Document

Attachment G (Consultation Responses)

ICR 202610-2070-003 · OMB 2070-0162 · Object 174136700.

Document Viewer [pdf]

Status: Original and derived artifacts are available for this document.

Download: pdf

Primary: pdfSource: application/pdf

Loading document viewer…

Document Metadata

Record metadata
File Type	application/pdf
File Title	Attachment G (Consultation Responses)
Author	Johnson, Amaris
File Modified	2026-10-22
File Created	2026-10-22
Conversion State	complete

Extracted Text

OMB Control No. 2070-0162

EPA ICR NO. 1884.17

OMB CONTROL NO. 2070-0162

(2) Frequency of Collection
Can the Agency collect the information less frequently and still produce the same
outcome?
A four-year reporting cycle is an appropriate timeframe for data collection.
(3) Clarity of Instructions
The ICR is intended to require that respondents provide certain data so that the Agency can
utilize them.
A. Based on the instructions (regulations, Instructions for Reporting, etc.), is it clear what
you are required to do, and how to submit such data? If not, what suggestions do you
have to clarify the instructions?
Yes, we are aware of what we are required to do for reporting. It would be appreciated if
there was a dedicated area (EPA weblink) where all the then ‘current’ published TSCA
Chemical Data Reporting Fact Sheets or guidance materials would be collected and available
(e.g., Non-isolated intermediates, Changes in Company Ownership, Importers, Byproducts,
Metals recovered from catalysts, etc.).
Do you understand that you are required to maintain records?
Yes, we understand we must maintain records for a minimum of 5 years after the reports are
submitted.

EPA ICR NO. 1884.17

OMB CONTROL NO. 2070-0162

B. Is the electronic reporting tool associated with reporting under CDR clear, logical, and
easy to complete? If not, what suggestions do you have to improve the electronic
reporting tool?
Yes, the reports are clear and logical to prepare. However, incorporating thousands separator
commas in the production volume numbers within the pdf-file format reports would increase
the efficiency and accuracy of final checks, particularly when sites report large figures
rounded to two significant digits.

(4) Electronic Reporting and Record keeping
The Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires agencies make available to the public
electronic reporting alternatives to paper-based submissions by 2003, unless there is a strong
reason for not doing so.
A. Are you keeping your records electronically? If yes, in what format?
Yes. We keep them in Excel, SAP and PI
B. What benefits does electronic submission bring you in terms of burden reduction or greater
efficiency in compiling the information?
Paperless submissions allow greater time efficiency – since the data is already available in
electronic form; eliminating printing- and mailing-related expenses and it reduces the overall
burden of reporting.
(5) Burden and Costs
A. Are the labor rates accurate? (Please see question 12 of the supporting statement)
Yes, the labor rates look accurate.
B. The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this activity. Is that correct?
Yes, that is correct.
C. Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden hours and costs
associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR, e.g., the ICR does not include
estimated burden hours and costs for conducting studies, are the estimated burden
hours and labor rates accurate? If you provide burden and cost estimates that are

EPA ICR NO. 1884.17

OMB CONTROL NO. 2070-0162

substantially different from EPA’s, please provide an explanation of how you arrived at
your estimates.
D. Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed?
None that we can think of at this time.

EPA ICR NO. 1884.17

OMB CONTROL NO. 2070-0162

Consultation Questions for Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA)
(1) Publicly Available Data
A. Is the data that the Agency seeks available from any public source, or already collected
by another office at EPA or by another agency?
To the best of my knowledge, the majority of the information required under the TSCA Chemical
Data Reporting (CDR) rule is not publicly available, nor is it collected by other federal agencies in a
way that duplicates the breadth or granularity of the CDR requirements. The CDR remains the only
mechanism through which EPA obtains comprehensive, site-specific information on the manufacture,
import, processing, and use of existing chemical substances at the national scale.
That said, it is important to note that certain elements of CDR-type information are submitted to EPA
through other TSCA processes. Specifically:
Under TSCA §5, companies submitting a Premanufacture Notice (PMN) for a new chemical
substance must provide processing and use information, as well as anticipated production
volume data, as part of their new chemical application.
EPA has increasingly issued TSCA §5(e) Consent Orders, many of which require companies to
report annual production volume information for the new chemical as part of post-market
obligations.
Additional point:
EPA should explicitly leverage CDR Functional Categories to inform use-specific conditions of use
during PMN evaluations, rather than treating the entire chemical as a single unit of decision. This
change would:
1. Prioritize the PMN use as submitted.
Where the PMN details high-integrity engineering controls and operational practices that
prevent exposure, EPA should recognize those controls and approve that use on its own
merits, rather than imposing chemical-wide restrictions through a §5(e) Consent Order that
assumes unreviewed uses.
2. Route other uses through the SNUR/SNUN framework.
If EPA anticipates additional, materially different conditions of use, those should be
designated as significant new uses via SNUR, with any prospective manufacturer or processor
submitting a SNUN before commencing those uses. This preserves protection while avoiding
overly broad, chemical3. Use CDR Functional Categories as an evidentiary anchor.
-world functional
applications across industrial, commercial, and consumer sectors. Integrating these
categories into PMN decision logic helps:

1
Lubrizol Confidential

EPA ICR NO. 1884.17
o
o
o

OMB CONTROL NO. 2070-0162

tie conditions of use to actual functional roles observed in commerce,
reduce duplicative requests for similar P&U information already captured under TSCA
programs, and
enhance consistency between new-chemical PMN reviews and existing-chemical risk
evaluations, which also consider conditions of use.
1. To enhance consistency between new-chemical PMN reviews and
existing-chemical risk evaluations under TSCA §6, EPA should evaluate
conditions of use (COUs) on a use-by-use basis and explicitly incorporate
CDR processing and use information including Functional Categories into
those determinations. In current practice, TSCA §6 risk evaluations sometimes
conducting risk evaluations and risk management, EPA should cross-walk the
COUs to the most recent CDR-reported Functional Categories and
processing/use codes to ensure COUs reflect real-world applications. Doing
so would (1) anchor COUs in observed commerce, (2) reduce mismatches that
can lead to unnecessarily broad controls, and (3) improve coherence between
PMN decisions and §6 risk evaluations/management for the same substance.

Requested outcome: EPA should approve the PMN-listed use when the submitter demonstrates
adequate controls; utilize SNUR/SNUN for any additional uses; and systematically incorporate CDR
Functional Categories to align decisions with use-specific risk rather than imposing chemical-wide
controls by default.

B. If yes, where can you find the data?
(Does your answer indicate a true duplication, or does the input indicate that certain
data elements are available, but that they do not meet our data needs very well?)
No
no U.S. federal program collects the same combination of manufacturing, processing, and use
information at the level of detail required by TSCA CDR. The CDR remains unique in providing
national-scale, site-specific data on multi-year production volumes and detailed processing and use
categories for existing chemicals.
However, some programs collect related or partially overlapping data, for different purposes,
thresholds, and scopes. Below are the closest comparators and where their data or requirements can
be found; none of these duplicate CDR.
1. EPCRA §313

Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)

a. What it captures: Facilities that manufacture, process, or otherwise use listed
chemicals above thresholds (generally 25,000 lbs for manufacture/process; 10,000 lbs
for otherwise use) must report releases and waste management annually.
b. What it
capture vs. CDR: No production volumes by year, no detailed
processing/use categories, no multi-year histories, and no site-specific
manufacturing/use detail at the CDR level.

2
Lubrizol Confidential

EPA ICR NO. 1884.17

OMB CONTROL NO. 2070-0162

-MEweb).

2. EPCRA Tier II (Sections 311 312)
a. What it captures: On-site hazardous chemical inventory and hazard information
(linked to OSHA Hazard Communication), typically reported to state and local
authorities for emergency planning.
b. What it
capture vs. CDR: No manufacturing volume, no processing/use
reporting, no national consolidation of production/use data.
c.

312.

3. New Chemicals

TSCA §5 PMNs and §5(e) Consent Orders

a. What they capture: PMNs include processing and use information and anticipated
production volumes at the time of submission; §5(e) consent orders may require
annual production volume reporting post-market.
b. What they

provide vs. CDR: Apply only to new chemicals (not existing Inventory

industrial/commercial/consumer use categorizations.
c.

Where to find it: Process and framework under TSCA §5 described in EPA TSCA
materials (CDR authority and program pages provide context on how CDR
complements TSCA).

4. Other programs (for context only)
a. RCRA: Tracks hazardous waste generation/management, not production or use.
b. OSHA Hazard Communication: Requires SDSs and workplace hazard communication;
not manufacturing/use volumes.
c.

DHS CFATS: Focuses on security-sensitive chemical holdings, not production/use.

d. Where to find it: Program regulations and guidance; none of these provide CDR-like
manufacturing/processing/use datasets.

3
Lubrizol Confidential

EPA ICR NO. 1884.17

OMB CONTROL NO. 2070-0162

(2) Frequency of Collection
Can the Agency collect the information less frequently and still produce the same
outcome?
The current reporting frequency for the TSCA Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule is once every four
years. In general, reducing the frequency of data collection may lower reporting burden; however,
ould raise concerns regarding data
availability, accuracy, and reasonable ascertainability.
As a general matter, industry typically maintains operational, manufacturing, and related compliance
records for approximately five years. While this retention timeframe appears, on its face, to provide
l, in practice it represents the upper bound for
reliable data access. Extending the reporting cycle from four to five years would narrow the margin
between required reporting and standard record retention periods, increasing the risk that data may
be incomplete, archived, or otherwise difficult to retrieve, validate, and certify particularly for
detailed processing and use information.

multiple systems, internal reviews, and quality assurance checks. Experience has also shown that
technical issues with the CDX reporting tool can delay submiss
or amendments. A longer reporting interval would compound these challenges by requiring
companies to reconstruct older historical data, increasing both burden and uncertainty.

represents a reasonable balance between minimizing reporting frequency and ensuring EPA receives
accurate, complete, and reasonably ascertainable data. Extending the interval beyond four years
responsibilities under TSCA, including exposure assessment, risk evaluation, and risk management.

(3) Clarity of Instructions
The ICR is intended to require that respondents provide certain data so that the Agency can
utilize them.
A. Based on the instructions (regulations, Instructions for Reporting, etc.), is it clear what
you are required to do, and how to submit such data? If not, what suggestions do you
have to clarify the instructions?
Based on my experience with the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) program, the Instructions for TSCA
Chemical Data Reporting and associated guidance documents were clear, well-organized, and highly
helpful. The instructions provided sufficient detail on:
the types of information required,

4
Lubrizol Confidential

EPA ICR NO. 1884.17

OMB CONTROL NO. 2070-0162

how to determine applicability,
how to correctly categorize processing and use information, and
how to navigate nuances such as co-manufacturing, byproducts, thresholds, and exemptions.
These materials enabled me to understand what data needed to be submitted and how to classify it
within the structure of the CDR rule.
Targeted suggestion for improvement (bulk upload template):
While the written guidance is generally comprehensive, the Instructions do not provide sufficient,
step-by-step guidance for the bulk upload template used in e-CDRweb/CDX. During the last
reporting period, the template did not consolidate manufacturing and co-manufacturing data as
expected after upload, which triggered system errors and required tedious manual rework for all
affected substances. To address this recurring pain point, it would be very beneficial if EPA could:
1.
Include field-by-field definitions, required formats, valid value sets, and worked
examples (e.g., a sample record showing a single substance reported as both
manufactured and co-manufactured and how those rows must be structured so the
data properly consolidate on import).
o Provide a common error library (with error codes/messages, root causes, and fixes).
2. Publish a pre-submission validation checklist/tool.
o Offer a downloadable validator (or an online pre-check) that flags structural or
relational issues before upload especially multi-use and multi-site scenarios and
co-manufacturing relationships.
3. Clarify consolidation logic in the Instructions.
o Document exactly how the import routine consolidates multiple rows for the same
CAS/site when reported under manufacture and co-manufacture, including any
required key fields (e.g., IDs, codes) that must match for successful consolidation.
4. Enable simple reuse and edits.
o Where feasible, allow copy/paste and bulk-apply functions for recurring fields
(particularly for CBI substantiation narratives and repeated P&U entries), or provide a
sanctioned method to reuse prior cycle entries across multiple substances.
o

With these refinements, reporters would be able to avoid upload failures, reduce manual
reconciliation, and improve both efficiency and data quality during submission.
At this time, aside from the bulk upload guidance noted above, I do not have additional
comprehensive and user-friendly.

5
Lubrizol Confidential

EPA ICR NO. 1884.17

OMB CONTROL NO. 2070-0162

B. Do you understand that you are required to maintain records?
Yes, I understand that CDR reporters are required to maintain records supporting their submissions.
My organization is fully aware of these obligations and incorporates them into our compliance
systems.

C. Is the electronic reporting tool associated with reporting under CDR clear, logical, and
easy to complete? If not, what suggestions do you have to improve the electronic
reporting tool?
The electronic reporting tool, while functional, presents several difficulties that significantly impact
usability and efficiency. My experiences during the most recent reporting cycle highlight several
challenges:
1. Bulk Upload Issues for Manufactured and Co-Manufactured Substances
While populating the bulk chemical upload template was straightforward, problems occurred after upload
into CDX:
When a substance was both manufactured and co-manufactured, the data did not consolidate
properly in the CDX interface.
This resulted in system errors that prevented submission.
I was required to manually open, correct, and reconcile each impacted substance directly within
CDX

creating a substantial burden for reporters handling multiple affected substances.

2. Limitations on Copy and Paste Functions
The CDX platform does not allow copying or pasting within many of the data entry fields. This significantly
slows down completion of repetitive fields, especially:
Processing and use codes
Percent production volumes
CBI substantiation responses
Repeated entries for similar chemicals across multiple sites
Allowing standard copy/paste functionality would greatly reduce reporting time and minimize input
errors.
3. CBI Substantiation Workflow
The Confidential Business Information (CBI) substantiation process was extremely tedious and
time-consuming. Each claim required multiple detailed responses, many of which were highly similar
across submissions:

6
Lubrizol Confidential

EPA ICR NO. 1884.17

OMB CONTROL NO. 2070-0162

CDX does not allow copying prior substantiation text.
CDX does not allow bulk application of identical substantiation rationales.
Reporters must repeat identical entries chemical-by-chemical.
The result is unnecessary duplication of effort. A feature allowing reporters to reuse, apply, or import prior
substantiation text would significantly reduce burden.
4. System Bugs and Late-Identified Issues
CDX continues to experience bugs that often are not discovered until after the reporting window opens.
These defects:
sometimes delay submissions,
require reporters to re-enter data already uploaded,
and in some cases force reporters to amend submissions after the system is patched.
It would be beneficial if EPA could conduct more thorough pre-launch system testing or provide early
access to a staging environment for reporters to test bulk uploads and data structures prior to the official
reporting period.
Summary (Suggested Improvements)
To improve the usability of the CDR electronic reporting tool, EPA may wish to consider enhancements
such as:
Fixing issues where manufactured and co-manufactured information fails to consolidate.
Enabling standard copy/paste functionality across all fields.
Allowing reuse or bulk application of CBI substantiation responses.
Conducting more robust pre-period testing to reduce bugs during active reporting windows.
These improvements would reduce reporting burden, minimize errors, and increase overall efficiency for
reporters.

Are you keeping your records electronically? If yes, in what format?

Yes. All of our records and data related to TSCA Chemical Data Reporting are maintained

7
Lubrizol Confidential

EPA ICR NO. 1884.17

OMB CONTROL NO. 2070-0162

production volumes, manufacturing data, site-specific information, and relevant processing and use
information.
The ERP system allows us to retrieve, export, and validate the data as needed for CDR reporting,
ensuring that the information remains accessible, consistent, and traceable.

B. What benefits does electronic submission bring you in terms of burden reduction or greater
efficiency in compiling the information?
Electronic submission provides several significant benefits in terms of burden reduction and efficiency:
1. Bulk Upload Tool Significantly Reduces Burden
The bulk upload functionality within the electronic reporting system substantially decreases the time and
effort needed to enter data. Instead of manually inputting individual chemical records, we can compile
data into the bulk upload template and submit multiple substances simultaneously.
2. Overall Electronic Reporting is Far More Efficient
Electronic reporting streamlines the entire process by allowing:
easy extraction and validation of data from our ERP system,
faster review and correction of data entries, and
reduced risk of transcription or manual input errors.
3. Major Improvements Over Paper Reporting
Prior to electronic submission, paper-based reporting was extremely time-consuming, required extensive
manual data entry, and was more prone to human error.
Electronic submission eliminates these inefficiencies, enables consistent data formatting, and ensures
more accurate recordkeeping and reporting.

(5) Burden and Costs
A. Are the labor rates accurate? (Please see question 12 of the supporting statement)
Based on the 2024 wage rate table provided by EPA, the breakdown of wages, fringe benefits, and
total compensation for managerial, professional/technical, and clerical labor categories appears
reasonable and consistent with industry benchmarks. The EPA values align closely with the U.S.

8
Lubrizol Confidential

EPA ICR NO. 1884.17

OMB CONTROL NO. 2070-0162

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) data for
comparable occupational groups in private industry.
For example, BLS data show total compensation levels for management, professional, and
administrative support occupations that are

B. The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this activity. Is that correct?
Yes, that is correct. There are no capital costs associated with CDR reporting for our organization. We
do not need to purchase equipment, software, or other capital assets to meet the reporting
requirements.

C. Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden hours and costs
associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR, e.g., the ICR does not include
estimated burden hours and costs for conducting studies, are the estimated burden
hours and labor rates accurate? If you provide burden and cost estimates that are
substantially different from EPA s, please provide an explanation of how you arrived at
your estimates.
From our experience, the burden hours in the ICR are significantly underestimated.

activities.
However, based on our actual experience during the 2024 CDR reporting cycle, we estimated the

This higher burden is due to several factors, including:
time spent extracting, validating, and reconciling data from internal systems,
challenges with consolidating manufactured and co-manufactured substances in CDX,
the manual effort required to correct system upload errors,
the repetitive and time-intensive nature of CBI substantiations, and
delays or rework caused by bugs within the CDX platform.

anticipates.

D. Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed?
At this time, I am not aware of any additional costs that EPA has missed. Aside from the labor burden
described above, we do not incur other measurable costs related to CDR reporting.

9
Lubrizol Confidential

EPA ICR NO. 1884.17

OMB CONTROL NO. 2070-0162

Consultation Questions for Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA)
(1) Publicly Available Data
A. Is the data that the Agency seeks available from any public source, or already collected
by another office at EPA or by another agency?
Chemical inventories are available; production data is not available.
B. If yes, where can you find the data?
(Does your answer indicate a true duplication, or does the input indicate that certain
data elements are available, but that they do not meet our data needs very well?)
SARA Tier 2 reports provide inventory data.
(2) Frequency of Collection
Can the Agency collect the information less frequently and still produce the same
outcome?
Yes, one year of data every five years is sufficient.
(3) Clarity of Instructions
The ICR is intended to require that respondents provide certain data so that the Agency can
utilize them.
A. Based on the instructions (regulations, Instructions for Reporting, etc.), is it clear what
you are required to do, and how to submit such data? If not, what suggestions do you
have to clarify the instructions?
Per feedback from staff preparing the report, it is not clear; and the process can be complex
and confusing. Make the instructions more user friendly and provide examples specifically for
different industries.
B. Do you understand that you are required to maintain records?
Yes
C. Is the electronic reporting tool associated with reporting under CDR clear, logical, and
easy to complete? If not, what suggestions do you have to improve the electronic
reporting tool?
No. For personnel completing TSCA for the first time, it was a learning process that was
complex. More user-friendly examples are needed.

EPA ICR NO. 1884.17

OMB CONTROL NO. 2070-0162

(4) Electronic Reporting and Record keeping
The Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires agencies make available to the public
electronic reporting alternatives to paper-based submissions by 2003, unless there is a strong
reason for not doing so.
A. Are you keeping your records electronically? If yes, in what format?
Yes, PDF of the report, product inventories, SDS, and supporting excel documents.
B. What benefits does electronic submission bring you in terms of burden reduction or
greater efficiency in compiling the information?
It reduces paper storage, allows for easier data retrieval, storage, sharing, and validation before
submitting, and is searchable.
(5) Burden and Costs
A. Are the labor rates accurate? (Please see question 12 of the supporting statement)
Underestimated.
B. The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this activity. Is that correct?
Correct.
C. Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden hours and costs
associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR, e.g., the ICR does not include
estimated burden hours and costs for conducting studies, are the estimated burden
hours and labor rates accurate? If you provide burden and cost estimates that are
substantially different from EPA’s, please provide an explanation of how you arrived at
your estimates.
N/A
D. Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed?
Yes, consultant fees.

EPA ICR NO. 1884.17

OMB CONTROL NO. 2070-0162

(2) Frequency of Collection
Can the Agency collect the information less frequently and still produce the same
outcome? Between CDR cycles the chemical list of reportable substances and the uses
do not change drastically which may allow EPA to collect information less frequently and
still produce the same outcome. Additionally, only data reported on the principal
reporting year helps EPA produce the stated outcome of “identify[ing] chemicals to
which the public may be exposed as consumers or as workers in commercial and
industrial settings.” Therefore, the volume data for the first 3 years of the reporting
cycle are not needed because they do not help EPA meet their stated outcome.

(3) Clarity of Instructions
The ICR is intended to require that respondents provide certain data so that the Agency can
utilize them.
A. Based on the instructions (regulations, Instructions for Reporting, etc.), is it clear what
you are required to do, and how to submit such data? If not, what suggestions do you
have to clarify the instructions? Instructions are clear but EPA should continue to update
their guidance documents or confirm that prior dated documents are still relevant to
EPA’s current thinking. For example, some of the industry guidance is from 2016 and still
is the only relevant guidance on those topics.

EPA ICR NO. 1884.17

OMB CONTROL NO. 2070-0162

B. Do you understand that you are required to maintain records? Yes. However, EPA’s
current procedures for adding or modifying data elements during the reporting lookback
period do not give companies sufficient advance notice about what additional records
they may need to maintain. As a result, companies may be required to report data
elements they did not know needed to be retained. EPA can add new data elements
after the lookback period has already passed, and companies are not aware of future
CDR updates until the CDR rule is proposed and/or finalized. For example, byproduct
information was added in April 2020 for the 2020 CDR cycle.
C. Is the electronic reporting tool associated with reporting under CDR clear, logical, and
easy to complete? If not, what suggestions do you have to improve the electronic
reporting tool? At first glance the electronic reporting tool appears clear and logical,
however, technical glitches make reports very difficult to complete. For example,
glitches in the system often prevent data input and take a long time to repair or illogical
workarounds to complete. Additionally, the ability to import or copy prior years data
would provide significant time savings. The ability to report for multiple sites in one
effort, for example in a single bulk upload form, would also provide significant time
savings.

B. What benefits does electronic submission bring you in terms of burden reduction or
greater efficiency in compiling the information? Electronic submission does not provide
any significant burden reduction or efficiency as all raw data is created and stored
electronically.

(5) Burden and Costs
A. Are the labor rates accurate? (Please see question 12 of the supporting statement)
Professional/technical and managerial wage rates are lower than industry standards.
Additionally, little to no work is appropriate for the clerical level and these labor rates

EPA ICR NO. 1884.17

OMB CONTROL NO. 2070-0162

should not be included. The labor rates do not account for other functions required to
support the data collection effort such as legal and data analytics.
B. The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this activity. Is that correct?
No, capital investment into electronic systems and maintenance is required to handle
large amounts of data. Computer systems, especially those from 3 rd party vendors,
change over time. The ability to run reports for CDR-specific data and convert the data
into a usable Excel format requires capital investment to maintain software and
personnel hours from other functions to build and maintain data systems.
C. Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden hours and costs
associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR, e.g., the ICR does not include
estimated burden hours and costs for conducting studies, are the estimated burden
hours and labor rates accurate? If you provide burden and cost estimates that are
substantially different from EPA’s, please provide an explanation of how you arrived at
your estimates.
Hourly wage used for calculating labor rates (equivalent to GS12/13) is
significantly lower than industry average where typical industry wage for
professionals with adequate skills and experience to complete CDR is equivalent
to GS14/15 wage band.
The burden and cost for Rule Familiarization is severely underestimated by EPA
because it assumes new reporters can become familiar with the full CDR
reporting framework in less than 4 hours. In reality, this number sounds more
appropriate for seasoned TSCA experts who are already intimately familiar with
historical CDR rules and guidance, who only need to familiarize themselves with
differences between current and prior years CDR rules.
Total burden hours estimated by EPA are significantly lower than actual hours
calculated for our company. We calculated approximately 85 hours per
substance for professional/technical staff with adequate skills and experience to
complete CDR. These professional/technical staff were tasked with data
collection and reporting and this estimate does not include all other supporting
functions including legal, managerial, data analytics support, or sales and site
personnel whose hours were not explicitly tracked. EPA’s estimate of ~71 hours
for average multi-chemical form completion including function category data

EPA ICR NO. 1884.17

OMB CONTROL NO. 2070-0162

elements appears to only include managerial, professional/technical, and clerical
hours.
Feedback on these burden and cost estimates are based on internal calculations
of professional/technical and managerial hours. Hours outside of this function
were not explicitly tracked.
D. Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed? Capital
investment in computer systems and long-term maintenance of data covered in 5A-C.
Wages and labor/burden costs for supporting functions outside those specifically tasked
with collecting data for CDR do not appear to be accounted for in the burden and cost
estimates.

Re: American Chemistry Council Comments on Agency Information Collection Activities;
Proposed Renewal Collection and Request for Comment; Chemical Data Reporting
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 91 Fed. Reg. 8872-73 (February 24,
2026); EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0721; FRL 12917-01-OCSPP

make the United States the global leader in innovation and manufacturing. To achieve this, we: Champion sciencebased policy solutions across all levels of government; Drive continuous performance improvement to protect
employees and communities through Responsible Care®; Foster the development of sustainability practices
throughout ACC member companies; and Communicate authentically with communities about challenges and
solutions for a safer, healthier and more sustainable way of life. Our vision is a world made better by chemistry,
where people live happier, healthier, and more prosperous lives, safely and sustainably for generations to come.

1250 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, NW, SUITE 700, PMB# 5017 WASHINGTON, DC 20036
(202) 539-4060
WWW.APERC.ORG
[email protected]

Alkylphenols & Ethoxylates Research Council
Comments on
EPA Information Collection Activities: Proposed Renewal and Request for Comment on
Chemical Data Reporting under the Toxic Substances Control Act
Submitted to Docket EPA HQ OPPT 2013 0721
April 27, 2026
The Alkylphenols & Ethoxylates Research Council (APERC) appreciates this opportunity to
provide comments in response to the Information Collection Request (ICR) that EPA published
related to the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) under section 8(a) (15 U.S.C. 2607 of the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). 1
APERC is comprised of manufacturers of alkylphenols, including 4-tert-Octylphenol (4tOP) and
nonylphenol (NP) and their derivatives. For more than thirty years, APERC, its predecessor
organization, and its member companies have been actively engaged in the review of uses,
exposure and toxicological and environmental fate and effects research regarding these
compounds. APERC has shared this type of information with EPA for its use in the assessment
of these compounds under TSCA and other programs such as the Clean Water Act (CWA) and
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
Data collected under the CDR are used by EPA to inform the prioritization of chemicals for risk
evaluation under TSCA. Since 4tOP is a candidate for high-priority designation under TSCA and

91 Fed. Reg. 8873 (February 24, 2026)

Alkylphenols & Ethoxylates Research Council
April 27, 2026
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0721
Page 2 of 4
NP is listed on the 2014 TSCA Work Plan, APERC has a particular interest in the use of CDR
data for prioritization. 2, 3
APERC member companies have submitted volume, use and exposure information for the
chemicals they manufacture and/or import over the years as required under the various iterations
of reporting requirements under the TSCA CDR and previously under the Inventory Update Rule
(IUR). The CDR reporting requirements have been modified with the most recent major changes
occurring in 2020 (85 FR 20122, April 9, 2020 (FRL 10005 56). The 2020 CDR Revisions Rule
phased in some new provisions and all changes were fully implemented with the 2024 CDR.
This ICR addresses the paperwork and reporting requirements contained in the current CDR rule.
Under TSCA section 8(a) (15 U.S.C. 2607), the EPA is authorized to collect certain information
on chemical substances manufactured (including imported) or processed in the United States.
The CDR collection provides chemical manufacture, processing, and use information that helps
EPA identify chemicals to which the public may be exposed as consumers or as workers in
commercial and industrial settings. The data also helps EPA assess routes of potential exposure
to those chemicals. The CDR data collection is on a four- year reporting cycle and contains
detailed manufacturing, processing, and use information drawn from the principal reporting year;
as well as basic information on production volume, by year, for the three years prior to the
principal reporting year.

chemicals in commerce through CDR reporting and its use of such data to inform prioritization
and risk evaluation of chemicals under TSCA. However, the process currently is extremely
burdensome and requires a big drain on internal company resources.
APERC offers
prepares for the next round of CDR reporting in 2028.
2

EPA (2024, December 18). Notice: Initiation of Prioritization under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).
Federal Register Vol. 8, No. 243 102905-102908.
3
U.S. EPA (2014, October). TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments:2024 Update

Alkylphenols & Ethoxylates Research Council
April 27, 2026
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0721
Page 3 of 4
1.0 EPA Underestimates the Burden Associated with CDR Reporting

APERC member companies report that the actual burden of complying with the CDR is far
. Depending on the
company, reporting may require multiple employees and even consultants or contractors to
compile the data. CDR reporting can involve multiple reporting sites per cycle and the
involvement of multiple employees across a range of functions to collect and confirm the data
for CDR submissions. In the case of smaller companies, the entire burden can fall to a single
employee. In addition, substantiation of Confidential Business Information (CBI) is time
consuming and must be entered manually for each entry.

3.0

The Use of Real-world Information from CDR reporting is Helpful to Inform the
Prioritization and Risk Evaluation of Chemicals under TSCA.

under TSCA. CDR data reflects real-world manufacturing, import, and use patterns and its

Alkylphenols & Ethoxylates Research Council
April 27, 2026
EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0721
Page 4 of 4
integration into TSCA decision-making helps support evaluations that are both scientifically
robust and reflective of current commercial practices.
As an example, the 2020 CDR confirmed that 4-tOP, CAS RN 140-66-9 is used exclusively as
an intermediate or reactant in the synthesis of other chemical compounds. It is not used directly
in any products, industrial, commercial, or consumer. Even such high-level information
represents reasonably available information, which is useful to inform prioritization. This
corrects the assumption in the 2014 TSCA Work Plan that 4-tOP is used in consumer products. 4

U.S. EPA (2014, October). TSCA Work Plan for Chemical Assessments:2024 Update