	



Table of Contents

  TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \t "Non-Chapter Headings,1"    HYPERLINK \l
"_Toc297123100"  Table of Contents	  PAGEREF _Toc297123100 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123101"  Table of Tables	  PAGEREF _Toc297123101
\h  3  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123102"  Chapter 1	– Introduction	  PAGEREF
_Toc297123102 \h  4  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123103"  Chapter 2	– Estimated Number of
Affected Facilities and Forms	  PAGEREF _Toc297123103 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123104"  Chapter 3	– Cost Estimates	  PAGEREF
_Toc297123104 \h  8  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123105"  3.1	Introduction	  PAGEREF _Toc297123105
\h  8  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123106"  3.2	Methodology	  PAGEREF _Toc297123106
\h  8  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123107"  3.3	Incremental Burden Estimates	 
PAGEREF _Toc297123107 \h  9  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123108"  3.3.1	Rule Familiarization	  PAGEREF
_Toc297123108 \h  9  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123109"  3.3.2	Compliance Determination	  PAGEREF
_Toc297123109 \h  10  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123110"  3.3.3	Summary	  PAGEREF _Toc297123110 \h
 11  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123111"  3.4	Unit Cost Estimates	  PAGEREF
_Toc297123111 \h  11  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123112"  3.5	Total Incremental Facility Costs	 
PAGEREF _Toc297123112 \h  12  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123113"  3.6	Total Incremental EPA Costs	 
PAGEREF _Toc297123113 \h  13  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123114"  Chapter 4	– Small Entity Impacts
Associated with the Proposed Rule	  PAGEREF _Toc297123114 \h  14  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123115"  4.1	Introduction	  PAGEREF _Toc297123115
\h  14  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123116"  4.2	Definitions of Small Entities	 
PAGEREF _Toc297123116 \h  14  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123117"  4.3	Methodology Overview	  PAGEREF
_Toc297123117 \h  15  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123118"  4.4	Impacts on Small Businesses	 
PAGEREF _Toc297123118 \h  17  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123119"  4.4.1	Census Sectors	  PAGEREF
_Toc297123119 \h  17  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123120"  4.4.2	Utilities	  PAGEREF _Toc297123120
\h  20  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123121"  4.5	Impacts on Small Government
Jurisdictions	  PAGEREF _Toc297123121 \h  22  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123122"  4.6	Summary	  PAGEREF _Toc297123122 \h 
24  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123123"  Chapter 5	– Benefits	  PAGEREF
_Toc297123123 \h  26  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123124"  Literature Cited	  PAGEREF _Toc297123124
\h  27  

 

Table of Tables

  TOC \h \z \c "Table"    HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123125"  Table 2-1: 
Number of Facilities Reporting to TRI in RY2009	  PAGEREF _Toc297123125
\h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123126"  Table 2-2:  Number of Facilities
Submitting Forms to TRI in Indian Country (RY2008 and RY2009)	  PAGEREF
_Toc297123126 \h  6  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123127"  Table 2-3:  Tribal Lands Containing
Facilities Reporting to TRI in RY2008 and/or RY2009	  PAGEREF
_Toc297123127 \h  7  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123128"  Table 3-1:  Estimated Rule
Familiarization Burden per Facility Associated with the Proposed Rule	 
PAGEREF _Toc297123128 \h  10  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123129"  Table 3-2:  Estimated Compliance
Determination Burden per Facility Associated with the Proposed Rule	 
PAGEREF _Toc297123129 \h  11  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123130"  Table 3-3:  Estimated First and
Subsequent Year Burden Associated with the Proposed Rule	  PAGEREF
_Toc297123130 \h  11  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123131"  Table 3-4:  Loaded Hourly Wage Rates by
Labor Category	  PAGEREF _Toc297123131 \h  12  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123132"  Table 3-5:  Estimated Incremental Costs
Associated with the Proposed Rule	  PAGEREF _Toc297123132 \h  12  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123133"  Table 4-1:  Categorization of Sectors
Affected by Proposed Rule	  PAGEREF _Toc297123133 \h  16  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123134"  Table 4-2:  Sectors with Information in
SUSB	  PAGEREF _Toc297123134 \h  17  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123135"  Table 4-3:  Universe of Affected TRI
Facilities in Sectors with Data in SUSB	  PAGEREF _Toc297123135 \h  18  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123136"  Table 4-4:  Small Entity Impact for
NAICS Sectors in Census Codes	  PAGEREF _Toc297123136 \h  20  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123137"  Table 4-5:  TRI Utility Universe	 
PAGEREF _Toc297123137 \h  21  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123138"  Table 4-6:  Small Entity Impact for
Utility Sectors	  PAGEREF _Toc297123138 \h  22  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123139"  Table 4-7:  TRI Government Owned
Facility Universe	  PAGEREF _Toc297123139 \h  23  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123140"  Table 4-8:  Small Entity Impact for
Small Government Jurisdictions	  PAGEREF _Toc297123140 \h  24  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc297123141"  Table 4-9:  Small Entity Impact for
NAICS Sectors in Census Codes, Utilities and Small Government
Jurisdictions	  PAGEREF _Toc297123141 \h  25  

 

 – Introduction

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), also
known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986 (SARA), created a broad range of emergency response planning and
reporting requirements for manufacturers, processors, and users of toxic
chemicals in the United States. 42 U.S.C. §§ 11001-11050. Under
section 313 of EPCRA, certain facilities are required to submit annual
reports to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
to States on their release, transfer, and waste management activities of
certain toxic chemicals if they are manufactured, processed, or
otherwise used above thresholds amounts. In addition, the Pollution
Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990 requires these same facilities to report
pollution prevention, recycling, and other waste management information
for these same chemicals. EPA maintains the data collected under EPCRA
section 313 and the PPA in a database known as the Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI).

Since the program beganinception in 1986, facilities that meet TRI
reporting requirements have been required to submit annual TRI reports
to EPA and the State in which they are located. On July 26th, 1990, EPA
finalized regulations in the Federal Register (FR) requiring facilities
in Indian country to submit annual TRI reports to EPA and the
appropriate tribal government (55 FR 30632). These amendments, however,
were inadvertently omitted from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
and the relevant provisions were later overwritten by a subsequent final
rule, thus resulting in the exclusion of the intended requirement from
the CFR.

EPA intends to include these provisions in 40 CFR Section 372.30(a),
thus requiring facilities that are located in Indian country to submit
their annual TRI reports to the appropriate tribe, rather than to the
State in which the facility is geographically located. Given this
action, 40 CFR part 372.30(a) needs to be revised to include guidance
for facilities located in Indian Country; EPA’s Form R, Form A, and
Form R Schedule 1 must therefore be submitted to the official designated
by the tribal Chair person or equivalent elected official, as well as to
EPA. For the purpose of clarity, EPA also intends to amend the
definition of “State” to no longer include Indian country.

Form R and Form A will be modified to reflect these changes in reporting
requirements. On the first page of Form R and Form A, under the section
“WHERE TO SEND COMPLETED FORMS”, the current text “2. APPROPRIATE
STATE OFFICE” will be replaced with “2. APPROPRIATE STATE OR TRIBAL
OFFICE.”  A list of contacts for the appropriate tribal government
will be included in the TRI Reporting Forms and Instructions. 

The proposed rule would also provide tribes with the opportunity to
request that EPA require that a specific facility or facilities located
within the tribe’s Indian country report to TRI.  Additionally, they
would be able to petition for the addition of certain chemicals, which
would apply to all facilities releasing the particular substance(s). The
statute – at sections 313(b)(2) and 313(d) – expressly authorizes
the Administrator to apply TRI reporting requirements to particular
facilities and to add or delete chemicals to or from the list of
chemicals subject to TRI reporting.  Further, the statute provides 
opportunities for governors of States to request that particular
facilities within the States be subject to TRI reporting or that
specific chemicals be added to or deleted from the TRI reporting list
(EPCRA Section 313(b)(2), (e)(2)).  EPA believes that these same
opportunities are appropriately available to tribal governments under
the statute and proposes to explicitly describe these provisions so that
it is apparent that the tribal Chairperson or equivalent elected
official may make similar requests to EPA.  Ultimately, however, it is
EPA that determines whether TRI reporting requirements will apply to a
particular facility or whether a specific chemical will be added to, or
deleted from, the TRI chemicals list.  

Under the proposed rule and per the intent of the 1990 regulation, a
tribe's only responsibility will be to receive TRI reports submitted by
facilities located within its Indian country. EPA will ask affected
tribes (those with facilities located in their Indian country) to
identify a point of contact to whom facilities can provide their annual
report of TRI releases. If no TRI contact is designated, the head
representative of the Tribal Council or Tribal Environmental Department
would serve as the point of contact for report submission. 

Although tribes are not required to use the toxics release data received
from facilities for any particular purpose, TRI data are among the many
tools available to help tribes better analyze potential sources of toxic
chemicals, as well as to assess environmental and health conditions on
their lands. Tribes currently have and will continue to have access to
TRI data across the entire nation, once it is made available to the
public. The proposed rule would simply accelerate the timeframe within
which a tribe would receive data from facilities in its Indian country. 

Under EPA’s considered approach, if the facility is located in the
Indian country of a tribe that becomes a member of the internet-based
TRI Data Exchange, then the owner or operator of that facility could
meet its dual EPA/tribal reporting requirements by submitting its TRI
report to EPA via TRI Made Easy (TRI-ME) web, a web-based application
that allows facilities to submit a paperless report. EPA would then
automatically transmit the report to the appropriate tribe via the TRI
State Data Exchange. If the facility is located  in the Indian country
of a tribe that does not become a member of the TRI Data Exchange, or if
the facility is allowedchoses to submit to the Tribe via paper form,
then the facility would be required to submit a TRI report to EPA
(either electronically or via paper) and also separately to the
appropriate tribe. The approach described above is the same as for EPA
and States when facilities are not located in Indian country.

The remainder of this report describes the costs to industry, the
impacts to potentially affected small entities, and the benefits
associated with the proposed rule. In Chapter 2 the number of facilities
currently in Indian country is estimated as well as the number of
facilities potentially affected by the proposed rule. These estimates
are used in Chapter 3 to calculate the costs to current TRI reporters of
understanding and complying with the proposed rule. In Chapter 4, the
impacts of the proposed rule on “small” entities are examined.
Chapter 5 presents a qualitative assessment of the benefits of the
proposed rule.

– Estimated Number of Affected Facilities and Forms

The proposed rule will create reporting burden for all TRI reporters to
familiarize themselves with the clarified language regarding where forms
should be submitted. This rule will not change the total number of
facilities reporting to TRI nor the number of reports (Form R or Form A)
filed. The total number of TRI reporters in RY2009 is presented in   REF
_Ref292187291 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 2-1 .

  Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  2 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  1 :  Number of
Facilities Reporting to TRI in RY2009

	Facilities	Form Rs	Form As

Total Unique Number of Forms/Facilities	20,797	69,689	8,894

U.S. EPA 2011b. TRI RY2009: NA2009. Accessed via TRI.NET



Additionally, a subset of current reporters will need to determine
whether or not they are located in Indian country. Herein, “Indian
tribe” refers to a tribe that is “Federally-recognized'” by the
Secretary of the Interior under 25 CFR 272.2 while “Indian country”
refers to lands under the Title 18 U.S.C. 1151 definition of Indian
country as:

all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the
jurisdiction of the United States Government, notwithstanding the
issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way running through the
reservation;

all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States
whether within the original or subsequently acquired territory thereof,
and whether within or without the limits of a State; and

all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been
extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same. 

As shown in   REF _Ref292187827 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 2-2 , 51
facilities located in Indian country submitted a total of 199 forms to
TRI in RY2008 or RY2009.,  These facilities will be used as a proxy for
estimating the number of facilities performing compliance determination
(see section   REF _Ref289762677 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  3.3.2 ). 

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  2 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  2 :  Number of
Facilities Submitting Forms to TRI in Indian Country (RY2008 and RY2009)

	Facilities	Form Rs	Form As

Total Unique Number of Forms/Facilities	51	188	11

U.S. EPA 2011b. TRI RY2008, RY2009: NA2009. Accessed via TRI.NET



These 51 facilities were located in 20 distinct tribal lands, listed
below in   REF _Ref292988657 \h  Table 2-3 . 

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  2 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  3 :  Tribal Lands
Containing Facilities Reporting to TRI in RY2008 and/or RY2009

Reservation	State(s)

Coeur d'Alene Reservation	Idaho

Colorado River Reservation	Arizona

Fort Hall Reservation	Idaho

Gila River Reservation	Arizona

Hopi Reservation	Arizona

Isabella Reservation	Michigan

L'Anse Reservation	Michigan

Mille Lacs Reservation	Minnesota

Navajo Nation Reservation	Arizona, New Mexico

Nez Perce Reservation	Idaho

Oneida Reservation	Wisconsin

Rincon Reservation	California

Puyallup Reservation	Washington

Salt River Reservation	Arizona

Sandia Pueblo	New Mexico

Soboba Reservation	California

Tohono O'odham Reservation	Arizona

Tulalip Reservation	Washington

Uintah and Ouray Reservation	Utah

Wind River Reservation	Wyoming

Yakama Reservation	Washington

U.S. EPA 2011b. TRI RY2008, RY2009: NA2009. Accessed via TRI.NET





 – Cost Estimates

Introduction 

This chapter presents the estimated industry costs associated with the
proposed rule, which clarifies where facilities in Indian country should
send their TRI forms. Specifically, facilities that are located in
Indian country must submit their annual TRI reports to the appropriate
tribal government, rather than to the State in which the facility is
geographically located. The requirement for the facility to report to
EPA remains the same. Incremental reporting burden and cost will be
associated with the need for all facilities to familiarize themselves
with the clarified requirements as well as the need for certain
facilities to determine whether or not they are located in Indian
country. 

Section   REF _Ref292215632 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  3.2  describes the
methodology used to estimate industry costs. Section   REF _Ref292215640
\r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  3.3  provides estimates of the incremental burden
while Section   REF _Ref292215661 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  3.4  explains
how the cost estimates, or unit costs, were developed. Section   REF
_Ref292215667 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  3.5  summarizes the total estimated
incremental costs of the proposed rule for the reporting community.
Section   REF _Ref292215673 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  3.6  estimates the
incremental costs of the proposed rule for EPA.

Methodology

Industry burden and costs associated with the proposed rule were
calculated using the following four-step procedure:

Step 1:	Identify and describe the new tasks that facilities will have to
perform to comply with the proposed rule.

Step 2:	Estimate the typical number of hours of managerial, technical,
and clerical labor needed to complete each new task. Based on typical
labor rates, calculate the unit cost of each new task for the first year
of compliance and for subsequent years.

Step 3:	Estimate the number of unique facilities that will perform each
new task.

Step 4:	For each new task, multiply the unit cost by the number of
unique facilities and then sum the results to estimate the total
incremental industry costs for the first year and subsequent years.

The set of compliance activities associated with TRI reporting include:

Compliance Determination: Facility staff must determine whether the
facility meets the criteria for EPCRA section 313 reporting. This
activity includes the time required to become familiar with the
definitions, exemptions, and threshold requirements under the TRI
Program, to review the list of TRI chemicals, and to conduct preliminary
threshold determinations to determine if the facility is required to
report. 

Rule Familiarization: Facilities must read the reporting package and
become familiar with the revised language concerning reporting
requirements.

Report Completion: Facilities must gather data and perform calculations
to provide the information required on Reporting Form R or Reporting
Form A. This activity includes the time required to search data sources
and the time to complete and review the information. 

Recordkeeping and Submission: Facilities must maintain recordkeeping
systems and submit their reports to EPA and the State or tribe in which
the facility is located. This activity includes the time required to
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

Supplier Notification: Certain suppliers of mixtures or trade name
products containing reportable substances must annually notify their
customers of the product’s composition, if the customer is subject to
EPCRA section 313 reporting. This activity includes the time required to
inform customers, either by letter or through the materials safety data
sheet (MSDS) for the product. 

The new tasks associated with the proposed rule are limited to
compliance determination (for facilities unsure of their tribal land
status) and rule familiarization (for all reporting facilities).
Facilities affected by the proposed rule are already reporting to TRI.
Baseline reporting burden already captures the burden to these
facilities for form completion, recordkeeping and submission, and
supplier notification.

The skills required to comply with the EPCRA section 313 reporting
requirements (including the requirements associated with section 6607 of
the PPA) are expected to vary from facility to facility, depending upon
factors such as: the complexity of the facility's processes and
activities; the chemicals at the facility; and the types of use and
disposition of TRI chemicals at the facility. Individuals responsible
for determining whether their facility is required to report and, if so,
completing a Form R or A report (or multiple Form R and/or A reports)
will often have an engineering, scientific, or technical background.
These functions, however, do not require an engineering or other similar
degree.

At a minimum, an understanding of the facility’s chemical purchases
and production processes are needed. Necessary skills may include the
ability to evaluate and interpret records, understand material safety
data sheets, and determine throughput or production volumes. Depending
on the facility, estimates may be calculated using: (1) existing data
collected under federal, state, or local regulations; (2) emissions
factors; (3) design data supplied by the equipment manufacturer; (4)
mass balance techniques; or (5) engineering calculations. Each technique
requires varying skills and levels of sophistication to complete. EPA
industry- and chemical-specific guidance documents will assist reporters
in making the necessary calculations to comply with the section 313
reporting requirements. In addition to technical labor, requirements
involving managerial and clerical staff are also considered when
computing costs.

Incremental Burden Estimates

In this section, EPA estimates the incremental burden associated with
the proposed rule. Since the proposed rule simply clarifies where
facilities located in Indian country should send their forms, TRI
reporters are only expected to incur burden due to rule familiarization
and compliance determination. 

The following burden estimates are based on considerable experience with
the TRI program and engineering judgment. 

  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Rule Familiarization

Under the proposed rule, EPA expects that the entire TRI reporting
community -- 20,797 facilities reporting to TRI in RY2009 -- may incur
rule familiarization burden. The incremental burden estimates associated
with rule familiarization consist of time to read and interpret the
clarified language outlined in the proposed rule and are based on the
following assumptions:

The first-year technical burden includes ten minutes per facility to
read and interpret the clarified language. An additional five minutes
per facility will be required to brief management regarding the
clarified language. It is assumed that facilities will fully comprehend
the clarified language by the subsequent year of reporting; therefore,
no rule familiarization burden is required in subsequent years.

The first-year management burden includes five minutes per facility to
be briefed regarding the clarified language. It is assumed that
facilities will fully comprehend the clarified language by the
subsequent year of reporting; therefore, no rule familiarization burden
is required in subsequent years.

There is no first- or subsequent-year burden on clerical staff
associated with rule familiarization.

	

The incremental burden associated with rule familiarization in the first
and subsequent years is presented in   REF _Ref292187933 \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  Table 3-1 .

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  3 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  1 :  Estimated
Rule Familiarization Burden per Facility Associated with the Proposed
Rule

Labor Category	First Year Burden (minutes)	Subsequent Year Burden
(minutes)

Management	5	0

Technical	15	0

Clerical	0	0

	

Compliance Determination

Under the proposed rule, EPA assumes that most TRI reporters know
whether or not they are located in Indian country. A subset of
facilities, however, will spend time determining whether or not their
facility resides on Indian country. While the number of facilities that
will have to make this determination is not known, it is expected to be
a small subset of TRI reporters. Therefore, the 51 facilities identified
as located in Indian country in RY2008 and RY2009 are used as a proxy
for the number of facilities expected to perform this compliance
determination task.   

The first-year technical burden includes ten minutes to identify
facility status in Indian country. It is assumed that technical staff
will obtain this information by calling EPA to inquire. It is further
assumed that facilities will fully comprehend their status prior to the
subsequent-year of reporting; therefore, no compliance determination
burden is required in subsequent-years.

There is no first- or subsequent-year burden on managerial staff
associated with compliance determination.

There is no first- or subsequent-year burden on clerical staff
associated with compliance determination.

The incremental burden associated with compliance determination in the
first- and subsequent-years is presented in   REF _Ref292188086 \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  Table 3-2 .

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  3 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  2 :  Estimated
Compliance Determination Burden per Facility Associated with the
Proposed Rule

Labor Category	First-Year Burden (minutes)	Subsequent-Year Burden
(minutes)





Management	0	0

Technical	10	0

Clerical	0	0



Summary

  REF _Ref293391297 \h  Table 3-3  presents total first- and
subsequent-year incremental burden estimates associated with the
proposed rule. 

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  3 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  3 :  Estimated
First and Subsequent Year Burden Associated with the Proposed Rule

Activity	Number of Facilities	Labor Category	Total Unit  Burden	Total
Burden



Managerial	Technical	Clerical



Incremental First-Year Burden (hours)

Rule Familiarization	20,797	0.083	0.250	0	0.333	6,925

Compliance Determination	51	0	0.167	0	0.167	9

Total

6,934

Incremental Subsequent-Year Burden (hours)

Rule Familiarization	0	0	0	0	0	0

Compliance Determination	0	0	0	0	0	0

Total

0	0



Unit Cost Estimates

This section explains how the cost estimates, or unit costs, were
developed for the proposed rule. Each cost estimate is made up of two
components: the unit time estimates (i.e., number of labor hours
required of each type of personnel to complete a task) and the hourly
wage rates for each level of personnel.

Labor rates are divided into three categories: managerial, technical,
and clerical. These rates reflect the total cost to employ an individual
and include in the estimate the cost of salaries, fringe benefits, such
as paid leave, health insurance, retirement savings, legally required
benefits, and other overhead costs, such as office space, furniture,
equipment and computers, supplies and other business expenses. Updated
2010 hourly labor rates, including fringe benefits and overhead, were
calculated using current data on salaries and benefits for these three
labor categories from information published by the Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) (USDOL, 2010). The general methodology for this
calculation was obtained from Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the
Toxics Release Inventory Program (Rice, 2002). The managerial,
technical, and clerical wage rates are composites of the BLS rates for
‘Wages and Salaries’ and ‘Total Benefits’ by labor category. The
sum of ‘Wages and Salaries’ and ‘Total Benefits’ is equal to
‘Total Compensation.’  The managerial labor rate is defined as the
average hourly wages and salaries for the “Management, Business, and
Financial” occupational category. The technical labor rate is defined
as the average hourly wages and salaries for the “Professional and
Related” occupational category. The clerical labor rate is defined as
the average hourly wages and salaries for the “Office and
Administrative Support” occupational category. 

Based on information provided by the chemical industry and chemical
industry trade associations, an additional loading factor of 17 percent
is applied to ‘Wages and Salaries’ for general overhead. The sum of
‘Total Compensation’ and ‘Overhead’ is equal to ‘Total Loaded
Hourly Wage Rate’. As shown in   REF _Ref292188149 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT 
Table 3-4 , the hourly wage rates are $63.99 for managerial personnel,
$51.32 for technical personnel, and $25.16 for clerical personnel, all
in 2010 dollars.

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  3 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  4 :  Loaded Hourly
Wage Rates by Labor Category

Wage Type	Labor Category

	Managerial	Technical	Clerical

Wages and Salaries (Dec. 2010)	$39.70	$32.75	$15.72

Total Benefits	$17.54	$13.00	$6.77

Overhead	$6.75	$5.57	$2.67

Total Loaded Hourly Rate	$63.99	$51.32	$25.16

U.S.DOL (2010). Employer Costs for Employee Compensation – September
2010. U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Washington
D.C., March 9, 2011.



Total Incremental Facility Costs

  REF _Ref292190811 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 3-5  summarizes the total
estimated incremental costs of the rule. For the 51 facilities expected
to have both compliance determination and rule familiarization burden
due to the proposed rule, the total first-year incremental costs are
$26.71 per facility. For the remaining 20,746 facilities in the TRI
reporting community expected to have only rule familiarization burden
due to the proposed rule, the total first-year incremental costs are
$18.14 per facility. In total for the entire TRI reporting community,
the total first-year incremental costs are $377,695. There are no
subsequent-year costs.

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  3 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  5 :  Estimated
Incremental Costs Associated with the Proposed Rule 

Activity	Hours Per Labor Category	Total Unit Cost	Number of Facilities
Total Cost

	Managerial	Technical	Clerical





$63.99/hr	$51.32/hr	$25.16/hr



	First-Year

Rule Familiarization	0.083	0.250	0	$18.14	20,797	$377,258

Compliance Determination	0	0.167	0	$8.57	51	$437

Annual Total	 	$377,695

Subsequent-Years

Rule Familiarization 	0	0	0	$0	0	$0

Compliance Determination 	0	0	0	$0	0	$0

Annual Total	 	$0



Total Incremental EPA Costs 

While rule makings often create Agency burden and cost associated with
the need to process additional forms or data elements, this rulemaking
simply clarifies where reports should be sent.  Therefore, EPA will not
be required to perform additional processing of forms due to the
proposed rule.  

– Small Entity Impacts Associated with the Proposed Rule

Introduction

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. § 601 et. seq.)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of regulations on small
entities, and, in some instances, to examine alternatives to the
regulations that may reduce adverse economic effects on significantly
impacted small entities. The RFA requires agencies to prepare an initial
and final regulatory flexibility analysis for each rule unless the
Agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Since 1980, the RFA has required Federal agencies to assess the economic
impacts of their actions on small entities, including businesses,
nonprofit agencies, and governments. Section 604 of the RFA, as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of
1996, requires an agency to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis
for a rule unless the Agency certifies under section 605(b) that the
regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. The RFA does not specifically
define “a significant economic impact on a substantial number” of
small entities. 

This chapter summarizes the results of a small entity impact analysis
for the proposed rule. Specifically, Section   REF _Ref292984698 \r \h 
\* MERGEFORMAT  4.2  provides the definitions of small entities for the
groups covered under the proposed rule. Section   REF _Ref292984709 \r
\h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.3  describes the general methodology used to
determine if the proposed rule results in significant economic impacts
to a substantial number of small entities. In Sections   REF
_Ref292358236 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.4  and   REF _Ref293046484 \r \h 
4.5  this methodology is used to estimate the impacts of the proposed
rule on small entities. The results of the small entity analysis are
summarized in Section   REF _Ref293046477 \r \h  4.6 .

Definitions of Small Entities	

The RFA uses the definition of “small business” found in the Small
Business Act, which authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA)
to define “small business” by regulation. This analysis uses the
SBA’s definition of a small business for each industry.

SBA's small business size standards vary by industry. In establishing
size standards, SBA considers a number of economic and market
characteristics that may allow a business concern to exercise dominance
in an industry. Size standards are based on criteria, such as annual
receipts or number of employees that represent a measure of these
characteristics. These standards represent the largest size that a
for-profit enterprise (together with its affiliates) may be and still
qualify as a small business. 

The SBA small business size standards are expansive, classifying most
businesses as “small.”  For example, the default SBA size standard
for manufacturing industries is 500 employees. According to information
compiled for SBA by the Bureau of the Census, 282,622 of 286,701
manufacturing firms have fewer than 500 employees (USSBA, 2010).
Therefore, at least 98.6 percent of firms would be classified as small
businesses according to the SBA definition. In fact, this percentage is
actually higher, since for certain industrial classification codes
within manufacturing, the SBA size standard is 750, 1,000, or 1,500
employees. The small business definitions relevant to this proposed rule
are:

Businesses, where the small business definition is based on annual
receipts or number of employees;

Utilities, where the small business definition is based on annual
electricity generation;

Government jurisdictions, where the small definition is based on
population; and,

Small organizations, where the small business definition is based on any
not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field. 

Collectively, this analysis refers to small businesses, small
governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations as small entities.

Methodology Overview 

As mentioned above, the RFA considers whether a rule will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This analysis uses annual cost impact percentages to measure potential
impacts on small entities. The cost impact percentage is defined as
annual compliance costs resulting from the proposed rule as a percentage
of annual revenue or sales. For purposes of determining small entity
impacts, comparing annual compliance costs to annual revenue provides a
reasonable indication of the magnitude of the regulatory burden relative
to a commonly available and objective measure of a company's business
volume. Where regulatory costs represent a small fraction of a typical
firm's revenue (i.e., less than one percent), the impacts of the
regulation are likely to be minimal. 

The compliance cost associated with the proposed rule in the first year
includes the costs of rule familiarization and compliance determination
(see   REF _Ref292190811 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 3-5 ). There are no
costs in subsequent years. In Chapter 2, it was estimated that all TRI
reporters will incur the costs of rule familiarization, $18.14 per
facility, and 51 facilities will also incur the costs of compliance
determination, $8.57 per facility. Given the inability to specifically
identify which facilities will undertake compliance determination, the
cost impact ratios for all parent entities are conservatively calculated
using the higher incremental compliance cost associated with completing
both rule familiarization and compliance determination, totaling $26.71
per facility. 

The proposed rule affects hundreds of industry sectors (i.e., NAICS
codes). This small entity analysis considers facilities in all of the
industry sectors which reported to TRI in RY2009. In RY2009, facilities
in a total of 504 industry sectors reported to TRI (U.S. EPA, 2011a). It
should be noted that industry information is only available at the
facility-level; the information reported to TRI does not indicate the
NAICS code of the parent company. For this reason, this analysis assumes
that the NAICS code reported by each TRI facility in RY2009 is also the
NAICS code of its parent.

Employment and revenue data (necessary for the small entity analysis)
available for each of these sectors varies; but fall into the general
categories presented in   REF _Ref292195057 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table
4-1  below. The categories were developed based on the small business
definition and data sources used. Sector Category #1 includes all NAICS
codes for which employment and revenue data are readily available from
the U.S. Census Statistics of U.S Businesses and where the applicable
small business threshold is based on either revenue or employment.
Sector Category #2 includes utilities, where the definition of what
constitutes a small business is based on the amount of electricity
generated, and data from the Energy Information Administration data and
annual electricity prices are used to estimate small entity impacts.
Category #3 is government jurisdictions, where the small business
threshold is defined in terms of population and data from the U.S.
Census of Governments was used to estimate revenue. Agricultural sectors
are grouped together in Sector Category #4 and are not considered in
this analysis. Finally, Sector Category #5 includes facilities that
reported invalid NAICS codes and are not considered in this analysis.

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  4 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  1 : 
Categorization of Sectors Affected by Proposed Rule

Sector  Category #	Category Description	# Facilities in Category

1	Sectors covered by U.S. Census data	19,763

2	Utility sectors with small business definitions based on electricity
generation	545

3	Government Jurisdictions	483

4	Agricultural sectors not covered by U.S. Census data	5

5	Facilities reporting invalid NAICS codes	1

Total # of TRI Facilities	20,797

Source:  U.S. EPA (2011). TRI RY2009: NA2009. Accessed via TRI.NET

	

For Sector Categories 1 through 3 in   REF _Ref292195057 \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  Table 4-1 , different data sources were used to estimate
relevant economic sizes, and then the impacts of the proposed rule on
small entities. Although the data sources varied, the general
methodology used to estimate the impacts on small entities across all
sectors consisted of the following steps:

Step 1:	Identify the universe of affected TRI facilities.

Step 2:	Characterize the relationships between facilities and their
parents in the affected universe.

Step 3:	Estimate annual revenue of parent entities in the affected
universe.

Step 4:	Identify small parent entities based on SBA definitions (see
Section 4.2).

Step 5:	Develop parent entity cost estimates, based on the number of
facilities per parent estimated in Step 2.

Step 6:	Calculate the parent entity cost impact ratio, defined as the
cost as a percentage of annual revenue, as a measure of regulatory
burden. 

Step 7:	Estimate the number and percentage of small parent companies
with company-level impact percentages in each of three categories: (1)
less than one percent of annual revenue; (2) between one and three
percent of annual revenue; and (3) greater than or equal to three
percent of annual revenue.

The specific assumptions and calculations used to estimate impacts for
each category of facilities are described in more detail in the sections
that follow. Sections   REF _Ref292358236 \r \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.4 
considers the impacts of the proposed rule on small businesses in
sectors for which information is available from the 2007 U.S. Census
Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) (Section   REF _Ref292984248 \r \h 
\* MERGEFORMAT  4.4.1 ), utility sectors (Section   REF _Ref292988837 \r
\h  \* MERGEFORMAT  4.4.2 ). Potential impacts of the proposed rule on
small governmental jurisdictions are considered in Section 4.5.

Impacts on Small Businesses 

Census Sectors

The majority of TRI sectors (474 of 504, or 94 percent) have revenue and
employment data available from the U.S. Census Statistics of U.S.
Businesses (SUSB) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010c). The sectors with data
available from SUSB are summarized in   REF _Ref292195532 \h  \*
MERGEFORMAT  Table 4-2  below.

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  4 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  2 :  Sectors with
Information in SUSB

2-Digit NAICS	NAICS Description	# 6-Digit NAICS Codes

21	Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction	15

31-33	Manufacturing	425

42	Wholesale Trade	9

44-45	Retail Trade	2

48-49	Transportation and Warehousing	3

51	Information	3

54	Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services	4

56	Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation
Services	8

71	Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation	2

81	Other Services (Except Public Administration)	3

Total Number of TRI Sectors with Information in SUSB	474

Source:  U.S. EPA (2011). TRI RY2009: NA2009. Accessed via TRI.NET



The SUSB provides annual data for U.S. business establishments by
geography, industry, and enterprise size, covering all business
establishments with paid employees. The data provided annually includes
counts of establishments, firms, employees, and payroll. Data about
total receipts are also provided by SUSB every five years. The data
available from the SUSB can therefore be used to identify the number of
small parent entities affected under the proposed rule, construct annual
revenue, and calculate cost impact ratios.

A sector’s small business definition is based on either its annual
revenue or the number of its employees, depending on the sector. The
SUSB provides information tabulated by employment size or revenue size.
For those sectors with revenue-based small business definitions,
profiles were developed for each revenue size category. For sectors with
employment-based small business definitions, profiles were developed for
employment size categories. 

Identify Universe of Affected TRI Facilities

The NAICS code of each affected TRI facility is known based on its
RY2009 submission. Note that if a facility reported multiple primary
NAICS codes, the first listed NAICS code is used in this analysis. In
some cases, facilities submitted NAICS codes that were invalid at the
6-digit level, (e.g., 311000). In these cases, the analysis considers
the facility at the most applicable NAICS level (e.g., 311). Based on
information submitted by TRI filers, 19,763 facilities reported to TRI
in RY2009 from the 474 sectors with data in SUSB. The distribution of
these facilities across NAICS codes is shown at the 2-digit level in  
REF _Ref292195735 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 4-3 .

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  4 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  3 :  Universe of
Affected TRI Facilities in Sectors with Data in SUSB

2-Digit NAICS	NAICS Description	# Facilities

21	Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction	177

31-33	Manufacturing	18,392

42	Wholesale Trade	929

44-45	Retail Trade	15

48-49	Transportation and Warehousing	8

51	Information	5

54	Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services	3

56	Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation
Services	229

71	Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation	1

81	Other Services (Except Public Administration)	4

Total Number of TRI Facilities in Sectors with Information in SUSB
19,763

Source:  U.S. EPA (2011a). TRI RY2009: NA2009. Accessed via TRI.NET



Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships

Compliance costs and impacts are estimated at the parent entity level,
where a parent entity may own one or more facilities. The average number
of facilities filing reports to TRI per parent company for the TRI
sectors with information in SUSB is estimated by taking the average of
the number of RY2009 reporters associated with each parent company with
a facility in that sector (Abt Associates, Inc., 2011). Note that it is
not possible to distinguish small parents from large parents in the TRI
data; rather, a single average of number of facilities per parent is
used for each sector. Because these averages contain large parent
companies as well as small, they are likely to slightly overestimate the
number of facilities per small parent entity. This inclusion of large
parent companies in the average facility numbers leads to more
conservative estimates of total compliance costs incurred by small
parent companies. 

Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities

The SUSB data include the total annual receipts (defined as the revenue
for goods produced, distributed, or services provided) for each
NAICS/revenue or employment size class combination. For each of the 474
TRI sectors with data in SUSB, EPA calculates average revenue per
“small” entity using the appropriate employment size or revenue size
tabulation. To do this, the total revenue and total number of firms are
summed across all “small” revenue or employment size classes for
each NAICS code., The total revenue of all “small” revenue or
employment size classes is then divided by the number of “small”
firms in each size class to calculate an average revenue per “small”
firm by NAICS code.

In some cases, total revenue for a revenue or employment size class was
not provided in the SUSB data because doing so would disclose the
operations of an individual establishment or firm. In these cases, the
total revenue is interpolated based on the available data. For sectors
with revenue-based small business definitions, the midpoint of the
revenue size class is multiplied by the number of firms in that size
class as an estimate for the total revenue. For sectors with
employment-based small business definitions, the following method is
used to estimate total revenue for those NAICS/employment size class
combinations where revenue was not disclosed:

Calculate the average revenue per firm for every NAICS/employment size
class combination where data are available.

Calculate the percent difference between average revenue in adjacent
employment size classes based the on all TRI NAICS codes populated with
revenue information in the relevant adjacent employment class sizes.

For the NAICS/employment size class combination with no average revenue
data, multiply the average revenue of the adjacent employment size class
in that NAICS code by the average percent difference between the two
adjacent employment size classes across all TRI NAICS codes to estimate
the average revenue.

Where average revenue is available for both adjacent employment size
classes, average the two estimated average revenues to obtain average
revenue for the missing NAICS/employment size class combination. Where
average revenue is available for only one of the adjacent size classes,
use the estimated average revenue based on the size class with data.

Multiply the estimated average revenue by the number of firms to
estimate the total revenue for that NAICS/employment size class.

In the case where no revenue data was available from SUSB for any
employment size class, the facility is considered at the 5-digit NAICS
level rather than the 6-digit NAICS level.

Because the SUSB data reflect 2007 annual revenue, it was necessary to
inflate the revenue to current dollars using one of several indices. The
Industrial Production Index (IPI) measures the amount of industrial
output from certain industries and is used to inflate annual revenue in
mining (NAICS 21) and manufacturing (NAICS 31-33) sectors to 2010
dollars (U.S. Federal Reserve, 2011). All other sectors (NAICS 42-81)
are inflated based on the change in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from
2007 to 2010, which is a measure of overall economic output (BEA, 2011).

Estimate Number of Small Parent Entities

EPA estimates the number of small parent entities in each NAICS code by
distributing the total number of TRI facilities in each NAICS code
amongst the employment or revenue size classes based on the overall
distribution of establishments amongst the size classes in the SUSB
data. The number of TRI facilities in “small” revenue or employment
size classes is then summed and divided by the average number of TRI
facilities per parent in that NAICS code to obtain a count of small
parent entities by NAICS code.  Using this method, a total of 3,026
small parent entities will be potentially affected by the proposed rule.


Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs

Since it was not possible to predict which facilities would incur
compliance determination, all facilities were conservatively estimated
to incur both compliance determination and rule familiarization costs
for the small entity analysis. Affected parent entities will incur the
compliance cost once for each TRI facilities it operates. Therefore, the
per-facility compliance cost is multiplied by the average number of
facilities per parent to calculate the total per parent compliance cost
for each NAICS code affected under the proposed rule.

Estimate Cost Impact Ratios

To calculate the cost impact ratio, the first-year compliance cost of a
parent entity was divided by the average revenue per small parent entity
for each affected sector. These results are summarized in   REF
_Ref292211203 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 4-4 . Based on this calculation,
no small parent is expected to incur an impact equal to or greater than
1 percent of annual revenue. The maximum impact incurred by any small
parent is ~0.13 percent, which is incurred by small parent entities in
the NAICS sector 213112, Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations. 

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  4 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  4 :  Small Entity
Impact for NAICS Sectors in Census Codes

Facility and Small Parent Entity Count

All Facilities	19,763

Small Parents	3,026

Small Parent Entity Impact Ratio

Impact < 1%	3,026

1% ≤  Impact < 3%	0

3% ≤  Impact	0

Median Impact	0.002%

Max Impact	0.130%



Utilities

For six utility sectors, the small business definition is based on
electricity generation rather than employment or annual revenue.
Therefore, for these sectors, it is necessary to use an alternate method
to determine the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. The six
sectors with small business definitions based on electricity generation
are:

221111 Hydroelectric Power Generation

221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation

221113 Nuclear Power Generation

221119 Other Electric Power Generation

221121 Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control

221122 Electric Power Distribution

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) maintains monthly and annual
data on electricity generation and fuel consumption for U.S. power
plants in its EIA-923 database. EPA uses this information to identify
small entities and to construct annual revenue of small parents
operating TRI utility facilities. 

Characterize the Universe of Affected TRI Facilities

In RY2009, 649 TRI facilities reported a utility NAICS code. However,
some facilities reporting to TRI from utility NAICS codes are operated
by municipal, state, or federal governments. As these facilities are
operated by governments, the potential impacts on small entities must be
considered using the government definition of a small entity. This
analysis assumes that 104 utilities are operated by governments,
identified based on the reported parent and facility name in RY2009 and
are considered in Section   REF _Ref293046484 \r \h  4.5 . 

The remaining 545 TRI utility facilities were found in the Energy
Information Administration (EIA) databases by querying the Facility
Registry System (FRS) for all EPA-regulated facilities with information
in EIA databases (based on the Emissions & Generation Resource
Integrated Database (eGRID)) and the Clean Air Markets Division Business
System (CAMDBS) facility linkages) (U.S. EPA, 2011b). Any facility not
matched to an EIA record based on an FRS linkage was then matched based
on facility name and address. All but six TRI utility facilities were
matched to information in EIA databases. An additional four facilities
were matched to an EIA facility but did not have generation data for
RY2009. It was assumed that the potential impacts on the ten facilities
for which information could not be located would follow the distribution
of impacts on the 535 facilities for which EIA records were available.
The TRI utility facility universe is summarized in   REF _Ref292211187
\h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 4-5  below. 

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  4 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  5 :  TRI Utility
Universe

Utility Universe	# Facilities

TRI Utility Facilities	649

     TRI Utility Facilities not Operated by Governments	545

          TRI Utility Facilities with Information in EIA databases	535

Sources:  

U.S. EPA (2011a). TRI RY2009: NA2009. Accessed via TRI.NET

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy.
2009b. Form EIA-923 Database.
<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia906_920.html>



Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships

Each utility was matched to its parent based on the TRI data for RY2009
(Abt Associates, 2011). The 535 TRI utilities correspond to 184 parent
companies. Because the parent company of each utility is known based on
the parent company reported to TRI for RY2009, the actual number of
utilities per parent is calculated for each parent entity, as opposed to
an average by sector as was done in Section   REF _Ref292358236 \r \h 
\* MERGEFORMAT  4.4 . This results in 110 parents operating only one TRI
utility, and the largest parent operating 24 TRI utility facilities.

Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities	

As stated above, the EIA-923 database provides information about the
annual electricity generation of each power plant in the U.S. The EIA
also provides information about the average retail price of electricity
to ultimate customers by end-use sector, by state, on a monthly basis.
Annual electricity generation and price were combined to generate an
estimate of annual revenue. Specifically, a national average of 9.51
cents per kilowatt-hour, or $95.10 per megawatt-hour (December 2010) is
multiplied by the total electricity generation per parent to construct
annual revenue for each parent entity.

Estimate the Number of Small Parent Entities 

Small utilities are defined as those businesses primarily engaged in the
generation, transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for
sale with the total electric output for the fiscal year not exceeding 4
million megawatt-hours. Based on this definition, and aggregating the
individual facility net generation to the parent level, 123 of the 184
(~67 percent) utility parent entities meet the definition of being a
small parent entity. 

Estimate the Parent Entities Compliance Costs

Since it was not possible to predict which facilities would incur
compliance determination, all facilities were conservatively estimated
to incur both compliance determination and rule familiarization costs
for the small entity analysis. Affected parent entities will incur the
compliance cost once for each TRI utility it operates. Therefore, the
per-facility compliance cost is multiplied by the number of utilities
per parent to calculate the total compliance cost for each parent entity
affected under the proposed rule. 

Estimate Cost Impact Ratios

The cost impact ratios for small parent entities operating TRI utilities
is estimated by dividing the total compliance cost for each parent
entity by their annual revenue. These results are summarized in   REF
_Ref292211127 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 4-6 . Based on this calculation,
no small parent is expected to incur an impact of equal to or greater
than 1 percent of annual revenue. The maximum impact incurred by any
small parent is ~0.007 percent, which is incurred by a small parent in
the NAICS sector 221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation. 

1% ≤  Impact < 3%	0

3% ≤  Impact	0

Median Impact	0.000%

Max Impact	0.007%



Impacts on Small Government Jurisdictions

Some TRI facilities are operated by local, state, or federal
governments. The potential impacts of the rule on small government
parent entities must therefore be estimated. A separate methodology
based on information from the U.S. Census of Governments is used.  The
Census of Governments characterizes the scope and nature of the nation's
state and local governments; provides authoritative benchmark figures of
public finance and public employment; classifies local government
organizations, powers, and activities; and measures federal, state, and
local fiscal relationships. Information is available by level of
government and category of governmental activity. The sections that
follow discuss the method used to calculate the impacts on small local
governments operating TRI facilities.

Identify Universe of Affected TRI Facilities	

TRI facilities operated by government jurisdictions were identified
based on the reported parent and facility name in RY2009.  This method
identified a total of 483 government owned TRI facilities reporting in
RY2009. However, 419 of these facilities are owned by states or the
federal government, and do not meet the definition of a small government
jurisdiction as they serve a population of greater than 50,000 people.
The remaining 64 government owned TRI facilities are operated by
municipalities that could be potentially affected under the proposed
rule. The universe of government owned TRI facilities is summarized in
Table 4-731.

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  4 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  7 :  TRI
Government Owned Facility Universe

Utility Universe	# Facilities

TRI Facilities Owned by a Government Jurisdiction	483

     TRI Facilities Owned by a Municipality	64

Source:  U.S. EPA (2011). TRI RY2009: NA2009. Accessed via TRI.NET

	

In order to use the data available from the Census of Governments to
construct municipal revenue and identify small municipalities, it is
necessary to match each affected TRI facility to a local government on
the Census list. Each of the TRI facilities owned by a municipality was
matched to a city on the Census list of municipalities. 

Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships

Compliance costs are estimated at the parent entity level, where a
parent entity may own one or more facilities. Therefore, it is necessary
to consider municipalities operating multiple TRI facilities. Because
the universe of TRI facilities owned by municipalities is based on a
unique list of facilities matched to individual local governments, it is
possible to determine the number of TRI facilities operated by each
municipality and calculate the number of facilities per parent based on
the known number of facilities operated by each municipality. The 64
facilities owned by municipalities correspond to a total of 58 unique
municipalities, with the majority operating only one TRI facility. 

Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities

Because the Census of Governments does not provide revenue data for
individual municipalities, it is necessary to develop a method to
estimate revenue based on available information. The Government Finance
series in the 2002 Census of Governments provides information at the
state level regarding the per capita revenue of municipalities by
population-size range (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005a; U.S. Census Bureau,
2005b). 

The 2002 Census of Governments per capita revenues must be inflated to
2010 dollars. The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) inflation index, which is
a measure of overall economic output, is used to adjust 2002 revenue to
2010 dollars. Note that this method may overstate current revenue
because the GDP is a measure of overall economic output and does not
directly correlate to government revenue; however, it is considered the
best available index to use in this situation.

To estimate the annual revenue for each affected municipality, the
adjusted per capita revenue is multiplied by the population of the
municipality. Population information was obtained from the U.S. Census
2009 Population Estimates (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b). 

Estimate the Number of Small Parent Entities

As discussed in Section   REF _Ref293046484 \r \h  4.5 , "small
governmental jurisdictions" are defined as the government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
fewer than 50,000 people. Therefore, any local government operating a
TRI facility serving a population of 50,000 or fewer is considered
“small”, based on the 2009 population of each affected municipality.
Based on this method, 36 of the 58 affected municipalities are small. 

Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs

Since it was not possible to predict which facilities would incur
compliance determination, all facilities were conservatively estimated
to incur both compliance determination and rule familiarization costs
for the small entity analysis. Affected municipalities would incur the
compliance cost once for each TRI facilities it operates. Therefore, the
per-facility compliance cost is multiplied by the average number of
facilities per municipality to calculate the total per parent compliance
cost for each NAICS code affected under the proposed rule.

Estimate Cost Impact Ratios

The cost impact ratios for small municipalities are estimated by
dividing the total compliance cost for that entity by the annual revenue
of the local government. Based on this calculation, no small
municipality is expected to incur an impact of equal to or greater than
1 percent of annual revenue under any of the scenarios considered. These
results are summarized in Table 4-8. The maximum impact incurred by any
municipality is ~0. 011 percent, which is incurred by small
municipalities in the NAICS sector 221112, Fossil Fuel Electric Power
Generation. 

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  4 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  8 :  Small Entity
Impact for Small Government Jurisdictions

Facility and Small Parent Entity Count

All Facilities	483

Small Parents	36

Small Parent Entity Impact Ratio

Impact < 1%	36

1% ≤  Impact < 3%	0

3% ≤  Impact	0

Median Impact	0.000%

Max Impact	0.011%



Summary

This chapter estimates small entity impacts for small businesses in
sectors for which information is available from the 2007 U.S. Census
Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) and utility sectors; as well as for
small governmental jurisdictions. Of these sectors, no small parent is
expected to incur an impact of greater than 1 percent of annual revenue,
as is shown in   REF _Ref293049454 \h  Table 4-9 . 

Table   STYLEREF 1 \s  4 -  SEQ Table \* ARABIC \s 1  9 :  Small Entity
Impact for NAICS Sectors in Census Codes, Utilities and Small Government
Jurisdictions

Facility and Small Parent Entity Count

All Facilities	20,7811

Small Parents	3,185

Small Parent Entity Impact Ratio

Impact < 1%	3,185

1% ≤  Impact < 3%	0

3% ≤  Impact	0

Median Impact	0.002%

Max Impact	0.130%

1 This total excludes Sector Categories 4 (Agricultural Sectors) and 5
(Invalid NAICS Code sectors) from   REF _Ref292195057 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT
 Table 4-1  and the 10 facilities that did not have RY2009 EIA
information from   REF _Ref292211187 \h  \* MERGEFORMAT  Table 4-5 . 



– Benefits

In enacting the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA) of 1986 and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990, Congress
recognized the significant benefits of providing information on the
presence, releases and waste management of toxic chemicals. The Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) has proven to be one of the most influential
forces in empowering the federal government, state and local
governments, industry, environmental groups, and the general public to
fully participate in an informed dialogue about the environmental
impacts of toxic chemicals in the United States. The TRI database
provides several types of information, including quantitative
information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management
practices. Starting in 1987, the collection of this information enhanced
the ability for the public, government, and the regulated community to
understand the breadth and magnitude of chemical releases in the United
States, and to assess the need to reduce the releases and transfers of
toxic chemicals. TRI data enable all interested parties to establish
credible hazardous chemical quantity baselines, to set realistic goals
for environmental progress, and to measure progress in meeting these
goals over time. As such, the TRI Program has become a yardstick by
which environmental progress can be measured by all interested or
affected stakeholders.

Although EPA has not attempted to quantify the benefits of the proposed
rule, the desired outcome of this proposed rule is to further encourage
tribal engagement and participation in the TRI program.  Tribes would
have the opportunity to request that EPA require that a specific
facility or facilities located within the tribe’s Indian country
report to TRI.  The tribes would also be able to petition for the
addition or deletion of certain chemicals, which apply to all facilities
releasing the particular substance(s). These types of provisions already
apply in the context of requests/petitions by governors of States, and
since the 1990 amendment, by increasing the participation and engagement
of tribal governments in the TRI program, EPA is helping to increase
awareness of toxic releases within these communities, thereby increasing
the understanding of potential human health impacts from these hazardous
chemicals.



Literature Cited

Abt Associates, Inc (2010). List of Corporate Parents Used to
Pre-Populate TRI-MEweb for RY2009.

U.S. Census Bureau (2002). 2002 Economic Census.2002 Economic Census:
Industry Series Schedule.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/guide/INDSUMM.HTM" 
http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/guide/INDSUMM.HTM . Accessed on
February 7, 2011.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S. Department of Commerce
(2011).National Income and Products Accounts Table, Table 1.1.5. Gross
Domestic Product.   HYPERLINK "http://www.bea.gov/index.htm" 
http://www.bea.gov/index.htm 

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (2011). Producer Price
Index-Commodities:  Farm Products. Series ID WPS01.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.bls.gov/ppi/data.htm"  http://www.bls.gov/ppi/data.htm 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005b. 2002 Census of Governments:  Government
Finance:  Finances of Municipal and Township Governments:  2002.Vol 4,
No. 4, Issued April 2005.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/gc02x43.pdf" 
http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/gc02x43.pdf 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010a. Federal, State, & Local Governments: 
Definitions.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.census.gov/govs/definitions/index.html" 
http://www.census.gov/govs/definitions/index.html 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010b. Population Estimates:  Incorporated Places
and Minor Civil Divisions:  All Places:  2000 to 2009.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2009-4.html" 
http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2009-4.html 

U.S. Census Bureau.2010c. Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB).  
HYPERLINK "http://www.census.gov/econ/susb" 
http://www.census.gov/econ/susb 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011). Employer
Costs for Employee Compensation, Table 11:  Private Industry, by
occupational group and full-time and part-time status. December 2010.  
HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t11.htm" 
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t11.htm 

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of
Energy.2009a. Form EIA-860 Database Annual Electric Generator Report.  
HYPERLINK "http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia860.html" 
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia860.html 

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of
Energy.2009b. Form EIA-923 Database.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia906_920.html" 
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia906_920.html 

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy.
2010. Table 5.6.A. Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate
Consumers by End-Use Sector, by State, December 2010 and 2009. Released
March 2011.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html" 
http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html 

U.S. EPA (2011a). TRI RY2008, RY2009: NA2009. Accessed via TRI.NET.
Downloaded on March 2, 2011 (Tribal Universe) and April 11, 2011
(Universe of Current Reporters).

U.S. EPA (2011b). Facility Registry System (FRS).   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/fii/fii_query_java.html" 
http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/fii/fii_query_java.html 

U.S. Federal Reserve (2010). Federal Reserve Statistical Release: 
Industrial Production and Capacity Utilization. Release Date April 15,
2011.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/current/default.htm" 
http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/current/default.htm 

U.S. SBA. Office of Advocacy (2007).Statistics – All Industries by
NAICS Codes, 2006: Employer Firms & Employment by Employment Size of
Firm by NAICS Codes.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/us07_n6.pdf" 
http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/us07_n6.pdf . Accessed on
February 8, 2011.

U.S. SBA. (2008). Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to
North American Industry Classification System Codes.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf" 
http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf .
Downloaded on February 8, 2011.

 The term “EPCRA section 313" properly refers to only the statutory
requirements, while the term “TRI” properly refers to the database
that stores the information collected both under EPCRA section 313 and
under section 6607 of the PPA.  However, the terms are have often been
used interchangeably by the public to refer to the statute, the
regulatory requirements, the reporting form, the database, and/or EPA's
program to manage the data.  In deference to common usage, the terms
EPCRA section 313 and TRI are sometimes used interchangeably in this
report where doing so will make the report simpler and easier to read.

 Because these same opportunities are already available under existing
statutes, no additional burden on Tribal governments or TRI reporters is
created from this clarification under the proposed rule.

 Note that the two most recent years of TRI reporting are considered
when constructing the universe of facilities reporting in Indian country
to capture the potential number of facilities currently located in
Indian country.  For the 44 facilities located in Indian country that
reported in RY2009, their RY2009 form count was included in   REF
_Ref292187827 \h  Table 2-2 .  For the seven facilities located in
Indian country that did not report in RY2009 but did report in RY2008,
their RY2008 form count was included in   REF _Ref292187827 \h  Table
2-2 .

 Facilities located in Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas will not
report to their respective Tribal governments and are thus excluded from
this count.

 Heiden Associates, Final Report: A Study of Industry Compliance Costs
Under the Final Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule, Prepared for
the Chemical Manufacturers Association, December 14, 1989.

 SBA's size standards can be found at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_t
ablepdf.pdf" 
http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_ta
blepdf.pdf .

 USSBA. Office of Advocacy - Statistics – All Industries by NAICS
Codes, 2007: Employer Firms & Employment by Employment Size of Firm by
NAICS Codes, 2007. Information from the Small Business Administration on
the Internet.   HYPERLINK "http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/us07_n6.pdf"
 http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/us07_n6.pdf  Downloaded on April 6,
2011.

 No small organizations are expected to incur burden as a result of the
proposed rule.

 Note that if the NAICS code of a facility’s parent does not match the
NAICS code of the facility, then its associated revenue may not be
correctly represented in the analysis.

 In RY2009, five facilities in two agricultural NAICS codes (112310
Chicken Egg Production and 112320 Broilers and Other Meat Type
Production) reported to TRI. However, agricultural NAICS codes are not
subject to TRI reporting; therefore, they are not included in the small
entity analysis. Note that if these facilities were included in the
analysis, they would incur impacts of less than one percent of annual
revenue.

 Facilities reporting an invalid NAICS code make up less than 1% of the
TRI facility universe. 

 This count does not include utilities, agricultural facilities, or
small governmental jurisdictions, which are considered separately in the
sections that follow. 

 In some cases, the employment or revenue tabulations provided in the
2007 Statistics of U.S. Businesses did not match the applicable small
business definition. In cases where an employment or revenue class
straddled the small business definition for the NAICS code, data for
that employment or revenue class was not included in the average revenue
per small parent company calculation. This assumption may understate the
number of small entities but provides a conservative estimate of average
revenue for small entities because it avoids including any entities not
classified as small in the analysis, resulting in a lower average annual
revenue estimate.

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

_

¼

2

•

 

!

=

>

?

Y

Z

[

\

]

^

_

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

 _

`

a

}

~



€

…

†

š

›

œ

¶

·

¸

¹

º

»

¼

½

¾

Ú

Û

Ü

Ý

â

ã

û

ü

ý

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

+

,

-

/

0

1

2

3

4

P

Q

R

S

V

h

h

h

j¸

h

h

h

h

h

h

j;

h

V

W

r

s

t

Ž

’

“

”

•

–

—

³

´

µ

¶

¿

À

ø

ù

ú

h

h

j¬

h

h

h

j/

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

j

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

hV

h|g

h”

) h”

h”

  h”

h”

yt”

yt”



h

‰

Ȁ

kd

 h°

h°

gd°

a$gd°

yt°

gd°

gd°

yt°

gd°

gd°

yt°

gd°

gd°

yt°

gd°

yt°

yt°

yt°

yt°

yt°

yt°

yt°

yt°

yt°

yt°

yt°

yt°

yt°

yt°

yt°

yt°

yt°

yt°

yt°

yt°

yt°

yt°

 h°

 h°

Š

Œ

ž

ÿ

ã

Ѐ#摧↳:Ѐ#摧ᯫ

ˆ

‰

Š

‹

Œ

œ

ž

é

ò

ÿ



E

F

˜

™

Ã

Ä

Å

á

â

ã

ᘀ≨ꨈ唀Ĉ⸀ied in employment classes with fewer than ten
employees, even though facilities with fewer than ten employees are not
required to report to TRI. However, there is no parent company
employment threshold for a small entity analysis.  Because firm data are
used as a proxy for parent company data, establishments with less than
10 employees are included in the estimation of average revenue per small
parent company.  Inclusion of these data results in a conservative
estimate of average parent company revenues.

As with the average revenue calculations, employment or revenue classes
straddling the small business definition were not included in counts of
small facilities.

Because it was not possible to distinguish small parents from large
parents in the TRI data, these estimates are likely to overestimate the
number of facilities per small parent entity. 

Abt Associates Inc.	  PAGE   \* MERGEFORMAT  24 	3nd Draft, June 28,
2011		

Economic Analysis of the Proposed Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)
Reporting Rule for Facilities Located in Indian Country

DRAFT

Prepared for:

Office of Environmental Information

US Environmental Protection Agency

June 28, 2011

