Support
Testing
Federal
Bridge
Certificate
Authority
(
FBCA)
Interoperability
for
Environmental
Data
Exchanges
Cross­
Media
Electronic
Reporting
and
Records
Rule
Information
Collection
Request
Final
January
21,
2004
Task
Order
No.:
T0002AJM038
Contract
No.:
GS00T99ALD0203
i
Table
of
Contents
1.0
Identification
of
the
Information
Collection......................................................
1
2.0
Need
for
and
Use
of
the
Collection
...................................................................
5
3.0
Nonduplication,
Consultations,
and
Other
Collection
Criteria
.......................
7
4.0
The
Respondents
and
the
Information
Requested
........................................
16
5.0
The
Information
Collected
­
Agency
Activities,
Collection
Methodology,
and
Information
Management
.................................................................................
20
6.0
Estimating
the
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
of
the
Collection...............................
23
Appendix
A
List
of
the
NAIC
Codes
Associated
with
Industries
Most
Likely
Affected
by
the
Rule...............................................................................
33
1
1.0
Identification
of
the
Information
Collection
1.1
1(
a)
Title
and
Number
of
the
Information
Collection
This
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
is
entitled
"
A
Cross­
Media
Electronic
Reporting
and
Recordkeeping
Rule",
ICR
Number
2002.03.
OMB
Control
Number:
2025­
NEW
(
OMB
comment
#
2025­
0001).

1.2
1(
b)
Short
Characterization
The
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
has
finalized
a
rule
to
allow
regulated
entities
to
report
electronically
to
EPA
by
permitting
the
use
of
electronic
document
receiving
systems
to
receive
electronic
documents
in
satisfaction
of
certain
document
submission
requirements
in
EPA's
regulations.
1
This
Cross­
Media
Electronic
Reporting
and
Recordkeeping
Rule
(
CROMERRR)
also
allows
state,
tribal,
and
local
environmental
programs
to
seek
EPA
approval,
as
provided
under
40
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
(
CFR)
3.1000;
to
accept
electronic
documents
to
satisfy
reporting
requirements
under
authorized
or
delegated
environmental
programs
that
they
administer.
In
seeking
EPA
approval,
these
state,
tribal,
and
local
environmental
programs
(
referred
to
as
States/
Locals
in
the
remainder
of
this
ICR)
must
upgrade
their
receiving
systems
as
needed
in
order
to
satisfy
the
criteria
laid
out
at
40
CFR
3.2000.
Regulated
entities
that
use
an
electronic
signature
device
in
submitting
electronic
documents
to
the
EPA
or
State/
Local
receiving
system
must
comply
with
identity
proofing
requirements,
as
applicable.

CROMERRR
does
not
require
any
regulated
entity
to
report
electronically
to
EPA
or
State/
Local
jurisdiction.
The
rule
establishes
requirements
for
utilizing
electronic
reporting
as
an
alternative
to
paper­
based
reporting.
The
rule
also
does
not
require
State/
Local
jurisdictions
to
implement
electronic
reporting;
rather,
it
establishes
the
framework
for
implementing
the
electronic
reporting
alternative
for
federal
laws
that
they
administer.
In
this
regard,
the
rule
affects
the
burden
of
regulated
entities
only
as
follows:


Entities
that
report
electronically
to
EPA
have
to
register
with
EPA's
receiving
system
(
e.
g.,
log
on
to
the
EPA
Web
site
and
enter
requested
information);
comply
with
the
identity
proofing
provisions;
and
then
commence
electronic
reporting
(
this
ICR
refers
to
these
entities
as
direct
reporters).


State/
Local
jurisdictions
must
upgrade
their
electronic
receiving
systems
as
needed
to
meet
CFR
Section
3.2000
requirements.
This
includes
upgrading
electronic
receiving
systems,
currently
in
existence,
as
well
as
systems
to
be
developed
in
the
future.
These
State/
Local
jurisdictions
must
apply
for
EPA
program
modification
approval
under
CFR
Section
3.1000.
They
also
must
implement
the
identity
proofing
requirements
under
CFR
Section
3.2000(
b)(
5).


Entities
that
report
electronically
to
State/
Local
jurisdictions
must
comply
with
the
identity
proofing
requirements
under
CFR
Section
3.2000(
b)(
5).
This
ICR
refers
to
these
entities
as
indirect
reporters.

1
For
purposes
of
this
rule,
EPA
is
using
the
term
electronic
reporting
in
a
sense
that
excludes
submission
of
a
report
via
magnetic
media,
(
i.
e.,
via
diskette,
compact
disc,
or
tape).
EPA
is
also
excluding
transmission
via
hard
copy
facsimile.
Likewise,
EPA=
s
use
of
the
term
"
electronic
document"
throughout
this
ICR
refers
exclusively
to
documents
that
are
transmitted
via
a
telecommunications
network,
excluding
hard
copy
facsimile.
2
This
ICR
examines
these
respondent
requirements
and
associated
burden.
Sections
1.0
through
5.0
of
the
ICR
describe
the
requirements
for
acceptable
electronic
reporting
and
receiving
systems.
Section
6.0
estimates
the
annual
burden
to
direct
reporters
in
registering
with
EPA's
electronic
receiving
system.
It
also
estimates
the
burden
to
direct
and
indirect
reporters
in
complying
with
the
rule's
identity
proofing
requirements.
Finally,
it
estimates
State/
Local
burden
in
upgrading
their
receiving
systems
and
seeking
EPA
approval.
The
ICR
does
not
address
the
burden
impacts
(
savings)
to
direct
or
indirect
reporters
in
reporting
electronically
under
EPA
programs.
EPA's
programs
will
amend
their
program­
specific
ICRs
to
address
these
impacts.

The
rule
establishes
requirements
applicable
to
electronic
reporting
and
receiving
systems,
as
specified.
Many
of
the
activities
to
be
conducted
by
direct
reporters
will
be
determined
by
the
instructions
associated
with
EPA's
receiving
system.
Specifically,
EPA
has
developed
an
Agency­
wide
receiving
system,
Central
Data
Exchange
(
CDX),
which
guides
respondents
through
the
registration
and
reporting
procedures.
In
developing
this
ICR,
EPA
referred
to
the
regulatory
text,
as
well
as
CDX,
in
describing
direct
reporters'
activities
and
associated
burden.

The
following
paragraphs
describe
the
activities
that
facilities
and
states
would
take
under
the
rule.

1.3
Facility
Electronic
Reporting
To
EPA,
State,
and
Local
Receiving
Systems
1.3.1
Facility
Electronic
Reporting
to
EPA
Receiving
System
40
CFR
3.10(
a)
and
(
b)
establish
Federal
environmental
reporting
requirements
that
facilities
must
satisfy
to
submit
electronic
documents
to
EPA.
Among
other
things,
CFR
Section
3.10(
a)
provides
that
a
person
may
use
an
electronic
document
to
satisfy
a
federal
reporting
requirement,
or
otherwise
substitute
for
a
paper
document
or
submission
permitted
or
required
under
other
provisions
of
this
title
only
if
the
person
submits
the
electronic
document
to
EPA's
CDX,
or
to
another
EPA
electronic
document
receiving
system
that
the
Administrator
may
designate
for
the
receipt
of
specified
submissions,
complying
with
the
system's
requirements
for
submission.
The
electronic
document
must
bear
all
valid
electronic
signatures
as
required
under
Title
40
to
sign
the
paper
document
for
which
the
electronic
document
substitutes,
unless
EPA
announces
special
provisions
to
accept
the
signature
on
separate
paper
submission.

In
accordance
with
the
above
requirements,
as
well
as
the
requirements
of
CDX,
direct
reporters
must
register
initially
with
CDX.
They
also
must
update
their
registration
information
as
needed.

1.3.2
Facility
Compliance
with
Identity
Proofing
Requirements
Direct
and
indirect
reporters
must
comply
with
the
identity
proofing
provisions
of
the
CDX
and
rule,
as
applicable.
As
provided
by
CDX
and
CFR
Section
3.2000(
a)(
2),
any
electronic
document
must
bear
the
valid
electronic
signature
of
a
signatory
if
that
signatory
would
be
required
under
the
EPA
or
State/
Local
environmental
program
to
sign
the
paper
document
for
which
the
electronic
document
substitutes,
unless
the
program
makes
special
provisions
to
accept
a
handwritten
signature
on
a
separate
paper
submission,
as
specified.

In
the
case
of
an
electronic
document
that
must
bear
electronic
signatures
of
individuals,
as
provided
by
the
CDX
or
CFR
Section
3.2000(
a)(
2),
each
signatory
must
sign
either
an
electronic
signature
agreement
or
a
subscriber
agreement
with
respect
to
the
electronic
signature
device
used
to
create
their
electronic
signature
on
the
electronic
document.

The
CDX
and
CFR
Section
3.2000(
b)(
5)(
vii)
require
that,
for
each
electronic
signature
device
used
to
create
an
electronic
signature
on
the
document,
the
identity
of
the
individual
uniquely
entitled
to
use
the
device
and
their
relation
to
any
entity
for
which
they
will
sign
electronic
3
documents
must
be
determined
with
legal
certainty
by
EPA
or
State/
Local,
as
applicable.
In
the
case
of
priority
reports,
this
determination
must
be
made
before
the
electronic
document
is
received,
by
means
of:


Identifiers
or
attributes
that
are
verified
by
attestation
of
disinterested
individuals
to
be
uniquely
true
of
the
individual
in
whose
name
the
application
is
submitted,
based
on
information
or
objects
of
independent
origin,
at
least
one
item
of
which
is
not
subject
to
change
without
governmental
action
or
authorization.


A
method
of
determining
identity
no
less
stringent
than
the
one
above.


Collection
of
either
a
subscriber
agreement
or
a
certification
from
a
local
registration
authority
that
such
an
agreement
has
been
received
and
securely
stored.

1.4
Approval
of
State
and
Local
Electronic
Document
Receiving
Systems
State/
Local
governments
that
receive,
or
wish
to
begin
receiving,
electronic
documents
in
lieu
of
paper
documents
to
satisfy
requirements
under
authorized
programs
must
revise
or
modify
the
EPA­
approved
state
or
local
environmental
program
to
ensure
that
it
meets
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
Part
3.
In
making
these
program
revisions
or
modifications,
the
State/
Local
government
must
submit
an
application
that
complies
with
CFR
Section
3.1000(
b)(
1),
and
use
either
the
applicable
procedures
for
revision
or
modification
of
such
programs
in
other
parts
of
this
title;
or,
at
their
option,
the
procedures
provided
in
subsections
(
b)
­
(
e)
of
CFR
Section
3.1000.
The
procedures
provided
in
subsections
(
b)
­
(
e)
may
only
be
used
for
revising
or
modifying
an
authorized
program
to
provide
for
electronic
reporting
and
for
subsequent
revisions
or
modifications
to
the
electronic
reporting
elements
of
the
authorized
program
as
provided
under
CFR
Section
3.1000(
a)(
4).
CFR
Section
3.1000(
a)(
1).

State/
Local
governments
that
accept
electronic
documents
in
lieu
of
paper
documents
under
an
authorized
program
for
which
EPA
has
approved
program
revisions
or
modifications
under
the
procedures
provided
in
CFR
Section
3.1000(
a)(
1),
must
keep
EPA
apprised
of
those
changes
to
laws,
policies,
or
the
electronic
document
receiving
systems
that
have
the
potential
to
affect
program
conformance
with
CFR
Section
3.2000.
Where
the
Administrator
determines
that
such
changes
require
EPA
review
and
approval,
EPA
may
request
that
the
state
or
local
government
submit
an
application
for
program
revision
or
modification;
additionally,
States
or
local
governments
may
submit
applications
on
their
own
initiative,
for
program
revision
or
modification
respecting
their
receipt
of
electronic
documents.
CFR
Section
3.1000(
a)(
4)

To
obtain
EPA
approval
of
program
revisions
or
modifications
using
procedures
provided
under
CFR
Section
3.1000,
a
State/
Local
must
submit
an
application
to
the
Administrator
that
includes
the
elements
at
CFR
Section
3.1000(
b)(
1)(
i)­(
iv).

A
state,
tribe,
or
local
government
that
revises
or
modifies
more
than
one
(
1)
authorized
program
for
receipt
of
electronic
documents,
in
lieu
of
paper
documents,
may
submit
a
consolidated
application
under
this
section
covering
more
than
one
(
1)
authorized
program,
provided
the
consolidated
application
complies
with
this
subsection
for
each
authorized
program.
CFR
Section
3.1000(
b)(
2).

The
State/
Local
program
must
satisfy
the
requirements
at
40
CFR
3.2000.
Pursuant
to
CFR
Section
3.2000(
a),
authorized
programs
that
receive
electronic
documents,
in
lieu
of
paper
documents,
to
satisfy
requirements
under
such
programs
must
use
an
acceptable
electronic
document
receiving
system
as
specified
and
require
that
any
electronic
document
must
bear
the
valid
electronic
signature
of
a
signatory
if
that
signatory
would
be
required
under
the
authorized
program
to
sign
the
paper
document
for
which
the
electronic
document
substitutes
unless
the
program
makes
special
provisions
to
accept
a
handwritten
signature
on
a
separate
paper
4
submission,
where
such
provisions
are
addressed
in
the
application
submitted
under
CFR
Section
3.1000(
b)(
1)
and
ensure
that
the
paper
submission
contains
references
to
the
electronic
document
sufficient
for
legal
certainty
that
the
signature
was
executed
with
the
intention
to
certify
to,
attest
to,
or
agree
to
the
content
of
that
electronic
document.

As
provided
at
CFR
Section
3.2000(
b),
an
electronic
document
receiving
system
that
receives
electronic
documents,
submitted
in
lieu
of
paper
documents,
to
satisfy
requirements
under
an
authorized
program
must
be
able
to
generate
data
with
respect
to
any
such
electronic
document,
as
needed
and
in
a
timely
manner,
including
a
copy
of
record
for
the
electronic
document,
that
meets
the
criteria
specified
at
CFR
Section
3.2000(
b)(
1)
through
(
5).
5
2.0
Need
for
and
Use
of
the
Collection
2.1
2(
a)
Need
and
Authority
for
the
Collection
EPA
is
establishing
these
requirements
to
ensure
compliance
with
the
Government
Paperwork
Elimination
Act
(
GPEA).
2
GPEA
requires
that
federal
agencies
be
prepared,
by
October
21,
2003,
to
allow
persons
who
are
required
to
maintain,
submit,
or
disclose
information,
the
option
of
doing
so
electronically,
when
practicable,
as
a
substitute
for
paper;
and
to
use
electronic
authentication
(
electronic
signature)
methods
to
verify
the
identity
of
the
sender
and
the
integrity
of
electronic
content.
GPEA
specifically
provides
that
electronic
records,
and
their
related
electronic
signatures,
are
not
to
be
denied
legal
effect,
validity,
or
enforceability
merely
because
they
are
in
electronic
form.

Regulated
entities
must
initially
register
with
the
EPA
electronic
document
receiving
system
to
establish
a
user
account.
EPA
needs
the
registration
information
to
identify
the
registrant,
contact
information,
and
registrant's
organization.
Registrants
also
select
a
password
and
user
name
during
registration.
This
information
is
needed
to
ensure
that
only
the
registrant
has
access
to
their
account.

The
identity
proofing
provisions
in
CFR
Section
3.2000(
b)(
5)
are
needed
to
strengthen
the
nonrepudiation
provisions
of
the
rule.
The
electronic
signature
agreement,
required
at
CFR
Section
3.2000(
b)(
5)(
v),
establishes
that
the
signatory
was
informed
of
their
obligation
to
keep
the
signature
device
from
compromise,
by
ensuring
that
it
is
not
made
available
to
anyone
else.
These
provisions
are
intended
to
ensure
that
the
Federal
laws
regarding
the
falsification
of
information
submitted
to
the
government
still
apply
to
any
and
all
electronic
transactions,
and
that
fraudulent
electronic
submissions
will
be
prosecuted
to
the
fullest
extent
of
the
law.
In
establishing
clear
requirements
for
electronic
reporting
systems,
this
rule
helps
to
minimize
fraud
by
assuring
that
the
responsible
individuals
can
be
readily
identified.

EPA
needs
information
submitted
by
State/
Locals
in
their
program
modification
applications
to
evaluate
the
State/
Locals'
upgraded
systems
to
ensure
they
satisfy
the
criteria
at
CFR
Section
3.2000.

EPA
also
needs
the
information
to
evaluate
whether
the
State/
Local's
modified
program
has
been
satisfactorily
revised
or
modified
in
regard
to
their
receiving
system.
In
particular,
the
application
must
include
a
certification
that
the
State/
Local
has
sufficient
legal
authority
provided
by
lawfully
enacted
or
promulgated
statutes
or
regulations
to
implement
the
electronic
reporting
component
of
its
authorized
program
covered
by
the
application;
and
to
enforce
the
affected
programs
using
electronic
documents
collected
under
these
programs.
The
certification
must
be
signed
by
the
governmental
official
who
is
legally
competent
to
certify
with
respect
to
legal
authority
on
behalf
of
their
government.
In
the
case
of
the
state,
this
official
must
be
the
Attorney
General
or
their
designee.
In
the
case
of
a
tribe
or
local
government,
this
official
must
be
the
chief
administrative
official
or
officer
or
their
designee.
As
a
legal
matter,
EPA
believes
that
Attorneys
General
or
their
designees
are
the
only
officials
capable
of
certifying
with
respect
to
their
States'
legal
authority.
Where
there
are
substantial
administrative
obstacles
to
involving
the
Attorney
General
in
such
certifications,
EPA
urges
the
State
Attorney
General
to
provide
for
a
legally­
competent
designee
who
is
available
to
participate
in
the
submission
of
the
State's
application.

2
Title
XVII
of
Pub.
L.
105­
277
6
2.2
2(
b)
Practical
Utility
and
Users
of
the
Data
Regulated
entities
must
initially
register
with
the
EPA
electronic
document
receiving
system
to
establish
a
user
account
and
generate
a
password.
EPA
uses
the
information
to
identify
the
registrant
(
e.
g.,
by
name
and/
or
organization),
establish
the
account,
and
contact
the
registrant
if
needed.
Regulated
entities
use
the
password
to
access
their
account
and
to
protect
it
from
unauthorized
use.

EPA
and
State/
Locals
use
the
identity
proofing
information
from
registrants
to
determine
each
registrant's
identity
and
relationship
to
their
regulated
entity.
The
information
may
be
used
in
an
EPA
or
State/
Local
enforcement
action
to
rebut
a
signatory's
attempt
to
repudiate
their
electronic
signature
and/
or
other
elements
of
the
document
that
was
signed.

When
EPA
or
State/
Local
agency
receives
a
subscriber
agreement,
certification
of
receipt
and
secure
storage,
or
other
identity­
proofing
information,
the
agency
will
review,
process,
and
file
the
submittal.
EPA
or
State/
Local
agency
would
then
provide
the
registrant
with
access
to
the
receiving
system
(
e.
g.,
open
its
account)
so
that
it
may
begin
using
the
electronic
signature
device
in
reporting
electronically.

EPA
uses
the
information
submitted
by
State/
Locals
in
their
program
modification
applications
to
evaluate
the
State/
Locals'
upgraded
receiving
systems
against
the
criteria
at
CFR
Section
3.2000(
b)(
1)­(
5).
For
example,
EPA
will
review
the
application
to
determine
if
the
systems
are
able
to
generate
data
as
needed,
and
in
a
timely
manner,
including
copy
of
record
for
each
electronic
document
received,
sufficient
to
prove
that
the
electronic
document
was
not
altered
without
detection
during
transmission
or
at
any
time
after
receipt.

EPA
also
reviews
the
application
to
ensure
that
the
State/
Local
has
taken
all
necessary
steps
to
modify
its
regulations
and
statutes,
as
needed,
so
that
it
has
authority
to
implement
electronic
reporting
and
enforce
the
affected
programs
using
electronic
documents
collected
under
its
programs.
This
includes,
among
other
things,
an
evaluation
of
the
Attorney
General's
certification
under
CFR
Section
3.1000(
b)(
1)(
i).
7
3.0
Nonduplication,
Consultations,
and
Other
Collection
Criteria
3.1
3(
a)
Nonduplication
The
purpose
of
the
rule
is
to
establish
uniform,
Agency­
wide
criteria
for
electronic
receiving
systems,
thereby
minimizing
the
potential
for
duplication
or
redundancy
across
EPA
or
state
programs.
EPA
expects
that
the
rule
will
significantly
assist
EPA's
electronic
reporting
initiatives
currently
underway
by
establishing
standardized
and
streamlined
systems,
criteria,
and
procedures.

In
addition,
EPA
uses
the
Access
Certificates
for
Electronic
Services
(
ACES)
program
for
electronic
signature
certification
for
the
CDX
system,
as
needed.
The
ACES
program
offers
centralized
signature
certification
for
electronic
reporters
across
the
federal
government.

Further,
electronic
reporting
is
voluntary,
and
will
likely
be
used
by
facilities
only
if
cost­
effective
and
non­
duplicative
with
their
other
compliance
activities.
CROMERRR
does
not
alter
the
reporting
requirements
under
existing
regulations
and
statutes,
and
does
not
affect
whether
a
document
must
be
created,
submitted,
or
retained
under
the
existing
provisions
of
Title
40
of
the
CRF.

3.2
3(
b)
Public
Notice
In
compliance
with
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1995,
EPA
issued
a
public
notice
in
the
Federal
Register
on
August
31,
2001
(
66
FR
46161).
The
public
comment
period
extended
through
February
27,
2002.
EPA
received
184
written
comments
on
the
proposal
in
the
six
(
6)
months
following
publication
of
the
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(
NPRM).
The
commenters
represented
a
broad
spectrum
of
interested
parties:
states,
local
governments,
specific
businesses,
trade
associations,
and
other
federal
agencies.
EPA
reviewed
the
public
comments
on
the
rule
and
supporting
analyses,
and
revised
its
analytical
assumptions
and
data
accordingly.

The
majority
of
comments
focused
on
the
costs
and
burden
of
the
proposed
Subpart
D
electronic
record­
keeping
provisions
in
the
August
31,
2001,
proposal.
At
this
time,
EPA
is
only
finalizing,
with
some
revisions,
the
provisions
for
electronic
reporting
to
EPA
and
under
authorized
programs.
Based
on
the
comments
received
on
the
proposed
electronic
recordkeeping
provisions,
EPA
is
carefully
reconsidering
our
approach
to
electronic
record­
keeping
and
is
not
issuing
final
record­
keeping
rules
at
this
time.
We
are
conducting
additional
analysis
and
intend
to
publish
a
supplemental
notice
or
re­
proposal
to
solicit
additional
comment
before
a
final
rule
on
electronic
record­
keeping
is
issued.

Some
comments
and
concerns
were
also
received
on
the
proposal's
electronic
reporting
provisions.
A
discussion
of
those
comments
and
the
substantive
changes
to
the
rule's
electronic
reporting
provisions
based
on
public
comments
follows.

In
the
comments
on
the
provisions
for
electronic
reporting
under
authorized
programs,
a
recurring
theme
was
the
complexity
of
the
proposed
requirements
for
EPA
approval.
The
comments
in
many
cases
seemed
directed
equally
to
the
program
revision
or
modification
process
associated
with
electronic
reporting
and
to
the
proposed
criteria
for
approving
such
revisions
or
modifications.
For
the
comments
that
clearly
addressed
the
process,
there
were
two
major
concerns.
The
first
was
simply
that
the
process
 
dictated
as
it
is
by
the
various
current
program
authorization
regulations
 
is
inherently
complicated,
time­
consuming
and
resource­
intensive.
In
a
few
cases,
commenters
noted
the
particular
worry
that
having
to
seek
EPA
approval
for
each
program
implementing
electronic
reporting
would
be
especially
8
burdensome,
and
that
EPA's
proposed
approach
of
streamlining
the
internal
review
component
of
the
program
revision
process
would
be
of
little
help.

To
address
the
concern
that
the
proposed
program
revision
or
modification
to
accommodate
electronic
reporting
was
too
complicated
and
burdensome,
the
final
rule
provides
for
special,
streamlined
procedures
available
exclusively
for
adding
electronic
reporting
to
existing
authorized
programs.
These
are
optional
procedures
which
a
State,
Tribe,
or
local
government
may
use
if
it
chooses,
in
place
of
the
applicable
program­
specific
procedures,
to
seek
EPA
approval
for
revisions
or
modifications
that
provide
for
electronic
reporting
or
that
make
changes
to
the
electronic
reporting
implementation
for
that
program.
EPA
believes
that
in
most
cases
these
optional
procedures
will
be
substantially
simpler
and
quicker
than
their
program­
specific
alternatives.

A
second
concern
was
the
impact
of
the
rule
on
electronic
reporting
that
was
already
underway.
Commenters
noted
that
many
authorized
programs
are
already
accepting
electronic
submissions,
or
would
be
by
the
time
the
final
rule
is
published,
and
they
worried
about
the
timing
of
the
requirement
that
the
electronic
document
receiving
systems
they
use
for
this
purpose
be
approved
by
EPA
under
associated
program
revision
or
modification
procedures.
Under
the
proposed
provisions,
such
systems
would
have
to
be
EPA­
approved
as
soon
as
the
rule
became
effective
 
a
practical
impossibility.
Given
the
need
to
address
the
criteria
for
approval,
such
applications
could
only
be
initiated
once
the
rule
was
finalized,
and
they
might
take
months
to
complete
and
get
approved
 
or
substantially
longer
in
cases
where
the
revision
or
modification
required
State
legislative
or
regulatory
changes.
During
the
months
or
years
that
the
revision
or
modification
was
in
process,
the
authorized
program
would
either
have
to
shut
down
their
electronic
document
receiving
systems
or,
of
necessity,
operate
them
out
of
compliance
with
the
rule.
Commenters
were
particularly
concerned
with
the
disruptive
impacts
of
having
to
shut
these
systems
down.
They
pointed
out
that
reversion
to
paper­
based
submissions
in
such
cases
may
be
difficult
and
expensive,
both
for
the
agencies
and
for
the
submitting
entities
that
are
affected,
and
that
resuming
system
operation
after
a
long
hiatus
may
require
resources
more
typically
associated
with
system
start­
up.

To
address
the
concern
that
the
required
program
revisions
or
modifications
may
disrupt
authorized
programs
that
already
have
electronic
reporting
underway,
the
final
rule
provides
for
a
two­
year
delayed
compliance
date
 
in
effect,
a
two­
year
"
grace
period"
 
before
such
programs
have
to
submit
their
applications
for
revision
or
modification.
Programs
will
be
allowed
this
grace
period
where
they
have
systems
that
fit
a
new
definition
of
"
existing
electronic
document
receiving
system."
In
addition,
these
provisions
allow
the
grace
period
to
be
extended,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
where
an
authorized
program
may
need
to
wait
for
legislative
or
regulatory
changes
before
a
complete
application
can
be
submitted.

EPA
also
received
a
number
of
comments
on
the
proposed
criteria
for
State,
Tribal,
and
local
electronic
document
receiving
systems.
While
a
few
of
these
comments
questioned
the
"
Validity
of
Data"
criterion,
the
great
majority
dealt
with
the
detailed
function­
specific
criteria.
There
were
at
least
three
recurring
and
closely
related
themes.
One
was
simply
that
the
criteria
were
too
prescriptive
and
inflexible
 
preventing
State
and
local
agencies
from
adapting
their
electronic
reporting
approaches
to
local
needs
and
changing
circumstances,
and
restricting
the
development
of
new
and
creative
approaches
to
achieving
legal
dependability.
Another
was
that
the
criteria
would
make
electronic
reporting
unnecessarily
complex,
costly,
and
burdensome.
A
third
concern
was
that
while
the
criteria
might
be
appropriate
for
some
cases,
the
"
one
size
fits
all"
approach
was
not
workable
for
all
reports
in
all
programs.

Unfortunately,
commenters
tended
to
associate
these
three
themes
with
certain
mis­
perceptions
about
the
proposed
requirements
for
signature
method
and
the
signature/
certification
scenario.
9
Concerning
signature
method,
a
common
complaint
was
that
the
criteria
would
require
States
to
implement
PKI­
based
digital
signatures.
Commenters
generally
appear
to
have
inferred
this
from
EPA's
own
choice
of
PKI
for
submissions
to
CDX,
as
discussed
in
the
Preamble,
together
with
proposed
§
3.2000(
c)
Electronic
Signature
Method
 
especially
paragraph
(
5),
which
would
require
that
the
method
ensure
"...
that
it
is
impossible
to
modify
an
electronic
document
without
detection
once
the
electronic
signature
has
been
affixed."
We
did
not
intend
these
to
establish
PKI
as
the
required
approach
to
signatures.
Whatever
our
plans
for
CDX,
we
did
not,
and
do
not,
intend
that
State,
Tribal
and
local
government
systems
have
to
conform
to
the
CDX
model.
Implementing
a
particular
system
of
necessity
requires
the
choice
of
specific
technologies;
however,
to
make
those
choices
does
not
imply
that
these
are
the
only
possible
choices
that
would
satisfy
whatever
requirements
we
place
on
electronic
reporting
systems.
Moreover,
proposed
§
3.2000(
c)(
5)
was
not
intended
to
require
PKI­
based
signature.
Given
current
technology,
it
would
be
difficult,
at
the
least,
to
be
certain
whether
or
not
the
content
of
an
electronic
document
has
changed
since
it
was
signed
without
calculating
a
hash
of
the
document
at
signature
and
securing
this
hash
in
a
manner
that
protects
it
from
degradation
or
falsification.
Encryption
is
probably
the
most
straightforward
way
to
secure
the
hash.
Encryption
could
be
accomplished
with
a
PKI­
based
signature,
with
a
digital
signature
where
the
asymmetric
key­
pair
is
not
associated
with
a
PKI
certificate,
or
with
symmetric­
key
cryptography.
It
might
be
possible
to
avoid
cryptography
altogether
by
storing
the
hash
value
in
a
system
with
appropriately
controlled
access.
PKI­
based
signature,
then,
represents
only
one
among
a
number
of
possible
solutions
here,
and
at
least
some
of
them
 
for
example,
non­
PKI
digital
signatures
 
are
considerably
less
expensive
and
less
burdensome
than
a
PKI­
based
approach.

Similarly,
a
number
of
commenters
interpreted
the
criteria
under
proposed
§
3.2000(
e)
Electronic
signature/
certification
scenario
 
and
especially
the
provisions
for
signatory's
review
of
data
under
§
3.2000(
e)(
1)(
i)
 
as
requiring
signatories
to
scroll
through
their
submissions
on­
screen
before
they
affix
their
electronic
signatures,
and
requiring
State
systems
to
enforce
this
required
"
scroll­
through".
However,
the
proposal
provided
not
that
the
signatory
must
review
the
data
onscreen
but
rather
that
he
or
she
be
given
the
opportunity
to
do
so.
Unfortunately,
the
preamble
discussion
in
the
proposal
encouraged
this
misinterpretation,
explaining
§
3.2000(
e)(
1)(
i)
with
the
example
of
the
enforced
on­
screen
"
scroll­
through"
then
envisioned
for
CDX,
and
described
in
the
CDX
section
of
the
preamble.
We
did
not,
and
do
not,
intend
to
require
this
"
scrollthrough
of
submitted
data
prior
to
signature.
Of
course,
EPA
certainly
does
expect
and
encourage
reporting
entities
to
review
data
intended
for
electronic
submission
prior
to
signature.
Nonetheless,
we
agree
that
to
mandate
this
or
any
other
particular
mode
or
method
of
signatory
review
would
be
needlessly
intrusive
and
burdensome
for
submitters.

Setting
these
and
perhaps
other
mis­
perceptions
aside,
the
three
themes
 
of
prescriptiveness,
cost
and
burden,
and
a
"
one
size
fits
all"
approach
 
nonetheless
raised
useful
and
important
questions
about
the
proposal.
The
overall
approach
to
the
criteria
for
electronic
document
receiving
systems
in
the
final
rule
associated
with
this
ICR,
reflects
a
balancing
of
the
concerns
raised
by
the
public
comments
 
and
especially
those
relating
to
the
proposal's
burden
on
States
and
regulated
entities
 
against
the
need
to
maintain
the
reliability
and
security
of
electronic
signatures
and
the
evidentiary
force
of
the
documents
that
contain
them.
Those
who
commented
that
the
proposed
rule
was
too
prescriptive
generally
argued
that,
even
supposing
that
there
were
no
specific
objections
to
the
detailed
provisions
under
proposed
§
3.2000,
EPA
had
failed
to
make
the
case
that
every
single
requirement
under
these
provisions
is
necessary
to
ensure
the
legal
dependability
of
electronic
submissions.
If
this
is
correct,
then
the
criteria
as
proposed
may
foreclose
acceptable
electronic
reporting
approaches
that
could
offer
equivalent
or
better
assurance
of
legal
dependability
while,
perhaps,
being
easier
for
a
State,
Tribal,
or
local
agency
to
implement.
We
do
not
want
to
exclude
such
alternatives,
but
it
is
difficult
to
10
know
whether
or
how
specific
criteria
would
need
to
be
changed
to
avoid
this.
In
effect
we
confronted
a
dilemma.
On
the
one
hand,
we
continued
to
believe
that
the
basic
issues
related
to
authenticity
that
motivated
the
proposed
criteria
must
still
be
addressed,
if
we
are
to
assure
that
electronic
document
receiving
systems
collect
and
maintain
data
that
will
meet
program
and
enforcement
needs.
On
the
other,
given
our
inexperience
with
electronic
reporting,
EPA
simply
lacks
a
basis
for
certainty
that
any
particular
set
of
function­
based
requirements
at
the
level
of
specificity
reflected
in
our
proposed
criteria
is
(
or
is
not)
necessary
for
legally
dependable
electronic
submissions.
As
a
way
to
resolve
this
dilemma,
then,
we
decided
it
would
be
better
to
focus
on
criteria
that
directly
articulate
these
basic
issues
 
the
underlying
goals
of
assuring
electronic
document
authenticity
 
and
add
the
more
specific
requirements
only
where
we
are
certain
we
need
them.

Commenters
who
argued
that
the
proposed
rule
would
be
too
costly
and
burdensome
generally
focused
on
the
sometimes
misinterpreted
provisions
related
to
proposed
§
3.2000(
c)(
5)
and
§
3.2000(
e)(
1)(
i),
discussed
above,
or
on
the
proposed
§
3.2000(
d)
registration
and
signature
agreement
provisions.
There
were
many
comments
to
the
effect
that
the
§
3.2000(
d)
requirements
would
pose
substantial
barriers
to
regulated
company
participation
in
electronic
reporting
and
involve
unacceptable
expenses
for
implementing
agencies.
For
example,
some
comments
note
that
corporate
officials
are
reluctant
to
sign
any
agreement
without
having
it
first
reviewed
by
counsel,
and
so
the
signature
agreement
builds
delay
and
billable
hours
into
what
is
supposed
to
be
a
time­
and
cost­
saving
measure.
Similarly,
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
requirements
that
regulatory
agencies
create
and
support
the
registration
and
agreement
processes
 
with
both
paper
and
electronic
records
to
maintain
and
correlate
 
make
the
administrative
overhead
for
an
electronic
reporting
initiative
much
larger
than
State
or
local
governments
may
have
anticipated.

These
comments
posed
a
more
specific
version
of
the
dilemma
noted
in
connection
with
the
prescriptiveness
issue.
On
the
one
hand,
it
is
difficult
to
imagine
a
credible
electronic
reporting
system
that
does
not
have
some
way
to
control
access
for
the
purpose
of
accepting
submissions,
in
part
by
determining
the
identity
of
the
would­
be
submitters
 
and
whatever
this
involved
would
be
tantamount
to
a
form
of
submitter
registration.
In
addition,
having
a
would­
be
signatory
sign
a
signature
agreement
would
be
extremely
useful
if
needed
to
prove
that
the
individual
understood
the
implications
of
electronically
signing
a
document
and
knew
his
or
her
obligations
to
protect
the
signature
device
from
compromise.
On
the
other
hand,
it
is
difficult
to
be
certain
that
the
specific
proposed
§
3.2000(
d)
registration
process
and
signature
agreement
requirements
are
the
only
way
to
adequately
provide
for
submitter/
signatory
identification
and
for
establishing
that
an
electronic
signatory
understands
the
implications
and
obligations
associated
with
using
the
signature
device.
Again,
this
suggests
that
a
better
approach
may
be
to
focus
on
these
underlying
goals
and
their
connection
with
assuring
the
authenticity
and
legal
dependability
of
electronic
documents.

Finally,
there
is
the
"
one
size
fits
all"
issue.
Some
of
the
comments
raised
this
as
another
version
of
the
"
prescriptiveness"
issue,
already
discussed,
but
adding
that
the
proposal
developed
just
one
model
of
electronic
reporting
and
attempted
to
make
it
fit
the
differing
circumstances
of
the
various
State
and
local
agencies
that
would
have
to
comply.
Other
comments
emphasize
the
point
that
the
proposal
takes
requirements
apparently
tailored
to
assuring
an
electronic
document's
authenticity
and
applies
them
to
all
cases
of
electronic
reporting,
whether
or
not
the
question
of
authenticity
is
likely
to
arise.
Indeed,
the
proposed
§
3.2000
criteria,
taken
together,
were
designed
for
the
cases
where
EPA
might
need
to
rebut
a
signatory's
attempt
to
repudiate
his
or
her
electronic
signature
and/
or
other
elements
of
the
document
that
was
signed.
The
proposal
to
apply
these
criteria
to
all
cases
(
or
at
least
to
all
11
cases
involving
a
signature)
was
motivated
by
two
considerations.
The
first
was
that
it
proved
to
be
difficult
in
practice
to
draw
a
"
bright
line"
around
the
universe
of
cases
where
document
authenticity
might
be
of
concern;
whether
submitted
on
paper
or
electronically,
almost
any
report
that
requires
signature/
certification
has
at
least
the
theoretical
potential
to
play
a
role
as
evidence
in
a
criminal
prosecution
for
false
statements.
Second,
the
marginal
cost
of
meeting
the
proposed
§
3.2000
criteria
for
electronic
documents
where
authenticity
was
unlikely
to
be
an
issue
seemed,
at
the
time
of
proposal,
to
be
more
than
balanced
by
the
economies
of
scale
 
both
for
reporting
entities
and
for
the
regulatory
agencies
receiving
the
electronic
reports
 
afforded
by
a
single,
uniform
implementation
for
all
cases.
To
the
extent
that
these
assumed
economies
of
scale
are
doubtful,
we
face
yet
another
version
of
our
dilemma.
On
the
one
hand,
we
still
do
not
see
a
"
bright
line"
around
the
cases
where
document
authenticity
is
likely
to
be
challenged.
On
the
other,
we
can
not
be
certain
that
varying
one
or
another
of
the
system
characteristics
specified
by
our
proposed
criteria
 
for
example,
the
specifics
of
signature
method
 
would
necessarily
undermine
legal
dependability,
particularly
if
the
variation
were
limited
to
certain
special
cases
of
electronic
reporting
and/
or
if
there
were
compensating
measures
to
strengthen
other
features
of
the
system.
To
resolve
this
dilemma
 
and,
to
allow
variation
among
and
within
electronic
reporting
systems
to
the
extent
that
we
can
still
assure
electronic
document
authenticity
where
we
need
to
 
EPA
has
decided
to
revise
the
§
3.2000
criteria
with
focus
on
articulating
this
underlying
performance
goal.

In
revising
the
§
3.2000
criteria
for
the
final
rule,
in
response
to
public
comments,
we
sought
to
fulfill
the
underlying
goal
of
the
proposal.
This
is
to
assure
the
authenticity
and
non­
repudiation
of
electronic
documents
submitted
in
lieu
of
paper
reports,
so
that
they
are
as
legally
dependable
 
that
is,
as
admissible
in
evidence
and
accorded
the
same
evidentiary
weight
 
as
their
paper
counterparts.
As
noted
earlier,
within
proposed
§
3.2000
this
goal
was
expressed
most
directly
in
the
§
3.2000(
b)
"
Validity
of
Data"
criterion.
This
criterion
is
also
valuable
in
that
it
avoids
the
difficult
detail
of
the
other
more
function­
specific
criteria.
Accordingly,
for
the
final
rule,
we
started
with
the
proposed
§
3.2000(
b)
and
then
incorporated
at
an
appropriate
level
of
generality
other
elements
from
the
remainder
of
proposed
§
3.2000
needed
to
assure
the
requisite
authenticity
and
non­
repudiation
of
electronic
documents.
The
resulting
§
3.2000(
b)
in
the
final
electronic
reporting
rule
reflects
the
following
requirements:

­­
in
the
leading
clause
of
§
3.2000(
b),
that
the
system
be
able
to
generate
the
required
data
as
needed
and
in
a
timely
manner
 
from
proposed
§
3.2000(
g)
addressing
system
archives;

­­
in
the
leading
clause
of
§
3.2000(
b)
and
in
§
3.2000(
b)(
4),
that
the
system
must
be
able
to
generate
a
"
copy
of
record"
that
is
made
available
to
the
submitters
and/
or
signatories
for
review
and
repudiation
(
a
definition
for
this
term
has
been
added
to
§
3.3)
 
from
proposed
§
3.2000(
e)(
3)
and
§
3.2000(
f)
addressing
the
signature/
certification
scenario
and
transaction
record;

­­
in
§
3.2000(
b)(
5)(
i),
that
the
system
be
able
to
show
that
any
electronic
signature
on
an
electronic
document
was
created
by
an
authorized
signatory
with
a
device
that
the
identified
signatory
was
uniquely
entitled
and
able
to
use.
This
is
expressed
in
terms
of
a
newly
defined
concept
of
"
valid
electronic
signature,"
taken
together
with
a
revised
definition
of
"
electronic
signature
device"
that
addresses
its
uniqueness
to
an
individual
(
both
explained
in
Section
IV.
D.
of
this
Preamble)
 
from
proposed
§
3.2000(
c)
and
§
3.2000(
d)
addressing
the
electronic
signature
method
and
submitter
registration
process;

­­
in
§
3.2000(
b)(
5)(
ii),
that
the
system
be
able
to
show
that
the
electronic
document
cannot
be
altered
without
detection
once
it
has
been
electronically
signed
 
from
proposed
§
3.2000(
c)(
5);

­­
in
§
3.2000(
b)(
5)(
iii)
­
(
iv),
that
the
system
be
able
to
show
that,
before
signing,
any
signatory
had
the
opportunity
to
review
what
he
or
she
was
certifying
to
in
a
human­
readable
format,
and
12
to
review
the
certification
statement
including
any
provisions
relating
to
criminal
penalties
for
false
certification
 
from
proposed
§
3.2000(
e)
addressing
the
signature/
certification
scenario;

­­
in
§
3.2000(
b)(
5)(
v),
that
the
system
be
able
to
show
that
the
signatory
signed
an
"
electronic
signature
agreement"
or
a
"
subscriber
agreement"
acknowledging
his
or
her
obligations
connected
with
preventing
the
compromise
of
the
signature
device
(
a
definition
for
this
term
has
been
added
to
§
3.3)
 
from
proposed
§
3.2000(
d)
addressing
the
submitter
registration
process;

­­
in
§
3.2000(
b)(
5)(
vi),
that
the
system
be
able
to
show
that
it
automatically
sent
an
acknowledgment
of
any
electronic
submission
it
received
that
bears
an
electronic
signature.
The
acknowledgment
must
identify
the
electronic
document,
the
signatory
and
the
date
and
time
of
receipt,
and
be
sent
to
an
address
that
does
not
share
the
access
controls
of
the
account
used
to
make
the
submission
 
from
proposed
§
3.2000(
e)(
2);
and
in
§
3.2000(
b)(
5)(
vii),
for
each
electronic
signature
device
used
to
create
an
electronic
signature
on
documents
that
the
system
receives,
that
the
system
be
able
to
establish
the
identity
of
the
individual
uniquely
entitled
to
use
that
device
and
his
or
her
relation
to
the
entity
on
whose
behalf
he
or
she
signs
he
documents
 
from
proposed
§
3.2000(
d)(
1)
­
(
3).

EPA
believes
that
the
"
Validity
of
Data"
criterion
enhanced
with
these
other
elements
from
the
proposed
rule
represents
the
minimum
set
of
requirements
necessary
to
assure
that
the
documents
accepted
by
an
electronic
document
receiving
system
can
be
shown
to
be
authentic,
and
any
signatures
on
such
documents
can
overcome
attempts
by
signatories
to
repudiate
the
intent
to
certify
or
responsibility
for
the
document
content
or
for
the
signature
itself.
For
example,
the
requirement
for
a
copy
of
record
was
added
to
ensure
that
there
is
an
authoritative
answer
to
the
question
of
what
information
content
a
signatory
was
certifying
to
or
attesting
to.
The
related
requirement
that
the
system
be
able
to
provide
timely
access
to
copies
of
record
and
related
data
simply
reflects
a
practical
concern
that
the
data
be
accessible
in
time
and
in
a
format
to
serve
the
purposes
for
which
it
is
needed.

Concerning
the
requirement
that
signature
devices
be
uniquely
assigned
to,
and
held
by,
individuals,
an
acceptable
electronic
document
receiving
system
must
be
able
to
attribute
a
signature
to
a
specific
individual,
at
least
on
the
evidence
of
its
presence
on
a
document,
to
help
assure
that
the
signatory
cannot
repudiate
responsibility
for
the
signature.
Non­
repudiation
is
also
strengthened
by
the
signed
electronic
signature
agreement,
which
establishes
that
the
signatory
was
informed
of
his
or
her
obligation
to
keep
the
signature
device
from
compromise,
by
ensuring
that
it
is
not
made
available
to
anyone
else.
Requiring
the
signature
agreement
 
and
that
signatories
have
the
opportunity
to
review
what
they
are
signing
 
also
helps
establish
that
where
signatures
appear
on
electronic
documents,
the
signatories
had
the
requisite
intent
to
certify.
That
is,
these
requirements
help
ensure
that
the
signatories
knew
what
they
were
signing,
knew
what
signing
meant,
and
understood
the
legal
implications
of
false
certification.

As
for
the
requirement
that
document
content
cannot
be
altered
without
detection
after
signature
 
so
that
the
signature
is
somehow
"
bound"
to
the
document
 
an
acceptable
electronic
document
receiving
system
must,
on
the
evidence
of
the
signature's
presence
on
a
document,
allow
a
court
to
attribute
the
intention
to
certify
to
the
document's
current
content
to
the
signatory,
so
that
he
or
she
cannot
repudiate
this
content.

Finally,
the
§
3.2000(
b)(
5)(
vii)
requirement
that
the
system
be
able
to
establish
the
identity
of
the
individual
who
is
assigned
a
signature
is
based
on
proposed
§
3.2000(
d).
Proposed
§
3.2000(
d)
logically
entails
§
3.2000(
b)(
5)(
vii)
because
satisfying
the
provisions
of
the
former
guarantees
compliance
with
the
latter.
However,
final
§
3.2000(
b)(
5)(
vii)
limits
the
scope
of
some
of
the
proposed
version's
provisions,
most
notably
the
proposed
requirement
in
§
3.2000(
d)(
3)
that
in
registering
for
their
signature
devices
registrants
must
execute
their
electronic
signature
agreements
on
paper
with
handwritten
signatures.
In
the
final
rule,
this
requirement
is
limited
to
13
a
special
class
of
"
priority
report"
submittals.
In
addition,
final
§
3.2000(
b)(
5)(
vii)
offers
alternatives
to
this
handwritten
signature
requirement
to
allow
electronic
reporting
solutions
that
are
completely
free
of
paper
transactions.
The
alternative
provisions
 
in
§
3.2000(
b)(
5)(
vii)((
a))
­
((
b))
 
are
elaborations
of
the
proposed
§
3.2000(
d)(
1)
requirement
for
"...
evidence
(
of
identity)
that
can
be
verified
by
information
sources
that
are
independent
of
the
registrant
and
the
entity
or
entities
(
for
which
the
registrant
will
submit
electronic
documents)...."
The
elaborations
are
necessary
to
assure
that
we
can
establish
individuals'
identities
without
being
able
to
rely
on
their
handwritten
signatures
 
and,
in
the
final
version,
the
elaborated
requirements
apply
only
to
"
priority
report"
submittals,
and
only
where
the
choice
is
made
to
eschew
paper
in
the
execution
of
electronic
signature
agreements.
In
any
event,
we
have
made
these
changes
to
the
proposed
§
3.2000(
d)
approach
to
help
address
commenters'
concerns
with
"
one
size
fits
all"
provisions,
as
well
as
to
allow
States,
Tribes,
and
local
government
as
much
flexibility
as
possible
as
they
implement
their
electronic
reporting
systems.

3.3
3(
c)
Consultations
CROMERRR
reflects
more
than
ten
(
10)
years
of
interaction
with
stakeholders
B
including
state
and
local
governments,
industry
groups,
the
legal
community,
environmental
non­
government
organizations,
national
standard
setting
committees,
and
other
federal
agencies.
As
detailed
in
the
NPRM,
many
of
EPA's
most
significant
interactions
involved
electronic
reporting
pilot
projects
conducted
with
State
agency
partners,
including
the
States
of
Pennsylvania,
New
York,
Arizona,
and
several
others.
In
addition,
beginning
in
June
1999,
EPA
sponsored
a
series
of
conferences
and
meetings
with
the
explicit
purpose
of
seeking
stakeholder
advice
before
drafting
the
NPRM.

During
the
extended
comment
period,
EPA
also
sponsored
four
(
4)
public
hearings
held
around
the
country,
and
two
(
2)
state
meetings
held
in
Washington,
D.
C.
The
comments
and
meeting
summaries
can
be
found
in
the
docket
to
this
rulemaking.
The
final
rule
reflects
many
of
the
comments
and
concerns
raised
by
comments
on
the
NPRM.
The
majority
of
comments
focused
on
the
costs
and
burden
of
the
proposed
Subpart
D,
Electronic
Recordkeeping
Provisions.
A
complete
discussion
of
EPA's
response
to
public
comments
to
the
NPRM
can
be
found
in
the
rule's
Response
to
Comments
document.

Lastly,
EPA
conducted
consultations
in
developing
this
ICR
and
the
Cost
Benefit
Analysis
(
CBA)
supporting
the
final
rule.
Information
on
the
respondents
contacted
is
provided
in
the
table
below.

Name
of
Organization
or
State
Contact
Person
Arizona
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
Russ
Brodie
Florida
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
John
Coates
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Mike
Garretson
Nebraska
Oil
and
Gas
Conservation
Commission
Stan
Belieu
New
Jersey
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
Pete
Tenebruso
New
Mexico
Environment
Department
Renee
Martinez
Texas
Commission
on
Environmental
Quality
Greg
Nudd
14
Name
of
Organization
or
State
Contact
Person
Virginia
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
Allison
Kittle
Wisconsin
Department
of
Environmental
Quality
Tom
Aten
These
respondents
provided
information
on
State/
Locals'
progress
in
developing
electronic
receiving
systems.
In
particular,
they
indicated
that
State/
Locals
are
implementing
electronic
receiving
systems
independently
of
EPA's
final
rule.
In
addition,
they
estimated
the
burden
to
State/
Locals
in
upgrading
their
receiving
systems
and
applying
for
EPA
approval
of
their
program
modifications.
Their
feedback
was
used
to
develop
this
ICR's
estimates
for
State/
Local
upgrade
costs
(
shown
in
Table
2
of
this
document)
and
program
modification
burden.

3.4
3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Collection
Facilities
must
initially
register
with
the
EPA
electronic
document
receiving
system
to
establish
a
user
account.
Registration
information
is
collected
at
the
time
of
registration
(
i.
e.,
a
one­
time
event)
and
updated
if
needed.
Because
it
is
a
one­
time
activity,
the
information
cannot
be
collected
less
frequently.
If
this
information
were
not
collected,
EPA
would
not
have
a
way
to
learn
the
identity
of
the
registrant
and
establish
its
account.

Facilities
must
comply
with
the
identity
proofing
provisions
of
the
CDX
and
CFR
Section
3.2000(
b)(
5),
as
applicable.
These
provisions
provide
that,
in
the
case
of
priority
reports
for
which
an
electronic
signature
device
was
used
to
create
an
electronic
signature,
a
determination
of
identity
must
be
made
before
the
electronic
document
is
received.
EPA
believes
it
is
critical
that
registrants
submit
the
identity
proofing
paperwork
in
advance
of
their
priority
reports
so
that
the
Agency
can
establish
a
link
between
each
registrant,
and
its
electronic
signature
device,
to
hold
them
accountable
for
their
submittals.

Facilities
must
also
report
any
compromise
or
surrender
of
its
electronic
signature
device
to
EPA
or
State/
Local.
Local
Registration
Authority's
(
LRAs)
must
report
any
breach
of
storage
of
its
subscriber
agreements.
These
are
as­
needed
submittals.
If
these
reports
were
not
collected,
EPA
and
State/
Locals
would
not
have
a
way
to
learn
about
the
signature
compromise/
surrender
or
storage
breaches.
Hence,
they
would
not
be
in
a
position
to
take
follow
up
action
as
needed
(
e.
g.,
to
temporarily
prevent
access
to
an
account
whose
signature
device
has
been
compromised).
This
could
result
in
the
unauthorized
use
an
electronic
signature
device.

In
addition,
the
rule
sets
forth
timeframes
for
EPA
receipt,
review,
and
approval
of
State/
Local
program
modification
applications
to
implement
electronic
receiving
systems.
CFR
Section
3.10000(
a)(
2)
provides
that
a
State/
Local
that
does
not
have
an
electronic
document
receiving
system
on
or
before
the
date
of
publication
of
the
rule
must
apply
to
EPA
for
program
modification
approval
before
receiving
electronic
documents.
If
this
frequency
were
not
specified,
EPA
would
not
have
assurance
that
State/
Locals
are
developing
and
using
electronic
document
receiving
systems
that
comply
with
the
rule's
provisions
at
CFR
Section
3.2000.

CFR
Section
3.1000(
a)(
3)
provides
that
a
State/
Local
with
an
existing
receiving
system
must
apply
for
EPA
approval
within
two
years
of
the
date
of
publication
of
the
rule.
EPA
believes
the
two
(
2)
year
timeframe
will
be
sufficient
to
allow
State/
Locals
to
upgrade
their
systems
and
submit
their
applications.
EPA
believes
that
a
shorter
timeframe
would
make
it
difficult
for
State/
Locals
to
comply.
EPA
believes
that
a
longer
timeframe
would
not
enable
it
to
review
State/
Local
program
modifications
in
a
timely
manner.
EPA
would
not
have
assurances
that
the
State/
Local
programs
have
sufficient
regulatory
or
statutory
authority
to
implement
and
enforce
the
programs
using
the
electronic
documents
received.
15
3.5
3(
e)
General
Guidelines
This
ICR
adheres
to
the
guidelines
stated
in
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
of
1995,
OMB's
implementing
regulations,
EPA's
ICR
Handbook,
and
other
applicable
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
guidance.

EPA
notes
that
subscriber
agreements
must
be
kept
on
file
until
five
(
5)
years
after
deactivation
of
the
associated
electronic
signature
device.
EPA
believes
a
five
(
5)
year
retention
period
is
necessary
to
ensure
that
such
records
are
available
in
case
of
an
EPA
or
State/
Local
enforcement
action.
EPA
recognizes
that
a
registrant
may
use
an
electronic
signature
device
in
signing
a
range
of
enforcement­
sensitive
reports.
Certain
reports
may
have
relevance
to
an
enforcement
action
long
after
it
is
submitted
to
EPA
or
State/
Local.
Because
of
this,
EPA
needed
to
establish
a
sufficiently
long
retention
period
for
the
subscriber
agreements
so
that
they
would
available
for
such
enforcement
actions.

3.6
3(
f)
Confidentiality
EPA
plans
to
give
priority
to
receipt
of
the
relatively
high­
volume
environmental
compliance
reports
that
do
not
involve
the
submission
of
confidential
business
information
(
CBI)
in
developing
the
CDX,
and
in
approving
changes
to
authorized
state
and
tribal
programs
related
to
electronic
reporting.
EPA
believes
that
receipt
of
electronically
transmitted
CBI
requires
considerably
stronger
security
measures
than
the
initial
version
of
CDX
may
be
able
to
support,
including
provisions
for
encryption.
While
EPA
plans
to
enhance
CDX
to
accommodate
CBI,
EPA
would
want
to
first
gain
experience
implementing
CDX
in
the
non­
CBI
arena,
and
also
take
the
time
to
explore
CBI
security
issues
with
companies
that
submit
confidential
data.

At
the
time
EPA
enhances
CDX
to
accommodate
CBI,
EPA
must
treat
the
information
in
accordance
with
the
confidentiality
regulations
set
forth
in
40
CFR
Part
2,
Subpart
B.
EPA
also
will
ensure
that
the
information
collection
procedures
comply
with
the
Privacy
Act
of
1974
and
the
OMB
Circular
108.

3.7
3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
Persons
registering
with
the
CDX
are
asked
to
provide
knowledge­
based
information
(
e.
g.,
date
of
birth)
to
ensure
the
security
of
their
password,
user
name,
and
other
information
supplied.
If
the
person
loses
his
password
or
user
name,
or
otherwise
needs
to
confirm
his
identity
to
EPA,
EPA
could
use
his
knowledge­
based
information
to
confirm
his
identity.
16
4.0
The
Respondents
and
the
Information
Requested
4.1
4(
a)
Respondents
and
NAICS
Codes
This
information
collection
activity
will
likely
have
broad
applicability
across
industries.
Refer
to
Appendix
I
for
a
list
of
the
North
American
Industrial
Classification
System
(
NAICS)
codes
associated
with
industries
most
likely
affected
by
the
rule.

4.2
4(
b)
Information
Requested
4.3
Facility
Electronic
Reporting
to
EPA,
State,
and
Local
Receiving
Systems
4.3.1
Facility
Electronic
Reporting
to
EPA
Receiving
System
Facilities
must
register
their
employees
with
the
CDX
before
reporting
electronically
to
EPA.
The
employees
must
update
their
registration
information
if
it
changes.

(
i)
Data
Items:


An
on­
line
registration
application:

­
Registrant
name
­
Organization
name
­
Address
­
Knowledge­
based
information
(
e.
g.,
date
of
birth)

(
ii)
Respondent
Activities:


Log
on
to
receiving
system
site
and
enter
requested
information

Update
the
information,
as
needed
4.3.2
Facility
Compliance
with
Identity
Proofing
Requirements
Direct
and
indirect
reporters
must
comply
with
the
identity
proofing
provisions
of
the
CDX
and
rule,
as
applicable.
The
CDX
and
CFR
Section
3.2000(
a)(
2)
require
that
any
electronic
document
must
bear
the
valid
electronic
signature
of
a
signatory
if
that
signatory
would
be
required
under
the
authorized
program
to
sign
the
paper
document
for
which
the
electronic
document
substitutes,
except
as
otherwise
specified.

In
the
case
of
an
electronic
document
that
must
bear
electronic
signatures
of
individuals
as
provided
by
the
CDX
and
CFR
Section
3.2000(
a)(
2),
each
signatory
must
sign
either
an
electronic
signature
agreement,
or
a
subscriber
agreement
with
respect
to
the
electronic
signature
device
used
to
create
their
electronic
signature
on
the
electronic
document.

The
CDX
and
CFR
Section
3.2000(
b)(
5)(
vii)
require
that
the
identity
of
the
individual
uniquely
entitled
to
use
the
device
and
their
relation
to
any
entity
for
which
he
or
she
will
sign
electronic
documents
must
be
determined
with
legal
certainty
by
EPA
or
State/
Local,
as
applicable.
In
the
case
of
priority
reports,
this
determination
must
be
made
before
the
electronic
document
is
received,
by
means
of:


Identifiers
or
attributes
that
are
verified
by
attestation
of
disinterested
individuals
to
be
uniquely
true
of
the
individual
in
whose
name
the
application
is
submitted,
based
on
information
or
objects
of
independent
origin,
at
least
one
(
1)
item
of
which
is
not
subject
to
change
without
governmental
action
or
authorization.


A
method
of
determining
identity
no
less
stringent
than
the
one
above.
17

Collection
of
either
a
subscriber
agreement
or
a
certification
from
a
LRA
that
such
an
agreement
has
been
received
and
securely
stored.

The
term
"
subscriber
agreement"
means
an
electronic
signature
agreement
signed
by
an
individual
with
ink
on
paper.
The
agreement
must
be
signed
by
an
individual
with
respect
to
an
electronic
signature
device
that
the
individual
will
use
to
create
their
electronic
signatures
requiring
such
individual
to
protect
the
electronic
signature
device
from
compromise;
to
promptly
report
to
the
agency
or
agencies
relying
on
the
electronic
signatures
created
any
evidence
discovered
that
the
device
has
been
compromised;
and
to
be
held
as
legally
bound,
obligated,
or
responsible
by
the
electronic
signatures
created
as
by
a
handwritten
signature.
This
agreement
must
be
stored
until
five
(
5)
years
after
the
associated
electronic
signature
device
has
been
deactivated.

The
term
"
Local
Registration
Authority"
means
an
individual
who
is
authorized
by
a
state
to
issue
an
agreement
collection
certification,
whose
identity
has
been
established
by
notarized
affidavit,
and
who
is
authorized
in
writing
by
a
regulated
entity
to
issue
agreement
collection
certifications
on
its
behalf.
To
become
a
LRA,
an
individual
must
have
their
identity
established
by
notarized
affidavit,
and
must
be
authorized
in
writing
by
the
regulated
entity
to
issue
agreement
collection
certifications
on
its
behalf.
Once
approved
by
EPA
or
State/
Local,
the
LRA
would
collect
subscriber
agreements
from
each
individual
in
the
regulated
entity
that
intends
to
use
an
electronic
signature
device
in
reporting
electronically
to
EPA
or
State/
Local
system.
The
LRA
would
collect
and
store
the
subscriber
agreements
in
a
manner
that
prevents
authorized
or
unauthorized
access
to
these
agreements
by
anyone
other
than
the
LRA.
The
LRA
would
prepare
an
agreement
collection
certification
and
submit
a
certification
of
receipt
and
secure
storage
to
the
EPA
or
State/
Local.

(
i)
Data
Items:


Identifiers
or
attributes
that
are
verified
by
attestation
of
disinterested
individuals
to
be
uniquely
true,
as
specified.


Other
information
necessary
to
determine
identity.


Subscriber
agreement.


Application
to
designate
a
LRA,
including
notarized
affidavit
and
a
written
authorization
from
the
regulated
entity
to
issue
collection
agreement
certifications
on
its
behalf.


Agreement
collection
certification.
This
is
a
signed
statement
by
which
a
LRA
certifies
that
a
subscriber
agreement
has
been
received
from
a
registrant;
the
agreement
has
been
stored
in
a
manner
that
prevents
authorized
or
unauthorized
access
to
these
agreements
by
anyone
other
than
the
local
registration
authority;
and
the
local
registration
authority
has
no
basis
to
believe
that
any
of
the
collected
agreements
have
been
tampered
with
or
prematurely
destroyed.


Certification
of
receipt
and
secure
storage.


Report
of
breach
of
security.


Report
of
compromised
or
surrendered
electronic
signature.

(
ii)
Respondent
Activities:


Regulated
entities
must
comply
with
the
CDX
and
rule's
requirements
for
determining
the
identity
of
individuals
who
will
use
an
electronic
signature
device:

­
Submit
information
on
identifiers
or
attributes
or
other
identity­
proofing
information.


Comply
with
subscriber
agreement
provisions:
18
­
Prepare,
file,
and
submit
a
subscriber
agreement.

­
Prepare,
file,
and
submit
new
subscriber
agreement,
for
employee
turnover.

­
Contact
the
help
desk
for
technical
support.

­
Report
compromised
or
surrendered
electronic
signature
device
and
prepare/
submit
new
subscriber
agreement
if
necessary.


Comply
with
the
requirements
for
a
local
registration
authority:

­
Develop
a
process
or
plan
to
implement
the
requirement,
designate
the
LRA,
and
submit
application
to
agency.

­
Register
the
local
authority
with
the
receiving
system.

­
Prepare
subscriber
agreements
and
send
to
local
authority.

­
Prepare
agreement
collection
certification
after
securely
storing
subscriber
agreements,
and
submit
certification
of
receipt
and
secure
storage.

­
Prepare
new
subscriber
agreements
and
submit
to
local
authority,
for
employee
turnover.

­
Submit
updated
certification
of
receipt
and
secure
storage.

­
Redesignate
local
authority,
due
to
turnover.

­
Register
new
local
authority.

­
Report
breach
of
security
or
compromise/
surrender
of
electronic
signature
device.

­
Prepare
new
subscriber
agreements
and
send
to
LRA.

­
Prepare
and
submit
certification
of
receipt
and
secure
storage.


Conduct
ongoing
management.

4.4
Approval
of
State
and
Local
Electronic
Document
Receiving
Systems
To
obtain
EPA
approval
of
program
revision
or
modification
using
procedures
provided
under
CFR
Section
3.1000,
a
State
/
Local
must
submit
an
application
for
program
revision
to
EPA
that
includes
the
elements
specified
in
CFR
Section
3.1000(
b)(
1)(
i)­(
iv).

A
State/
Local
government
that
revises
or
modifies
more
than
one
(
1)
authorized
program
for
receipt
of
electronic
documents,
in
lieu
of
paper
documents,
may
submit
a
consolidated
application
covering
more
than
one
authorized
program,
provided
the
consolidated
application
complies
with
applicable
requirements
for
each
authorized
program.

A
State/
Local
government
that
accepts
electronic
documents
in
lieu
of
paper
documents
under
an
authorized
program
for
which
EPA
has
approved
program
revisions
or
modifications
under
the
procedures
provided
in
CFR
Section
3.2000(
a)(
1)
must
keep
EPA
apprised
of
those
changes
to
laws,
policies,
or
the
electronic
document
receiving
systems
that
have
the
potential
to
affect
program
conformance
with
CFR
Section
3.2000.

The
State/
Local
program
must
satisfy
the
requirements
at
40
CFR
3.2000.
Pursuant
to
CFR
Section
3.2000,
authorized
programs
that
receive
electronic
documents,
in
lieu
of
paper
documents,
to
satisfy
requirements
under
such
programs
must
use
an
acceptable
electronic
document
receiving
system
as
specified
and
require
that
any
electronic
document
must
bear
valid
electronic
signatures
to
the
same
extent
that
the
paper
submission
for
which
it
substitutes
would
bear
handwritten
signatures
under
the
authorized
program,
unless
otherwise
specified.
An
electronic
document
receiving
system
that
receives
electronic
documents,
submitted
in
lieu
of
paper
documents,
to
satisfy
requirements
under
an
authorized
program
must
be
able
to
generate
data
with
respect
to
any
such
electronic
document,
as
needed
and
in
a
timely
manner,
19
including
a
copy
of
record
for
the
electronic
document,
that
meets
the
criteria
specified
at
CFR
Section
3.2000(
b)(
1)
through
(
5).

(
i)
Data
Items:


An
application
for
program
revision
that
includes
the
following
elements:

­
A
certification
that
the
state,
tribe,
or
local
government
has
sufficient
legal
authority
provided
by
lawfully
enacted
or
promulgated
statutes
or
regulations
that
are
in
full
force
and
effect
on
the
date
of
certification
to
implement
the
electronic
reporting
component
of
its
authorized
programs
covered
by
the
application
in
conformance
with
CFR
Section
3.2000
and
to
enforce
the
affected
programs
using
electronic
documents
collected
under
these
programs
B
together
with
copies
of
the
relevant
statutes
and
regulations
B
signed
by
the
State
Attorney
General
or
their
designee,
or
in
the
case
of
an
authorized
tribal
or
local
government
program,
by
the
chief
administrative
official
or
officer
of
the
governmental
entity
or
their
designee.

­
A
listing
of
all
state
or
local
government
electronic
document
receiving
systems
to
accept
the
electronic
documents
being
addressed
by
the
program
modification
or
revisions
that
are
covered
by
the
application,
together
with
a
description
for
each
such
system
that
specifies
how
the
system
meets
the
applicable
criteria
in
CFR
Section
3.2000(
b)
with
respect
to
those
electronic
documents.

­
A
schedule
of
upgrades
for
electronic
document
receiving
systems
that
have
the
potential
to
affect
the
program's
continued
conformance
with
CFR
Section
3.2000,
if
appropriate.

­
Other
such
information
as
the
Administrator
may
request
to
fully
evaluate
the
application.

­
Appraisals
to
EPA
of
changes
to
laws,
policies,
or
electronic
document
receiving
systems.

(
ii)
Respondent
Activities:


State/
Local
jurisdictions
with
receiving
systems
must
upgrade
them
as
needed
to
meet
CFR
Section
3.2000
and
apply
for
EPA
program
modification
approval
under
CFR
Section
3.1000.

­
State/
Local
jurisdictions
must
keep
EPA
apprised
of
changes
to
laws,
policies,
or
electronic
document
receiving
systems.
20
5.0
The
Information
Collected
­
Agency
Activities,
Collection
Methodology,
and
Information
Management
5.1
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
EPA
Activities

Develop
and
operate
the
CDX.


Process
and
file
applications
submitted
by
State/
Locals
seeking
to
modify
their
programs,
as
required
by
CFR
Section
3.1000.

EPA
and
State/
Local
Jurisdictions

Collect
identifiers
or
attributes
or
other
requested
information.


Collect
subscriber
agreements:

­
Receive,
process,
review,
approve,
and
file
new
subscriber
agreements.

­
Receive,
process,
review,
approve,
and
file
new
subscriber
agreements,
for
employee
turnover.

­
Receive,
process,
review,
and
approve
report
of
compromise
or
surrender
of
electronic
signature
device.


Collect
submittals
from
LRAs:

­
Receive
application
to
designate
first­
time
LRA.

­
Receive,
process,
review,
and
approve
certification
of
receipt
and
secure
storage.

­
Receive
application
to
designate
LRA,
for
LRA
turnover.

­
Receive,
process,
review
and
approve
updated
certification
of
receipt
and
secure
storage,
for
employee
turnover.

­
Receive
notification
of
breach
of
security
or
compromise/
surrender
of
electronic
signature
and
take
action.

­
Receive,
process,
review,
and
approve
certification
of
receipt
and
secure
storage,
for
breach
of
security
or
compromise/
surrender
of
electronic
signature
device.


Conduct
ongoing
management
­
Identify
and
resolve
problems.

­
Respond
to
information
requests.

5.2
5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
The
CDX
serves
as
EPA's
primary
gateway
for
electronic
documents
received
by
EPA.
CDX
functions
include:


Access
management
allowing
or
denying
an
entity
access
to
CDX.


Data
interchange
accepting
and
returning
data
via
various
of
file
transfer
mechanisms.


Signature/
certification
management
providing
devices
and
required
scenarios
for
individuals
to
sign
and
certify
what
they
submit.


Submitter
and
data
authentication
assuring
that
electronic
signatures
are
valid
and
data
is
uncorrupted.


Transaction
logging
providing
date,
time,
and
source
information
for
data
received
to
establish
"
chain
of
custody".
21

Acknowledgment
and
provision
of
copy
of
record
providing
the
submitter
with
confirmations
of
the
data
received.


Archiving
placing
files
received
and
transmission
logs
into
secure,
long­
term
storage.


Error­
checking
flagging
obvious
errors
in
documents
and
document
transactions,
including
duplicate
documents
and
unauthorized
submissions.


Translation
and
forwarding
converting
submitted
documents
into
formats
that
will
load
to
EPA
databases,
and
forwarding
them
to
the
appropriate
systems.


Outreach
providing
education
and
other
customer
services
(
such
as
user
manuals,
Help
Desk)
to
CDX
users.

5.3
5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
The
rule
allows
electronic
reporting
by
permitting
the
use
of
electronic
document
receiving
systems
to
receive
electronic
documents
in
satisfaction
of
certain
document
submission
requirements
in
EPA's
regulations.
Electronic
reporting
under
the
rule
is
voluntary.
These
changes
will
reduce
the
burden
on
all
affected
entities,
including
small
businesses.
In
addition,
facilities
will
find
that
the
initial
set
up
process
requires
little
expenditure
of
time
and
resources,
and
in
the
long
run,
this
process
will
reduce
the
time
spent
on
submissions
each
year.

5.4
5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
The
collection
frequencies
associated
with
the
CDX
system
and
ACES
program
include
the
following:


Facilities
must
initially
register
with
the
electronic
document
receiving
system
and
obtain
electronic
signature
certification,
if
applicable.


Facilities
must
comply
with
requirements
for
determining
the
identity
of
individuals
who
use
electronic
signature
devices
(
e.
g.,
prepare/
submit
subscriber
agreements
or
certification
of
receipt
and
secure
storage),
before
submitting
electronic
reports
using
the
associated
device.


Registrants
must
submit
a
notice
of
compromise
or
surrender
of
electronic
signature
device
promptly,
should
this
occur.


LRAs
must
submit
a
notice
of
breach
of
secure
storage
promptly,
should
this
occur.

A
State/
Local
government
that
does
not
have
an
existing
electronic
document
receiving
system
for
receiving
electronic
documents
in
lieu
of
paper
documents
to
satisfy
requirements
of
an
authorized
program
on
or
before
publication
of
the
final
rule
must,
using
specified
procedures,
apply
for,
and
receive
EPA
approval
of
revisions
or
modifications
to
such
program
before
the
program
may
receive
electronic
documents
in
lieu
of
paper
documents
to
satisfy
requirements
of
such
program.

A
State/
Local
government
that
has
an
existing
electronic
document
receiving
system
and
that
seeks
to
receive
electronic
documents,
in
lieu
of
paper
documents,
to
satisfy
requirements
of
an
authorized
program
must
submit
an
application
to
revise
or
modify
such
authorized
program
no
later
than
two
years
after
publication
of
the
final
rule.
On
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
this
deadline
may
be
extended
by
the
Administrator,
upon
request,
where
the
Administrator
determines
that
the
State/
Local
government
needs
additional
time
to
make
legislative
or
regulatory
changes
in
order
to
meet
the
requirements
of
this
part.

Within
75
calendar
days
of
receiving
an
application
for
program
revision
or
modification,
the
Administrator
will
respond
with
a
letter
that
either
notifies
the
State/
Local
government
that
the
application
is
complete
or
identifies
deficiencies
in
the
application
that
render
the
application
22
incomplete.
The
State/
Local
government
receiving
a
notice
of
deficiencies
may
amend
the
application
and
resubmit
it.
Within
30
calendar
days
of
receiving
the
amended
application,
the
Administrator
will
respond
with
a
letter
that
either
notifies
the
applicant
that
the
amended
application
is
complete
or
identifies
remaining
deficiencies
that
render
the
application
incomplete.

Except
where
an
opportunity
for
public
hearing
is
required,
if
the
Administrator
does
not
take
any
action
on
a
specific
request
for
revision
or
modification
of
a
specific
authorized
program
addressed
by
an
application
submitted
within
180
calendar
days
of
notifying
the
State/
Local
government
that
the
application
is
complete,
the
specific
request
for
program
revision
or
modification
for
the
specific
authorized
program
is
considered
automatically
approved
by
EPA
at
the
end
of
the
180
calendar
days
unless
the
review
period
is
extended
at
the
request
of
the
State/
Local
government
submitting
the
application.

If
a
State/
Local
government
submits
material
to
amend
its
application
after
the
date
that
the
Administrator
sends
notification
that
the
application
is
complete,
this
new
submission
will
constitute
withdrawal
of
the
pending
application
and
submission
of
a
new,
amended
application
for
program
revision
or
modification,
and
the
180­
day
time
period
will
begin
again
only
when
the
Administrator
makes
a
new
determination
and
notifies
the
State/
Local
government
under
that
the
amended
application
is
complete.
23
6.0
Estimating
the
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
of
the
Collection
6.1
6(
a)
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
EPA
estimates
respondent
hour
and
cost
burden
associated
with
all
of
the
requirements
covered
in
this
ICR
in
Exhibits
1
and
2.
EPA
obtained
its
hour,
cost,
and
universe
estimates
for
activities
in
this
ICR
from
the
Agency's
technical
background
document,
Cross
Media
Electronic
Reporting
Rule
Cost
Benefit
Analysis.

6.2
6(
b)
Estimating
Respondent
Costs
Labor
Costs
The
estimated
average
hourly
labor
cost
(
including
overhead
and
fringe),
by
labor
category,
for
facilities
and
States
is
shown
in
Table
1.
These
labor
rates
were
used
to
calculate
the
labor
cost
to
all
respondents
in
conducting
the
reporting
activities
covered
in
this
ICR,
as
shown
in
Exhibits
1
and
2.

Table
1.
Average
Hourly
Respondent
Labor
Cost,
by
Labor
Category
Respondent
Legal
Managerial
Technical
Clerical
Facilities
$
69.34
$
51.47
$
34.69
$
23.25
States/
Locals
$
43.28
$
40.58
$
27.53
$
21.07
a
Labor
rates
included
in
this
table
were
obtained
from
the
technical
background
document
developed
for
the
rule,
Cross
Media
Electronic
Reporting
Rule
Cost
Benefit
Analysis.

Capital
and
Operation
and
Maintenance
(
O&
M)
Costs
This
ICR
estimates
capital
and
O&
M
costs
based
on
information
in
the
CROMERRR
CBA.
The
CBA
estimates
capital
and
O&
M
costs
for
State/
Locals
to
upgrade
their
electronic
receiving
systems
to
satisfy
CROMERRR's
standards
at
40
CFR
3.2000.
As
explained
in
the
CBA,
EPA
estimates
that
a
percentage
of
State/
Locals
would
need
to
upgrade
their
systems
for
copy
of
record,
Secure
Sockets
Layer
(
SSL),
email
notification,
electronic
signatures,
and/
or
electronic
signature
agreement
provisions.
The
capital/
start­
up
and
maintenance
costs
associated
with
these
upgrades,
as
well
as
the
percentage
of
State/
Locals
with
systems
performing
the
upgrades
are
shown
in
Table
2.3
3
Capital
costs
in
Exhibit
2
have
been
annualized
at
the
OMB­
approved
discount
rate
of
seven
percent
over
ten
years.
24
Table
2:
Summary
of
State/
Local
System
Upgrade
Costs 
Per
Receiving
System
Copy
of
Record
SSL
Email
Notification
E­
Signature
E­
Signature
Agreement
Upgrade
Cost
Per
System
Upgrade
Cost
Per
System
Upgrade
Startup
Cost
Annual
Maintenance
%
of
States
Needing
Upgrade
Startup
Cost
Annual
Maintenance
%
of
States
Needing
Upgrade
Cost
Per
System
Upgrade
%
of
States
Needing
Upgrade
Cost
Per
System
Upgrade
%
of
States
Needing
Upgrade
Cost
Per
System
Upgrade
%
of
States
Needing
Upgrade
State
Environmental
Agencies
$
208,333
$
28,333
58%
$
25,000
$
600
27%
$
56,000
7%
$
15,270
10%
$
31,232
100%

All
Other
State
and
Local
Agencies
$
50,000
$
10,000
58%
$
25,000
$
600
27%
$
56,000
7%
$
15,270
10%
$
31,232
100%
25
In
addition,
this
ICR
estimates
a
postage
cost
of
$
2.50
for
certified
mail
delivery
(
e.
g.,
for
registrants
that
submit
subscriber
agreements
to
EPA
or
State/
Local),
and
$
0.37
per
submittal
for
employee
registrants
that
submit
subscriber
agreements
to
their
LRA.
The
ICR
estimates
$
2.50
for
obtaining
a
notarized
affidavit.
The
ICR
also
estimates
$
5.00
in
postage
for
a
State/
Local
to
submit
its
program
modification
application.

6.3
6(
c)
Estimating
Agency
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
The
estimated
average
hourly
labor
cost
(
including
overhead
and
fringe),
by
labor
category,
for
EPA
is
shown
in
Table
3.
These
labor
rates
were
used
to
calculate
agency
costs
associated
with
the
activities
covered
in
this
ICR,
as
shown
in
Exhibit
3.

Table
3.
Average
Hourly
Agency
Labor
Cost,
by
Labor
Categorya
Legal
Managerial
Technical
Clerical
EPA
$
65.69
$
55.34
$
40.40
$
18.65
a
Labor
rates
included
in
this
table
were
obtained
from
the
technical
background
document
developed
for
the
rule,
Cross
Media
Electronic
Reporting
Rule
Cost
Benefit
Analysis.

6.4
6(
d)
Estimating
the
Respondent
Universe
and
Total
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Respondent
Universe
The
number
of
direct
and
indirect
reporting
facilities
expected
to
register
to
conduct
electronic
reporting
during
the
three
(
3)
year
period
covered
by
this
ICR
is
shown
in
Table
4.
It
shows
that
EPA
expects
59,003
small
facilities
on
average
to
register
for
electronic
reporting
to
EPA
or
State/
Local
receiving
systems
each
year.
Each
facility
is
expected
to
have
three
employees,
on
average,
who
will
register
with
the
receiving
system,
for
an
average
total
of
177,009
employee
registrants
each
year.

It
also
shows
that
EPA
expects
7,293
facilities
owned
by
medium­
size
and
large
firms
to
register
for
electronic
reporting
to
EPA
or
State./
Local
receiving
systems
each
year.
Each
facility
is
expected
to
have
an
average
of
six
(
6)
employees
who
will
register
with
the
receiving
system,
for
an
average
total
of
43,758
employee
registrants,
on
average.

The
following
paragraphs
discuss
these
universe
estimates
in
relation
to
the
reporting
requirements
of
the
rule.

Table
4.
Average
Annual
Number
of
Direct
and
Indirect
Reporting
Facilities
and
Employees
Expected
to
Register
with
the
CDX
and
State/
Local
Systems
During
the
Three­
Year
Life
of
ICR
Number
of
Facilities
per
Year
Year
1
Year
2
Year
3
Average
Annual
Number
of
Facilities
During
Three
Years
Average
Annual
Number
of
Employee
Registrants
During
Three
Years
Direct
Reporters
Small
Firms
7,388
4,647
3,548
5,194
15,582
Medium­
Size
and
Large
Firms
914
574
438
642
3,852
Indirect
Reporters
Small
Firms
0
130,888
30,540
53,809
161,427
Medium­
Size
and
Large
Firms
0
16,177
3,775
6,651
39,904
26
6.5
Facility
Electronic
Reporting
to
EPA,
State,
and
Local
Receiving
Systems
6.5.1
Facility
Electronic
Reporting
to
EPA
Receiving
System
As
shown
in
Table
4,
EPA
estimates
that,
on
average,
19,434
facility
employees
(
i.
e.,
employees
of
direct
reporting
facilities),
will
register
with
EPA's
electronic
document
receiving
system
each
year.
These
registrants
are
expected
to
call
the
CDX
Help
Desk
and
complete
the
online
registration
application.
EPA
estimates
that
ten
(
10)
percent
of
registrants
each
year
will
need
to
update
their
registration
information.
These
assumptions
are
reflected
in
Exhibit
1.

6.5.2
Facility
Compliance
With
Identity
Proofing
Requirement
The
CDX
and
rule
provide
a
range
of
ways
for
determining
the
identity
of
individuals
using
electronic
signature
devices
for
priority
reports.
This
could
include
the
use
of
identifiers
or
attributes
that
are
verified
by
attestation
of
disinterested
individuals
to
be
uniquely
true
of
the
individual,
as
specified.
It
also
may
include
other
methods
no
less
stringent
than
the
use
of
such
identifiers
or
attributes.
Finally,
it
may
include
the
collection
of
either
a
subscriber
agreement
or
a
certification
from
a
LRA
that
such
an
agreement
has
been
received
and
securely
stored.

For
purposes
of
this
ICR,
EPA
has
made
the
assumption
that
all
registrants
to
the
CDX
and
State/
Local
systems
will
comply
with
the
requirements
for
a
subscriber
agreement
or
LRA
certification.
We
recognize,
however,
that
the
other
methods
(
e.
g.,
submittal
of
identifiers
or
attributes)
could
also
be
used.
For
example,
the
submittal
of
identifiers
or
attributes
may
be
required
by
a
Certificate
Authority
to
determine
one's
identity
before
issuing
an
electronic
signature
certificate.
4
Under
the
identity­
proofing
requirements,
EPA
estimates
that
small
firms
will
comply
with
the
subscriber
agreement
requirements.
This
includes,
on
average,
15,582
registrants
from
small
direct
reporter
facilities.
It
also
includes
161,427
registrants
from
small
indirect
reporter
facilities.
Note
that
EPA
estimates
that
each
registrant
from
an
indirect
reporter
firm
will
register
with
1.3
receiving
systems,
on
average.

EPA
further
estimates
that
medium­
size
and
large
firms
will
comply
with
the
LRA
requirements.
This
includes,
on
average,
3,852
employee
registrants
from
medium
or
large­
size
direct
reporter
facilities
and
39,904
employee
registrants
from
medium­
size
or
large
indirect
reporter
facilities.
EPA
further
assumes
that
each
medium­
size
and
large
firm
owns,
on
average,
three
(
3)
facilities,
for
a
total
of
18
employee
registrants
each.
EPA
estimates
that
each
firm
will
designate
a
LRA,
who
will
collect
subscriber
agreements
from
its
firm's
employees.
Note
that
EPA
assumes
that
a
medium­
size
or
large
indirect
reporter
firm
will
register
with
1.3
receiving
systems,
on
average.
These
assumptions
are
reflected
in
Exhibit
1.

6.6
Approval
of
State
and
Local
Electronic
Document
Receiving
Systems
To
obtain
EPA
approval
of
a
program
revision
or
modification
using
procedures
provided
under
CFR
Section
3.1000,
a
state
or
local
government
must
submit
an
application
for
program
revision
to
EPA
that
includes
the
elements
specified
in
CFR
Section
3.1000(
b)(
1)(
i)­(
iv).
A
State/
Local
government
that
revises
or
modifies
more
than
one
authorized
program
for
receipt
4
In
this
regard,
the
General
Services
Administration
(
GSA)
has
established
an
electronic
signature
certification
program,
ACES.
EPA
may
use
ACES
for
certain
of
its
information
collections,
if
applicable.
The
federal
government
has
already
received
approval
from
the
OMB
to
request
respondent
information
to
issue
electronic
signature
certificates
under
the
ACES
program.
Refer
to
the
Supporting
Statement,
ACES
for
the
burden
to
individuals
under
the
ACES
program.
27
of
electronic
documents,
in
lieu
of
paper
documents,
may
submit
a
consolidated
application
covering
more
than
one
authorized
program,
provided
the
consolidated
application
complies
with
applicable
requirements
for
each
authorized
program.
The
State/
Local
program
must
satisfy
the
requirements
at
40
CFR
3.2000.

Based
on
the
CBA,
this
ICR
estimates
that
45
state
environmental
protection
agencies
(
state
EPAs)
and
138
other
State/
Local
jurisdictions
(
e.
g.,
counties,
tribes)
will
upgrade
their
receiving
systems
and
submit
program
modification
applications
to
EPA
during
the
three­
year
life
of
this
ICR.

Because
the
exhibits
in
this
ICR
present
annual
costs
over
three
(
3)
years,
EPA
has
divided
the
number
of
State/
Local
jurisdictions
by
three.
Hence,
Exhibit
2
estimates
annual
burden
for
15
State
EPAs
and
46
other
State/
Local
jurisdictions
annually
(
i.
e.,
45
State
EPAs
/
3
years'
15
per
year;
138
other
State/
Local
Jurisdictions
/
3
years'
46
per
year).

EPA
further
estimates
that
each
State
EPA
will
have,
on
average,
three
receiving
systems
each.
Each
other
State/
Local
will
have
one
receiving
system
each.
EPA
assumes
the
State/
Locals
will
incur
capital/
start­
up
costs
in
upgrading
their
receiving
systems
according
to
the
burden
assumptions
in
Table
2
of
this
document.
These
assumptions
are
reflected
in
Exhibit
2.

6.7
6(
e)
Bottom
Line
Hour
and
Cost
Burden
Respondent
Tally
The
total
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
to
facilities
and
to
State/
Locals
under
the
rule
is
summarized
in
Exhibit
4.
As
shown
in
the
exhibit,
EPA
estimates
the
annual
respondent
burden
to
be
151,963
hours,
and
$
10,375,510.
The
bottom
line
burden
to
respondents
over
three
(
3)
years
is
455,889
hours
and
$
31,126,530.

Agency
Tally
Exhibit
5
summarizes
the
total
annual
hour
and
cost
burden
to
EPA
under
the
rule.
As
shown
in
the
exhibit,
EPA
estimates
that
the
annual
Agency
burden
is
250,929
hours
and
$
17,144,841.
The
bottom
line
burden
to
the
Agency
over
three
years
is
752,787
hours
and
$
51,434,523
6.8
6(
f)
Reasons
for
Change
in
Burden
EPA
believes
the
rule
is
necessary
to
encourage
the
use
of
uniform
electronic
reporting,
recordkeeping,
and
receiving
systems
and
procedures
across
the
Agency.
The
annual
burden
estimated
in
this
ICR
represents
the
time
and
costs
to
respondents
to
bring
their
systems
to
operational
readiness
in
accordance
with
the
rule
and
related
EPA
procedures
(
e.
g.,
CDX
system
procedures).
Note
that
the
ICR
does
not
estimate
the
burden
savings
to
respondents
in
actually
transmitting
electronic
documents
under
EPA
programs,
since
these
savings
will
be
examined
in
the
Agency's
program­
specific
ICRs.

6.9
6(
g)
Burden
Statement
The
public
reporting
burden
in
this
ICR
is
estimated
to
be
about
10
minutes
for
an
individual
that
reports
electronically
to
the
CDX.
This
includes
time
for
preparing
the
on­
line
application
and
calling
the
CDX
Help
Desk.

The
public
reporting
burden
in
this
ICR
is
estimated
to
be
15
minutes
for
an
individual
that
prepares
and
submits
a
subscriber
agreement.
The
public
record
keeping
burden
for
the
individual
is
estimated
to
be
5
minutes
for
filing
an
agreement
on
site.
28
The
public
reporting
burden
is
estimated
to
be
approximately
30
minutes
for
the
LRA.
This
includes
time
for
preparing
and
submitting
the
certification
of
receipt
and
secure
storage
to
EPA
or
State/
Local
agency.
The
public
record
keeping
burden
is
estimated
to
be
approximately
30
minutes
for
the
LRA.
This
includes
time
for
compiling
subscriber
agreements
from
employee
registrants
within
the
LRA's
firm,
placing
them
in
secure
storage,
and
preparing
and
filing
the
agreement
collection
certification.

The
public
reporting
burden
in
this
ICR
is
estimated
to
range
from
210
hours
for
a
Local
government
to
330
hours
for
State
EPA
seeking
to
implement
an
electronic
receiving
system.
This
includes
time
for
preparing
and
submitting
the
program
modification
application
to
EPA.

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.

To
comment
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,
the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,
including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques,
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
this
ICR
under
Docket
ID
No.
OEI­
2003­
0001,
which
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
OEI
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
D.
C.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
OEI
Docket
is
202­
566­
1752.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA
Dockets
(
EDOCKET)
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Use
EDOCKET
to
submit
or
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Once
in
the
system,
select
"
search",
then
key
in
the
docket
ID
number
identified
above.
Also,
you
can
send
comments
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Office
for
EPA.
Please
include
the
EPA
Docket
ID
No.
OEI­
2003­
0001
and
EPA
ICR
No.
2002.03.
29
EXHIBIT
1
ELECTRONIC
REPORTING
­
FINAL
RULE
ESTIMATED
ANNUAL
FACILITY
HOUR
AND
COST
BURDEN
Leg.
Mgr.
Tech.
Cler.
Respon.
Labor
Capital/
Number
of
Total
Total
$
69.34/
$
51.47/
$
34.69/
$
23.25/
Hours/
Cost/
Startup
O&
M
Respon.
Hours/
Cost/

INFORMATION
COLLECTION
ACTIVITY
Hour
Hour
Hour
Hour
Activity
Activity
Cost
Cost
Activities
Year
Year
Log
on
to
the
receiving
system
site
and
enter
requested
information
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.15
$
5.20
$
0.00
$
0.00
19,435
2,915
$
101,062
Update
the
information
,
as
needed
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.02
$
0.69
$
0.00
$
0.00
1,944
39
$
1,341
Subtotal
0.00
0.00
Varies
0.00
Varies
Varies
$
0.00
Varies
Varies
2,954
$
102,403
Prepare
and
submit
rquested
information
0.00
0.25
1.00
0.10
1.35
$
49.88
$
0.00
$
0.00
0
0
$
0
Prepare,
file,
and
submit
a
subscriber
agreement
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.25
$
8.67
$
0.00
$
2.50
225,439
56,360
$
2,518,154
Prepare,
file,
and
submit
new
subscriber
agreement,
for
employee
turnover
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.25
$
8.67
$
0.00
$
2.50
22,917
5,729
$
255,983
Contact
the
help
desk
for
technical
support
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.03
$
1.14
$
0.00
$
0.00
225,439
7,439
$
257,000
Report
compromise/
surrendered
electronic
agreement
and
prepare/
submit
new
subscriber
agreement
if
necessary
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.08
$
2.78
$
0.00
$
0.00
2,254
180
$
6,266
Develop
a
process
or
plan
to
implement
the
requirement,
designate
the
LRA,
and
submit
application
to
agency
1.00
0.00
12.00
0.00
13.00
$
485.62
$
0.00
$
5.00
2,428
31,564
$
1,191,225
Register
the
local
authority
with
the
receiving
system
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.18
$
6.35
$
0.00
$
0.00
2,428
444
$
15,418
Prepare
subscriber
agreements
and
send
to
local
authority
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.25
$
8.67
$
0.00
$
0.37
55,727
13,932
$
503,772
Prepare
agreement
collection
certification
and
submit
certification
of
receipt
and
secure
storage
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
$
34.69
$
0.00
$
0.00
2,428
2,428
$
84,227
Prepare
new
subscriber
agreements
and
submit
to
local
authority,
for
employee
turnover
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.25
$
8.67
$
0.00
$
0.37
5,665
1,416
$
51,212
Submit
updated
certification
of
receipt
and
secure
storage
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.08
$
2.78
$
0.00
$
0.00
5,665
453
$
15,749
Redesignate
local
authority,
due
to
turnover
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
$
34.69
$
0.00
$
5.00
260
260
$
10,319
Register
new
local
authority
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.18
$
6.35
$
0.00
$
0.00
260
48
$
1,651
Report
breach
of
security
or
compromise/
surrender
of
electronic
signature
device
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.08
$
2.78
$
0.00
$
0.00
50
4
$
139
Prepare
new
subscriber
agreements
and
send
to
LRA
subsequent
to
breach
of
security/
compromise
of
electronic
signature
device
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.25
$
8.67
$
0.00
$
0.37
966
242
$
8,733
Prepare
and
submit
certification
of
receipt
and
secure
storage
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.08
$
2.78
$
0.00
$
0.00
50
4
$
139
Conduct
on­
going
management
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
$
34.69
$
0.00
$
0.00
13,789
13,789
$
478,340
Subtotal
1.00
0.00
Varies
0.00
Varies
Varies
$
0.00
Varies
Varies
134,292
$
5,398,327.00
TOTAL
0.00
0.00
Varies
0.00
Varies
Varies
$
0.00
Varies
Varies
137,246
$
5,500,730
FACILITY
COMPLIANCE
WITH
IDENTITY
PROOFING
REQUIREMENTS
Comply
with
the
Subscriber
Agreement
Provisions
Comply
with
the
requirements
for
a
local
registration
authority
Conduct
on­
going
management
Total
Hours
and
Costs
Hours
and
Labor
Costs
Per
Respondent
Per
Activity
FACILITY
ELECTRONIC
REPORTING
TO
EPA
RECEIVING
SYSTEMS
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
per
Respondent
per
Activity
Comply
with
Requirement
for
Identifier,
Attribute,
or
Alternative
Method
30
EXHIBIT
2
ELECTRONIC
REPORTING
­
FINAL
RULE
ESTIMATED
ANNUAL
STATE
PROGRAM
HOUR
AND
COST
BURDEN
(
AS
RESPONDENT)

Leg.
Mgr.
Tech.
Cler.
Respon.
Labor
Capital/
Number
of
Total
Total
$
43.28/
$
40.58/
$
27.53/
$
21.07/
Hours/
Cost/
Startup
O&
M
Respon.
Hours/
Cost/

INFORMATION
COLLECTION
ACTIVITY
Hour
Hour
Hour
Hour
Activity
Activity
Cost
Cost
Activities
Year
Year
Read
the
regulations
0.00
0.75
0.75
0.00
1.50
$
51.08
$
0.00
$
0.00
61
92
$
3,116
Upgrade
hardware
and
software
and
submit
program
modification
request
(
State
EPAs)
0.00
31.00
300.00
0.00
331.00
$
9,516.98
$
137,066.00
$
5.00
15
4,965
$
2,198,820
Upgrade
hardware
and
software
and
submit
program
modification
request
(
All
Others)
0.00
20.00
190.00
0.00
210.00
$
6,042.30
$
52,058.00
$
5.00
46
9,660
$
2,672,844
Provide
apprisals
to
EPA
of
changes
to
laws,
policies,
or
electronic
document
receiving
systems.
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.00
0.75
$
23.91
$
0.00
$
5.00
0
0
$
0
TOTAL
0.00
Varies
Varies
0.00
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
14,717
$
4,874,780
CHANGES
TO
STATE
LAWS,
POLICIES,
OR
ELECTRONIC
DOCUMENT
RECEIVING
SYSTEM
Hours
and
Labor
Costs
Per
Respondent
per
Activity
READING
THE
REGULATIONS
APPROVAL
OF
STATE
ELECTRONIC
DOCUMENT
RECEIVING
SYSTEM
Total
Hours
and
Costs
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
per
Respondent
per
Activity
31
EXHIBIT
3
ELECTRONIC
REPORTING
­
FINAL
RULE
ESTIMATED
ANNUAL
EPA
HOUR
AND
COST
BURDEN
Leg.
Mgr.
Tech.
Cler.
Respon.
Labor
Capital/
Number
of
Total
Total
$
65.59/
$
55.34/
$
40.40/
$
18.65/
Hours/
Cost/
Startup
O&
M
Respon.
Hours/
Cost/

INFORMATION
COLLECTION
ACTIVITY
Hour
Hour
Hour
Hour
Activity
Activity
Cost
Cost
Activities
Year
Year
Develop
and
operate
the
CDX
15,000
30,000
90,000
30,000
165,000
$
6,839,550.00
$
3,416,667.00
$
3,416,667.00
1
165,000
$
13,672,884
Process
and
file
receiving
system
documentation
submitted
by
State
seeking
to
modify
their
programs,
as
required
by
section
3.1000
0
0
160
0
160
$
6,464.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
15
2,400
$
96,960
Process
and
file
receiving
system
documentation
submitted
by
Locals
seeking
to
modify
their
programs,
as
required
by
section
3.1000
0
0
80
0
80
$
3,232.00
$
0.00
$
0.00
46
3,680
$
148,672
Subtotal
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
165,160
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
171,080
$
13,918,516
Receive,
process,
review
and
approve
identifier,
attribute,
or
alternative
information
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.50
$
20.20
$
0.00
$
0.00
0
0
$
0
Receive,
process,
review,
approve
and
file
new
subscriber
agreements
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.17
$
6.87
$
0.00
$
0.00
225,439
38,325
$
1,548,766
Receive,
process,
review,
approve
and
file
new
subscriber
agreements,

for
employee
turnover
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.17
$
6.87
$
0.00
$
0.00
22,917
3,896
$
157,440
Receive,
process,
review,
approve
report
comprise/
surrender
electronic
signature
device
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.17
$
6.73
$
0.00
$
0.00
2,254
376
$
15,169
Receive
application
to
designate
first­
time
LRA
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.50
$
20.20
$
0.00
$
0.00
2,428
1,214
$
49,046
Receive,
process,
review,
and
approve
certification
of
receipt
and
secure
storage
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.17
$
6.87
$
0.00
$
0.00
2,428
413
$
16,680
Receive
application
to
designate
LRA,
for
LRA
turnover
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.50
$
20.20
$
0.00
$
0.00
260
130
$
5,252
Receive,
process,
review
and
approve
updated
certification
of
receipt
and
secure
storage,
for
employee
turnover
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.17
$
6.87
$
0.00
$
0.00
5,665
963
$
38,919
Receive
notification
of
breach
of
security
or
compromise/
surrender
of
electronic
signature
device
and
take
action
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
$
40.40
$
0.00
$
0.00
50
50
$
2,020
Receive,
process,
review
and
approve
certification
of
receipt
and
secure
storage,
for
breach
of
security
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.17
$
6.87
$
0.00
$
0.00
50
9
$
344
Identify
and
resolve
problems
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
1.00
$
40.40
$
0.00
$
0.00
13,789
13,789
$
557,076
Respond
to
information
requests
0.00
0.00
1.50
0.00
1.50
$
60.60
$
0.00
$
0.00
13,789
20,684
$
835,613
Subtotal
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
$
0
$
0
Varies
79,849
$
3,226,325
TOTAL
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
Varies
250,929
$
17,144,841
Conducting
Ongoing
Management
EPA
AND
STATE/
LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS
Hours
and
Labor
Costs
Per
Activity
Capital
and
O&
M
Costs
per
Activity
Total
Hours
and
Costs
Collecting
Identifier,
Attribute,
or
Alternative
Information
Collecting
Subscriber
Agreements
Collecting
Submittals
Under
LRA
EPA
ACTIVITIES
32
EXHIBIT
4
ELECTRONIC
REPORTING
­
FINAL
RULE
TOTAL
ESTIMATED
RESPONDENT
HOUR
AND
COST
BURDEN
SUMMARY
(
FROM
EXHIBITS
1
AND
2)

Annual
Burden
Hours
Annual
Labor
Cost
Annual
Capital/

Startup
Cost
Annual
O&
M
Cost
Total
Annual
Cost
Facilities
137,246
$
4,837,060
$
0
$
663,670
$
5,500,730
States
14,717
$
423,817
$
4,450,658
$
305
$
4,874,780
Total
151,963
$
5,260,877
$
4,450,658
$
663,975
$
10,375,510
3­
Year
Total
455,889
$
15,782,631
$
13,351,974
$
1,991,925
$
31,126,530
EXHIBIT
5
ELECTRONIC
REPORTING
­
FINAL
RULE
TOTAL
ESTIMATED
EPA
HOUR
AND
COST
BURDEN
SUMMARY
(
FROM
EXHIBIT
3)

Annual
Burden
Hours
Annual
Labor
Cost
Annual
Capital/

Startup
Cost
Annual
O&
M
Cost
Total
Annual
Cost
EPA
250,929
$
10,311,507
$
3,416,667
$
3,416,667
$
17,144,841
3­
Year
Total
752,787
$
30,934,521
$
10,250,001
$
10,250,001
$
51,434,523
33
Appendix
A
List
of
the
NAIC
Codes
Associated
with
Industries
Most
Likely
Affected
by
the
Rule
11
Agriculture,
Forestry,
Fishing
and
Hunting
111
Crop
Production
112
Animal
Production
113
Forestry
and
Logging
114
Fishing,
Hunting
and
Trapping
115
Support
Activities
for
Agriculture
and
Forestry
21
Mining
211
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
212
Mining
(
except
Oil
and
Gas)

213
Support
Activities
for
Mining
22
Utilities
221
Utilities
23
Construction
233
Building,
Developing,
and
General
Contracting
234
Heavy
Construction
235
Special
Trade
Contractors
31
Manufacturing
311
Food
Manufacturing
312
Beverage
and
Tobacco
Product
Manufacturing
313
Textile
Mills
314
Textile
Product
Mills
315
Apparel
Manufacturing
316
Leather
and
Allied
Product
Manufacturing
321
Wood
Product
Manufacturing
322
Paper
Manufacturing
323
Printing
and
Related
Support
Activities
324
Petroleum
and
Coal
Products
Manufacturing
325
Chemical
Manufacturing
326
Plastics
and
Rubber
Products
Manufacturing
327
Nonmetallic
Mineral
Product
Manufacturing
331
Primary
Metal
Manufacturing
332
Fabricated
Metal
Product
Manufacturing
333
Machinery
Manufacturing
334
Computer
and
Electronic
Product
Manufacturing
335
Electrical
Equipment,
Appliance,
and
Component
Manufacturing
336
Transportation
Equipment
Manufacturing
337
Furniture
and
Related
Product
Manufacturing
339
Miscellaneous
Manufacturing
42
Wholesale
Trade
421
Wholesale
Trade,
Durable
Goods
422
Wholesale
Trade,
Nondurable
Goods
44­
45
Retail
Trade
441
Motor
Vehicle
and
Parts
Dealers
442
Furniture
and
Home
Furnishings
Stores
443
Electronics
and
Appliance
Stores
444
Building
Material
and
Garden
Equipment
and
Supplies
Dealers
445
Food
and
Beverage
Stores
446
Health
and
Personal
Care
Stores
447
Gasoline
Stations
448
Clothing
and
Clothing
Accessories
Stores
451
Sporting
Goods,
Hobby,
Book,
and
Music
Stores
452
General
Merchandise
Stores
453
Miscellaneous
Store
Retailers
454
Nonstore
Retailers
48­
49
Transportation
and
Warehousing
481
Air
Transportation
482
Rail
Transportation
483
Water
Transportation
484
Truck
Transportation
485
Transit
and
Ground
Passenger
Transportation
486
Pipeline
Transportation
34
487
Scenic
and
Sightseeing
Transportation
488
Support
Activities
for
Transportation
491
Postal
Service
492
Couriers
and
Messengers
493
Warehousing
and
Storage
51
Information
511
Publishing
Industries
512
Motion
Picture
and
Sound
Recording
Industries
513
Broadcasting
and
Telecommunications
514
Information
Services
and
Data
Processing
Services
52
Finance
and
Insurance
521
Monetary
Authorities
­
Central
Bank
522
Credit
Intermediation
and
Related
Activities
523
Securities,
Commodity
Contracts,
and
Other
Financial
Investments
and
Related
Activities
524
Insurance
Carriers
and
Related
Activities
525
Funds,
Trusts,
and
Other
Financial
Vehicles
53
Real
Estate
and
Rental
and
Leasing
531
Real
Estate
532
Rental
and
Leasing
Services
533
Lessors
of
Nonfinancial
Intangible
Assets
(
except
Copyrighted
Works)

54
Professional,
Scientific,
and
Technical
Services
541
Professional,
Scientific,
and
Technical
Services
55
Management
of
Companies
and
Enterprises
551
Management
of
Companies
and
Enterprises
56
Administrative
and
Support
and
Waste
Management
and
Remediation
Services
561
Administrative
and
Support
Services
562
Waste
Management
and
Remediation
Services
61
Educational
Services
611
Educational
Services
62
Health
Care
and
Social
Assistance
621
Ambulatory
Health
Care
Services
622
Hospitals
623
Nursing
and
Residential
Care
Facilities
624
Social
Assistance
71
Arts,
Entertainment,
and
Recreation
711
Performing
Arts,
Spectator
Sports,
and
Related
Industries
712
Museums,
Historical
Sites,
and
Similar
Institutions
713
Amusement,
Gambling,
and
Recreation
Industries
72
Accommodation
and
Food
Services
721
Accommodation
722
Food
Services
and
Drinking
Places
81
Other
Services
(
except
Public
Administration)
811
Repair
and
Maintenance
812
Personal
and
Laundry
Services
813
Religious,
Grantmaking,
Civic,
Professional,
and
Similar
814
Private
Households
92
Public
Administration
921
Executive,
Legislative,
and
Other
General
Government
Support
922
Justice,
Public
Order,
and
Safety
Activities
923
Administration
of
Human
Resource
Programs
924
Administration
of
Environmental
Quality
Programs
925
Administration
of
Housing
Programs,
Urban
Planning,
and
C
926
Administration
of
Economic
Programs
927
Space
Research
and
Technology
928
National
Security
and
International
Affair
