
FY
2002
(
RY
1999
­
RY
2001)
_________________________________________________________________________
SARA
Section
FY00
FY01
FY02
Total
_________________________________________________________________________

303(
d)
2
and
(
d)(
3)
0
2
0
0
311/
312
282
335
417
1,034
313
3
3
2
8
_________________________________________________________________________
Total
285
338
419
1,042
_________________________________________________________________________
13
February
2003
Table
2
Estimated
Number
of
Trade
Secret
Claims
FY
2003
­
FY
2005
(
RY
2002
­
RY
2004)
__________________________________________________________________________
SARA
Section
FY03
FY04
FY05
Total
__________________________________________________________________________
303(
d)
2
and
(
d)(
3)
0
0
0
0
311/
312
345
345
345
1,035
313
5
5
5
15
__________________________________________________________________________
Total
350
350
350
1,050
__________________________________________________________________________

6(
b)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
and
Cost
Costs
to
the
Federal
Government
for
processing
trade
secret
claims,
the
petition
and
review
processes,
and
for
providing
adverse
health
effects
data,
are
presented
in
Table
3.
Each
of
the
three
cost
areas
is
discussed
below.

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

Fixed
costs
are
incurred
for
maintenance
and
operation
of
the
existing
storage
and
filing
system
for
section
313
claims.
Fixed
costs
for
the
three­
year
period
(
FY00
through
FY02)
covered
by
the
expiring
ICR
for
storage
space
were
$
2,404
(
Memorandum
from
Larry
Reisman
and
Wendy
Timm,
OEI/
EPA,
2/
6/
03).
Storage
of
section
311/
312
records
requires
a
minimum
amount
of
space,
and
is
handled
by
the
Federal
Records
Center
at
no
charge
to
the
Agency
(
Memorandum
from
Sicy
Jacob,
OSWER/
EPA,
2/
6/
03).
14
1Government
labor
costs
are
calculated
using
the
following
fully
loaded
wage
rates
for
2002:
GS­
13,
Step
5,
$
57.54/
hr;
GS­
12,
Step
5,
$
48.38/
hr;
GS­
9
Step
5,
$
33.38/
hr;
and
GS­
7,
Step
5,
$
27.28/
hr.

February
2003
Variable
costs
are
estimated
by
program.
1
For
sections
303
and
311/
312
of
EPCRA,
costs
supporting
inventory
of
new
claims;
and
storage,
retrieval,
and
checking
of
claims
for
completeness,
are
estimated
to
be
approximately
$
129
(
2.25
hours)
per
claim
(
Memorandum
from
Sicy
Jacob,
OSWER/
EPA
8/
12/
99).
Variable
costs
associated
with
processing
section
313
claims
are
estimated
to
be
approximately
$
1,630
(
28.33
hours
at
GS13,
Step
5
rate)
per
claim
for
FY03
through
FY05
(
Memorandum
from
Janette
Petersen,
IMD/
EPA,
9/
30/
96).

Based
on
these
figures,
costs
for
processing
trade
secret
submissions
for
OEI
and
OSWER
are
estimated
to
be
$
55,059
per
year
for
FY03
through
FY05,
or
a
total
of
$
165,177
for
the
three­
year
period.
The
weighted
average
cost
per
claim
is
$
151
for
FY03
through
FY05.

The
total
burden
hours
are
estimated
to
be
2,754
for
the
three­
year
period.
The
weighted
average
burden
per
claim
is
2.6
hours
for
the
period.

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

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

The
actual
number
of
petitions
which
has
been
filed
over
the
history
of
the
program
is
two;
the
first
petition
during
FY89
pertained
to
one
claim,
and
the
second
during
FY90
pertained
to
10
claims
asserted
by
one
facility.
No
new
petitions
have
been
received
by
the
Agency
during
the
period
of
the
expiring
ICR.).
In
the
absence
of
any
new
petition
activity
in
recent
years,
the
Agency
is
continuing
to
use
the
assumption
of
one
petition
per
year
(
assuming
each
petition
pertains
to
one
claim)
for
this
ICR,
as
it
has
in
the
previous
two
ICRs.
(
Memoranda
from
Sicy
Jacob,
OSWER/
EPA,
2/
6/
03).

The
estimates
for
the
costs
of
the
petition
process
to
the
government
included
in
the
initial
ICR
originated
from
the
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
(
RIA),
which
developed
three
scenarios
to
15
February
2003
identify
the
potential
steps
and
time
involved
for
EPA,
as
well
as
petitioners
and
facilities
in
claim
reviews.
The
scenarios
ranged
from
a
low
level
to
a
high
level,
or
complex
review.
Based
on
State
community
right­
to­
know
programs,
an
estimate
of
the
likelihood
of
occurrence
for
each
petition
scenario
was
identified
and
a
weighted
average
cost
of
petition
review
was
calculated.
The
RIA
assumed
that
no
public
petitions
would
result
in
a
petitioner,
the
EPA,
or
a
facility
taking
legal
action.
In
the
event
of
a
court
challenge,
the
RIA
recognized
that
the
costs
of
the
process
would
likely
be
much
higher
than
the
estimated
cost
of
the
most
complicated
review
case.
However,
the
RIA
did
not
consider
the
cost
associated
with
a
court
challenge
because
estimating
legal
costs
is
difficult
and
there
were
no
cases
under
existing
programs
on
which
to
base
such
an
estimate.

These
assumptions,
in
combination
with
the
actual
costs
incurred
to
review
the
10
claims
pertaining
to
the
1990
petition
and
the
actual
costs
incurred
in
connection
with
the
internallygenerated
Agency
review
of
trade
secret
claims,
were
used
to
determine
the
estimated
costs
to
EPA
shown
in
Table
3.
Burden
and
cost
for
low
level
and
complex
review
are
estimated
separately.

Low
level
review
burden
and
cost
were
estimated
based
on
an
actual
public
citizen
petition
received,
pertaining
to
one
claim
asserted
by
one
facility.
The
review
involved
approximately
30
hours
of
Agency
time
primarily
spent
by
professional
staff
at
the
GS­
13,
Step
5
level.
The
Agency's
finding
of
insufficiency
was
not
challenged.

In
the
previous
ICR,
the
Agency
based
its
estimates
of
future
burden
and
costs
for
complex
reviews
on
data
pertaining
to
actual
reviews
conducted
under
section
313,
which
were
estimated
to
be
five
per
year.
However,
no
high
level,
complex
reviews
were
performed
in
the
previous
three­
year
ICR
period.
This
ICR
is
estimating
that
three
high­
level
Agency
reviews,
or
nine
for
the
three­
year
period
of
FY03
through
FY05,
will
take
place
during
the
next
three­
year
period.(
Memorandum
from
Larry
Reisman
and
Wendy
Timm,
OEI/
EPA,
2/
6/
03).
The
average
burden
per
complex
review
is
estimated
at
37
hours,
and
the
average
cost
per
review
is
estimated
to
be
$
2,129
(
all
labor
at
fully­
loaded
GS
13,
Step
5,
rate
for
2002).
The
annual
burden
for
three
complex
reviews
is
thus
estimated
to
be
111
hours
and
the
total
annual
cost,
$
6,387.
For
the
three­
year
period,
the
total
burden
is
estimated
to
be
333
hours,
and
the
cost,
$
19,161.
All
Agency­
initiated
reviews
were
carried
out
under
section
313;
the
Agency
does
not
initiate
reviews
of
claims
made
under
sections
311
and
312
(
Memorandum
from
Sicy
Jacob,
OSWER/
EPA,
8/
12/
99).

EPA
recognizes
that
the
estimated
burden
hours
per
review
presented
here
for
complex
reviews
exceed
those
estimated
for
low
level
reviews
by
only
about
20
percent
on
average
(
30
hours
versus
37
hours).
However,
based
on
review
activities
conducted
for
previous
ICRs,
this
narrow
range
was
believed
to
provide
the
most
reasonable
estimate
of
anticipated
resource
requirements
over
the
three­
year
period.
Agency
staff
do
not
expect
the
hourly
burden
estimates
16
February
2003
to
change
over
the
next
three­
year
period
(
Memoranda
from
Sicy
Jacob,
OSWER/
EPA,
8/
12/
99,
and
Larry
Reisman
and
Wendy
Timm,
OEI/
EPA,
2/
6/
03).

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

(
iii)
Provision
of
Adverse
Health
Effects
Information
Table
3
also
shows
the
estimated
costs
incurred
to
collect
and
distribute
health
hazard
data
for
EPCRA
section
313
chemicals
claimed
as
trade
secret.
During
the
previous
three
years
(
FY00
through
FY02),
a
total
of
six
profiles
were
prepared
(
two
per
year)
using
a
total
of
approximately
67
hours,
or
11.2
hours
per
profile.
Three
profiles
are
expected
to
be
prepared
each
year
during
FY03
through
FY05.
The
burden
estimate
for
FY02
through
FY05
shown
in
the
table
is
based
on
an
annual
projected
burden
of
11.2
hours
per
profile,
or
33.6
hours
per
year
at
the
GS­
13,
Step
5
level
($
57.54/
hr,
2002).
The
estimated
burden
per
profile
has
not
changed
from
the
previous
ICR.
The
total
annual
cost
is
estimated
to
be
$
1,932.
For
the
three­
year
period,
the
total
burden
is
estimated
to
be
102
hours,
at
a
cost
of
$
5,796.
(
Memorandum
from
Larry
Reisman
and
Wendy
Timm,
OEI/
EPA,
2/
6/
03).

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

The
total
burden
to
the
Federal
government
for
managing
claims
and
petitions
submitted
under
sections
303,
and
311/
312
over
the
three­
year
period
covered
by
this
ICR
will
be
2,418
hours,
at
a
cost
of
$
138,693.
For
handling
section
313
claims
and
reviews,
and
providing
adverse
health
effects
information,
the
Federal
government
burden
is
estimated
to
be
861
hours
for
the
three­
year
period,
at
a
total
cost
of
$
49,407.
The
grand
total
hours
for
sections
303,
311/
312
and
313
is
1,093
hours
per
year,
or
3,279
hours
over
the
three­
year
period.
The
grand
total
cost
is
$
62,700
per
year,
or
$
188,100
for
the
three­
year
period.
17
February
2003
Table
3
Cost
to
Federal
Government
­
Sections
322/
323
Cost
Type
FY03
FY04
FY05
Total
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.
Processing
and
Storing
Trade
Secret
Claims
Fixed
Costs
Section
313:

Cost
$
2,404
$
2,404
$
2,404
$
7,212
Variable
Costs
Sections
303,
311/
312:

Number
of
Claims
345
345
345
1,035
Hours
per
Claim
2.25
2.25
2.25
Cost
Per
Claim
$
129
$
129
$
129
Section
313:
Number
of
Claims
5
5
5
15
Hours
per
Claim
28.33
28.33
28.33
Cost
per
Claim
$
1,630
$
1,630
$
1,630
Hours
All
Claims
(
Variable
Costs)
918
918
918
2,754
Cost
All
Claims
(
Variable
Costs)
$
52,655
$
52,655
$
52,655
$
157,965
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Subtotals
for
Processing
and
Storing
Trade
Secret
Claims
Hours
918
918
918
2,754
Cost
$
55,059
$
55,059
$
55,059
$
165,177
Weighted
Average
Burden
per
Claim
2.6
2.6
2.6
18
February
2003
Weighted
Average
Cost
per
Claim
$
151
$
151
$
151
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Cost
Type
FY03
FY04
FY05
Total
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

2.
Agency
Review
Process
A.
Low
Level
Review
­
Sections
311/
312
(
Assumes
each
petition
pertains
to
one
claim)

Number
of
Petitions
1
1
1
3
Hours
per
Petition
30
30
30
Cost
per
Petition
$
1,726
$
1,726
$
1,726
Hours
all
Petitions
30
30
30
90
Cost
all
Petitions
$
1,726
$
1,726
$
1,726
$
5,178
B.
Complex
Review
­
Section
313
Number
of
Reviews
3
3
3
9
Hours
per
Review
37
37
37
Cost
per
Review
$
2,129
$
2,129
$
2,129
Hours
all
Reviews
111
111
111
333
Cost
all
Reviews
$
6,387
$
6,387
$
6,387
$
19,161
Subtotals
for
Agency
Review
Process
Hours
141
141
141
423
Cost
$
8,113
$
8,113
$
8,113
$
24,339
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
19
February
2003
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Cost
Type
FY03
FY04
FY05
Total
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

3.
Provision
of
Adverse
Health
Effects
Information
­
Section
313
Number
of
Profiles
3
3
3
9
Hours
per
Profile
11.2
11.2
11.2
Cost
per
Profile
$
644
$
644
$
644
Hours
all
Profiles
33.6
33.6
33.6
100.8
Cost
all
Profiles
$
1,932
$
1,932
$
1,932$
5,796
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Federal
Government
Totals
A.
Sections
303,
311/
312
Hours
806
806
806
2,418
Cost
$
46,231
$
46,231
$
46,231
$
138,6
93
B.
Section
313
Hours
287
287
287
861
Cost
$
16,469
$
16,469
$
16,469
$
49,407
Grand
Totals
Hours
1,093
1,093
1,093
3,279
Cost
$
62,700
$
62,700
$
62,700
$
188,100
20
February
2003
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Note:
Totals
may
not
add
up
exactly
due
to
rounding.
21
February
2003
6(
c)
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
and
Costs
(
i)
Forms
Completion
One
of
the
major
cost
components
associated
with
trade
secret
claims
is
the
cost
to
facilities
to
prepare
substantiations.
The
time
required
to
complete
this
process
for
each
chemical
will
vary
with
the
complexity
of
the
situation,
the
number
of
chemicals
that
a
facility
seeks
to
claim
as
trade
secrets,
and
the
amount
of
detail
that
a
facility
includes
in
each
answer.
The
cost
estimates
presented
in
Table
4
are
based
on
phone
conversations
with
trade
secret
submitters
and
on
assumptions
about
the
time
it
takes
to
complete
various
activities,
which
are
explained
briefly
below.

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

The
number
of
first­
time
claims
prepared
annually
was
estimated
based
on
an
assumption
that
approximately
one­
quarter
of
the
claims
received
are
submitted
by
new
facilities
(
first­
time
filers)
or
pertain
to
chemicals
for
which
an
existing
submitter
is
claiming
a
trade
secret
for
the
first
time.
(
Memorandum
from
Sicy
Jacob,
OSWER/
EPA
8/
12/
99).
(
See
Table
4,
1.
Forms
Completion
­
Facilities,
Fixed
Costs:
350
x
.25
=
87.5,
rounded
up
to
88.)
While
the
burden
associated
with
claims
falling
into
the
second
category
will
not
include
rule
familiarization,
it
does
include
time
spent
by
the
submitter
to
determine
whether
a
trade
secret
claim
is
necessary
(
chemical
selection).
This
effort
is
a
major
portion
of
overall
fixed
costs.
The
22
hours
allocated
to
forms
completion,
fixed
costs
are
broken
down
as
follows:
10.8
hours,
management;
11
hours,
technical;
and
.2
hours,
secretarial
(
Memorandum
from
Bob
Andrei,
EETD/
EPA,
1993).

The
second
type
of
costs
that
facilities
will
incur
are
variable
costs;
facilities
will
incur
these
costs
for
each
chemical
claimed
as
trade
secret.
These
costs
include
preparing
the
trade
secret
substantiation,
sanitizing
the
report,
and
mailing
the
report
to
EPA.
Burden
hours
used
to
calculate
variable
costs
for
all
trade
secret
claims
reflect
the
effort
required
to
prepare
original
substantiations
for
a
given
chemical
that
does
not
have
a
previously
submitted
substantiation
prepared,
as
well
as
resubmittal
of
previously
submitted
claims.
Repeat
submitters
incur
somewhat
lower
per
unit
preparation
cost
than
those
incurred
by
facilities
filing
first­
time,
or
original
claims
for
several
reasons.
22
2Memorandum
from
Cody
Rice,
"
Wage
Rates
for
Economic
Analyses
of
the
Toxics
Release
Inventory
Program,"
Analytical
Support
Branch,
Environmental
Analysis
Division,
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
U.
S.
EPA,
April
11,
2002.
February
2003
First,
resubmitting
facilities
that
assert
a
claim
repeatedly
for
the
same
chemical
under
the
same
Title
III
section
313,
311/
312
or
303
can
use
essentially
the
same
substantiation
form
answers
that
were
used
in
the
original
substantiation
claim.
Second,
facilities
save
money
by
filing
essentially
the
same
substantiation
with
reports
submitted
under
multiple
Title
III
sections
during
the
same
reporting
year.
Third,
facilities
save
by
submitting
essentially
the
same
substantiation
form
answers
to
support
claims
for
multiple
chemicals
reported
pursuant
to
the
same
Title
III
section.
These
cost
savings
occur
when,
for
instance,
a
facility
makes
claims
for
multiple
chemicals
which
comprise
the
same
formulation
or
portions
of
a
formulation.

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

The
cost
to
respondents
is
estimated
based
on
the
time
needed
to
complete
the
tasks
described
above,
and
the
hourly
labor
wage
rates
at
appropriate
levels.
Hourly
wage
rates,
including
fringe
costs
and
overhead,
are
$
52.38
for
management
labor,
$
42.57
for
technical
labor,
and
$
23.09
for
clerical
labor.

Wage
rates
have
been
revised
downward
from
those
used
in
the
previous
ICR
based
on
a
change
in
the
construction
of
the
composite
labor
levels
that
comprise
each
category
(
managerial,
technical,
and
clerical).
2
Wages
rates
used
in
previous
ICRs
following
the
CAIR­
based
method
(
Comprehensive
Assessment
Information
Rule)
were
developed
as
weighted
composites
from
the
U.
S.
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics
wages
using
the
assumption
that
TRI
reporting
under
section
313
is
conducted
primarily
by
top­
level
personnel
who
are
very
highly
compensated.
Over
the
years,
as
TRI
reporting
has
become
more
routine
and
standardized,
and
industry
has
gained
reporting
experience,
assumptions
that
only
the
highest
paid
personnel
are
responsible
for
TRI
reporting
are
no
longer
realistic.
Furthermore,
the
original
wage
data
that
were
used
to
develop
the
composite
wage
rates
for
the
occupational
groups
have
been
discontinued
by
the
government
and
were
last
updated
in
1996.
The
only
way
of
continuing
to
use
those
data
is
to
inflate
them
with
the
Employment
Cost
Index,
which
will
not
provide
the
most
accurate
picture
of
current
conditions.
A
more
representative
set
of
composite
wages
for
each
labor
category
was
developed
by
the
TRI
23
3U.
S.
Department
of
Labor,
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics,
Employer
Costs
for
Employee
Compensation.
February
2003
program,
using
data
from
the
Employer
Costs
for
Employee
Compensation
(
ECEC)
report
from
the
Bureau
of
Labor
Statistics.
These
data
are
updated
annually,
and
the
data
used
here
are
from
March
2002.3
ii)
Petition
and
Review
The
petition
and
review
process
will
also
cause
certain
facilities
and
public
petitioners
to
incur
costs
when
the
Agency
reviews
the
validity
of
trade
secrets
claims.
Petitioner
efforts
involve
preparing
the
petition
requesting
that
EPA
review
the
trade
secret
claim.
The
requisite
elements
of
a
petition
include
the
following:
the
petitioner's
name,
address
and
telephone
number;
the
name
and
address
of
the
company
claiming
trade
secrecy;
and
a
copy
of
the
submission
in
which
the
chemical
identity
is
claimed
as
trade
secret
with
a
specific
indication
as
to
which
chemical
identity
the
petitioner
seeks
to
have
disclosed.
In
the
absence
of
any
petitions
during
the
past
three­
year
reporting
period,
this
ICR
is
continuing
to
assume
that
one
petition
will
be
submitted
from
the
public
each
year,
and
will
require
2.5
hours
to
prepare,
costed
at
the
technical
wage
rate.
(
Memorandum
from
Sicy
Jacob,
OSWER/
EPA,
2/
6/
03).

The
Agency
assumes
that
the
two
scenarios
regarding
complexity
of
claims
which
were
considered
in
estimating
EPA
costs
(
see
Table
3)
also
apply
to
costs
to
petitioners
and
facilities
in
the
petition
process
and
to
facilities
in
EPA­
initiated
reviews.
The
previous
ICR
assigned
no
facility
burden
in
connection
with
Agency­
initiated
reviews
of
trade
secret
claims.
As
in
the
previous
ICR,
the
Agency
assumes
that
all
Agency­
initiated
reviews
would
involve
facilities
at
an
increased
level
of
effort,
relative
to
a
low
level
petition­
initiated
review.
The
additional
effort
was
assumed
proportional
to
the
additional
effort
required
by
EPA
(
20
percent
above
low
level).
Table
4
incorporates
the
burden
required
by
these
additional
reviews
in
a
weighted
average
cost
per
review.
This
weighted
average
cost
was
calculated
based
on
the
estimate
of
28
burden
hours
required
for
low
level
petition
review
used
in
previous
ICRs
(
Memorandum
from
Dorothy
McManus,
OSWER/
EPA,
10/
21/
93).
Thus,
28
hours
was
used
as
the
burden
estimate
for
all
low
level
reviews.
For
Agency­
initiated
reviews,
33.6
hours
(
28
x
1.20)
was
used.
The
Agency
did
not
receive
any
petitions
from
the
public
during
the
previous
ICR
period
for
sections
311/
312.
The
number
of
one
petition
for
section
313
is
from
the
assumption
of
an
average
of
one
petition
(
containing
1
claim)
per
year,
and
the
projected
number
of
three
Agency­
initiated
complex
reviews
is
from
Table
3.
Costs
were
calculated
using
the
technical
hourly
wage
rate
of
$
42.57
for
the
one
petition
from
the
general
public,
and
the
managerial
hourly
wage
rate
of
$
52.38
for
the
three
complex
petitions/
reviews.
24
February
2003
Table
4
Burden/
Costs
to
Respondents
by
Activity­
Sections
322/
323
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Affected
Entity
FY03
FY04
FY05
Total
___________________________________________________________________________________________________

1.
Forms
Completion
­
Facilities
Fixed
Costs
Number
Affected
88
88
88
264
Hours
per
Facility
22
22
22
Cost
per
Facility
$
1,039
$
1,039
$
1,039
Hours
All
1,936
1,936
1,936
5,808
Cost
All
$
91,432
$
91,432
$
91,432
$
274,296
Variable
Costs
Number
Affected
350
350
350
1,050
Hours
per
Facility
4
4
4
Cost
per
Facility
$
139
$
139
$
139
Hours
All
1,400
1,400
1,400
4,200
Cost
All
$
48,650
$
48,650
$
48,650
$
145,950
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Subtotals
for
Forms
Completion
­
Facilities
Hours
All
3,336
3,336
3,336
10,008
Cost
All
$
140,082
$
140,082
$
140,082
$
420,246
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
25
February
2003
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Affected
Entity
FY03
FY04
FY05
Total
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

2.
Petition
Process
Petitioners
(
General
Public)

Number
of
Petitions
1
1
1
3
Hours
Per
Petition
2.5
2.5
2.5
Cost
per
Petition
$
106
$
106
$
106
Hours
All
2.5
2.5
2.5
7.5
Cost
All
$
106
$
106
$
106
$
318
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Facilities
Number
of
Petitions/
Reviews
4
4
4
12
Weighted
Avg.
Hours
Per
Petition
32.5
32.5
32.5
Cost
per
Petition
$
1,702
$
1,702
$
1,702
Hours
All
130
130
130
390
Cost
All
$
6,809
$
6,809
$
6,809
$
220,427
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Subtotal
Petition
Process
Hours
All
132.5
132.5
132.5
398
Cost
All
$
6,915
$
6,915
$
6,915
$
20,74
5
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

_
26
February
2003
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

Affected
Entity
FY03
FY04
FY05
Total
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

3.
Third
Party
Notification
State
Gov'ts/
SERCS
Number
of
Inquiries
3
3
3
9
Hours
per
Inquiry
1
1
1
Cost
per
Inquiry
$
42
$
42
$
42
Health
Professionals
Number
of
Inquiries
3
3
3
9
Hours
per
Inquiry
1
1
1
Cost
per
Inquiry
$
43
$
43
$
43
Facilities
Number
of
Inquiries
6
6
6
18
Hours
per
Inquiry
1
1
1
Cost
per
Inquiry
$
38
$
38
$
38
Subtotal
Third
Party
Notification
Hours
All
12
12
12
36
Cost
All
$
546
$
546
$
546
$
1,638
Total
Respondent
Burden
Hours
All
3,483
3,483
3,483
10,449
Cost
All
$
147,543
$
147,543
$
147,543
$
442,629
27
February
2003
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Note:
Totals
may
not
add
up
exactly
due
to
rounding.

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

Based
on
limited
telephone
inquiries
made
in
1996,
in
1995
the
estimated
number
of
information
requests
from
state
governors
was
one,
and
from
health
professions,
one
(
Memorandum
from
Lea
Anne
Gleason,
OSWER/
EPA,
10/
30/
96.)
Even
though
no
activity
was
reported
in
the
previous
three­
year
ICR
period,
this
ICR
is
making
the
conservative
assumption
that
three
inquiries
will
be
made
each
year
by
three
different
state
governments
and
health
professionals
each,
for
a
total
of
six
inquiries
each
year.
This
number
is
reduced
from
a
total
of
10
in
the
previous
ICR.
Facilities
are
therefore
assumed
to
respond
to
six
inquiries
each
year,
and
the
burden
per
inquiry
is
not
expected
to
change
from
the
previous
ICR.
(
Memorandum
from
Sicy
Jacob,
OSWER/
EPA,
2/
6/
03).

The
estimated
burden
for
each
organization
is
one
hour
(.
5
hour
management,
or
GS­
13,
Step
5
equivalent
for
the
State
government,
and
.5
hour
for
secretarial,
or
GS­
7,
Step
5
for
States).
For
health
professionals,
the
estimated
burden
is
one
hour
technical
labor
(
Memorandum
from
Lea
Anne
Gleason,
OSWER/
EPA,
10/
30/
96)).
The
cost
per
inquiry
is
estimated
to
be
$
42
for
state
governments,
$
43
for
health
professionals,
and
$
38
for
facilities.
The
total
burden
for
all
three
types
of
organizations
is
estimated
to
be
12
hours
per
year,
and
the
cost,
$
546
per
year.

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

(
v)
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
No
capital
and
operation
and
maintenance
costs
are
associated
with
any
requirements
in
this
ICR.
28
February
2003
(
vi)
Explanation
of
Difference
of
Annual
Reporting
Burden
The
previous
ICR
requested
an
average
annual
burden
of
3,121
hours,
while
this
ICR
requests
3,483
hours,
a
12
percent
increase.
The
average
annual
burden
per
respondent
has
fallen
very
slightly
from
9.9
hours
to
9.8
hours,
which
is
most
likely
caused
by
rounding.
All
changes
in
total
burden
hour
estimates
are
caused
by
changes
in
the
volume
of
activity,
and
consequently,
respondents
performing
those
activities,
not
by
changes
in
the
underlying
assumptions
of
how
long
it
takes
to
perform
an
activity.

The
estimated
annual
number
of
respondents
making
trade
secrecy
claims
under
sections
303,
311/
312,
and
313
is
350
for
the
next
three
years.
Of
those
respondents,
345
are
estimated
to
fall
under
sections
303,
311/
312
each
year.
This
is
a
19
percent
increase
for
sections
303
and
311/
312
from
280
claims
for
the
previous
ICR
period.
Only
five
respondents
are
expected
to
make
trade
secrecy
claims
under
section
313,
down
from
estimates
of
24
per
year
(
and
29
in
FY02).
This
reduction
occurred
because
the
Agency
is
no
longer
including
in
the
totals
forms
that
contain
trade
secret
claims
checked
completely
by
mistake,
with
no
supporting
documentation
submitted,
no
intention
to
submit
a
valid
claim,
and
no
burden
incurred
by
the
facility.
Also,
based
on
lower
levels
of
activity
during
the
previous
three­
year
ICR
period,
the
Agency
is
further
reducing
from
five
to
three
the
number
of
complex
reviews
of
claims
it
is
expecting
to
carry
out
in
the
new
ICR
period.
This
decline
has
caused
a
drop
in
the
government
burden
for
complex
reviews,
from
185
hours
to
111
hours.
The
burden
hours
per
review,
however,
are
unchanged
from
the
previous
ICR.
The
number
of
profiles
prepared
by
the
government
is
expected
to
drop
from
four
to
three
per
year
for
the
upcoming
ICR
period,
but
the
burden
estimate
of
11.2
hours
per
profile
has
not
changed.

The
number
of
facilities
responding
to
requests
from
States
and
health
professionals
for
health
effects
information
on
trade
secret
chemicals
is
estimated
to
decline
from
five
requests
per
year
each,
to
three
each
per
year,
or
a
total
of
six
during
the
upcoming
three­
year
period.
This
reduction
was
made
based
on
a
low
level
of
activity
during
the
past
three
years.
The
burden
of
one
hour
per
inquiry
remains
unchanged.
29
February
2003
Table
5
Burden
to
Respondents
­
Sections
322/
323
of
SARA
Title
III
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Group
Affected/
Activity
FY03
FY04
FY05
Total
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

1.
Facilities
Forms
Completion
Number
Affected
350
350
350
1,050
Average
Hours
per
Facility
9.5
9.5
9.5
Hours
All
3,336
3,336
3,336
10,008
Petition
Review
Number
Affected
4
4
4
12
Weighted
Avg.
Hours
per
Review
32.5
32.5
32.5
Hours
All
132.5
132.5
132.5
397.5
Third
Party
Notification
Number
Affected
6
6
6
18
Average
Hours
per
Notification
1
1
1
Hours
All
6
6
6
18
30
February
2003
________________________________________________________________________________________________

Group
Affected/
Activity
FY03
FY04
FY05
Total
________________________________________________________________________________________________

2.
Petitioners
Petition/
Review
Number
Affected
1
1
1
3
Hours
per
Petition/
Review
2.5
2.5
2.5
Hours
All
2.5
2.5
2.5
7.5
3.
Others
(
State
Governments
and
Health
Professionals)

Third
Party
Notification
Number
Affected
6
6
6
18
Hours
per
Notification
1
1
1
Hours
All
6
6
6
18
Total
for
All
Affected
Non­
Federal
Respondents
Number
Affected
357
357
357
1,071
Hours
per
Respondent
9.8
9.8
9.8
Burden
All
3,483
3,483
3,483
10,449
31
February
2003
6(
d)
Burden
Statement
The
annual
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
is
estimated
to
average
9.8
hours
per
claim.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor
such
a
request,
and
a
person
or
facility
is
not
required
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
Part
9
and
48
CFR
Chapter
15.

Send
comments
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
through
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques
to
the
Director,
Collection
Strategies
Division,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
2822),
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460;
and
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA.
Include
the
EPA
ICR
number
and
OMB
control
number
in
any
correspondence.