Addendum to the Economic Analysis of the Proposed Addition of Natural Gas Processing Facilities to the Toxics Release Inventory; Applicable to the Final Rule
                                             
                                             
            
                                             
                                             
                                             
                                     November 11, 2021
                                             
                                             
                              Prepared by Abt Associates for:
                                  Data Collections Branch
                           Data Gathering and Analysis Division
                         Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
                    Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
                            US Environmental Protection Agency

ES.	Executive Summary	1-1
1.	Estimated Number of Forms and Affected Facilities	1-1
1.1	Universe of Affected NGP Facilities	1-1
1.1.1	Proxy NGP Reporting from Canada	1-2
1.1.2	Potential TRI Reporting Form Count Estimates	1-3
1.2	Distribution of Forms R and Forms A	1-5
1.3	Summary of Results	1-6
1.4	Growth in the Natural Gas Sector	1-7
2.	Cost Estimates	2-1
2.1	Industry Burden and Cost Estimates	2-1
2.1.1	Estimation of Burden	2-1
2.1.2	Estimation of Cost	2-3
2.1.3	Total Incremental Industry Burden Estimates	2-4
2.1.4	Total Incremental Industry Cost Estimates	2-5
2.1.5	Annualized Incremental Cost Estimates	2-5
2.2	EPA Cost Estimates	2-6
2.3	Total Incremental Costs	2-7
2.4	Small Entity Analysis	2-7
3.	Benefits	3-1
4.	Paperwork Burden and Other Analyses	4-1
4.1	Paperwork Burden Analysis	4-1
4.2	Unfunded Mandates Reform Act	4-1
4.3	Executive Order 13132 - Federalism	4-2
4.4	Executive Order 13175 - Tribal Implications	4-2
4.5	Executive Order 13045 - Protection of Children	4-2
4.6	Executive Orders 12898 and 14008  -  Environmental Justice	4-2
5.	References	5-1

 
 Executive Summary
This addendum provides a five-year update to the economic analysis of the proposed rule that would add natural gas processing (NGP) facilities to the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) section 313 reporting requirements (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016a). Changes to the analysis which are reflected in this addendum include updates to the estimated number of facilities affected by the rule as well as updates to facility labor and overhead rates. This addendum provides the estimated burden for the final rule to add NGP facilities to the EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements.
The 2016 analysis used baseline 2014 data as the triennial 2014 Natural Gas Processing Plant Survey (EIA-757) dataset was the most up-to-date resource at that time. The most recently available EIA-757 data were 2017 data, and the current estimates reflect baseline 2017 data. The same methods were applied to updated datasets. The resulting estimated reporting and comparison to the 2016 analysis are summarized in Table ES-1. 
Table ES-1 Estimated Total Reporting for 2016 and 2021 Analyses
                                       
                                Lower Bound[1]
                                Upper Bound[2]
                                       
                                  Total Forms
                                 Form R Count
                                 Form A Count
                                  Total Forms
                                 Form R Count
                                 Form A Count
                 Estimated Reporting using 2017 Baseline Data
Forms
                                     2,507
                                     2,263
                                      244
                                     3,819
                                     3,447
                                      372
Facilities
                                      321
                                      489
                 Estimated Reporting using 2014 Baseline Data
Forms
                                     2,199
                                     1,986
                                      213
                                     3,464
                                     3,128
                                      336
Facilities
                                      282
                                      444
[1]The Lower Bound is defined by the universe of NGP facilities with 10+ FTEs.
[2]The Upper Bound is defined by the universe of NGP facilities with 10+ FTEs or a natural gas flow capacity greater than 24 million cubic feet (MMcf) per day.

The original report, using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) data from 2016 and an overhead rate of 17%, calculated the Weighted Average Wage Rate (WAWR) as $54.33. This addendum, using BLS ECEC data from March 2021 and an overhead rate of 20%applied to total compensation, calculates the WAWR as $65.47. 
The higher number of estimated facilities reporting, together with updated wage and overhead data, also contribute to new estimated industry and EPA costs. The estimated total incremental costs of the rule, which is the sum of the 10-year annualized industry and agency costs, now ranges from approximately $6,363,000 to $9,691,000 with a 3% discount rate and approximately $6,482,000 to $9,873,000 with a 7% discount rate.
Much of the supporting text from the original report has been streamlined. The text, references from the text to the tables, and the tables have been updated to reflect updated sources, changes to the results, and other substantive differences from the 2016 analysis.
The remainder of this addendum is organized as follows. The Executive Summary provides a high-level overview of the rule, the estimating procedures, and results. Chapter ‎1 describes the estimated number of forms and facilities, and Chapter ‎2 describes the estimated costs. The benefits of the rule are presented in Chapter ‎3. Finally, Chapter ‎4 examines the paperwork burden and other analyses.
 Expansion of Reporting from the Natural Gas Processing Sector
Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) require certain facilities to file annual reports to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) if they use certain toxic chemicals above threshold levels. This information is stored in a publicly available database known as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).
Currently, TRI reporting from facilities classified under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 211130 code is limited to those facilities that recover sulfur from natural gas (previously classified under the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) 2819 code, Industrial Inorganic chemicals, NEC (recovering sulfur from natural gas)). The rule removes this regulatory limitation on the sector, extending reporting requirements to also include any natural gas processing (NGP) site primarily engaged in the recovery of liquid hydrocarbons from oil and gas field gases. 
The triennial Natural Gas Processing Plant Survey by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA-757 survey) identifies 478 NGP facilities in the lower 48 states as of 2017. EPA identified another 364 NGP facilities in their Risk Management Plan (RMP) database and 10 NGP facilities in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) not already present in EIA-757. Therefore, EPA estimates that the total number of NGP facilities in the U.S. potentially subject to TRI reporting requirements if this sector is added to TRI could be approximately 852 NGP facilities.
EPA estimates that at least 321 NGP facilities in the U.S. would meet the TRI employee threshold (10 full-time employees or equivalent) and manufacture, process, or otherwise use at least one TRI-listed chemical in excess of applicable threshold quantities. Furthermore, based upon information submitted to Canada's NPRI and the 2017 EIA-757 survey of NGP facilities, EPA expects that TRI reporting by U.S. NGP facilities would provide significant release and waste management data.
 Estimated Reporting Activity
The following models are used by EPA to estimate the total number of affected NGP facilities and the number of forms expected under the rule:
 Universe of Affected NGP Facilities (Section ‎‎1.1): EPA identified the universe of all NGP facilities using EIA-757, RMP, and GHGRP. Where possible, EPA used employment data in RMP to identify facilities with 10 or more full time employees that would be expected to report to TRI. To address employment data limitations, several reporting scenarios were developed using inlet natural gas flow rate, and greenhouse gas emission data. Lower Bound Scenario (321 NGP facilities expected to report) and Upper Bound Scenario (489 NGP facilities expected to report) results are presented.
 Potential Reporting from NGP Facilities (Section ‎‎1.2): EPA modeled potential TRI reporting using analogous Canadian National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) reporting from NGP facilities, identifying toxic chemical reported and average number of forms submitted by Canadian NGP facilities (7.81 forms per facility). EPA estimated potential reporting by extrapolating the average number of forms per facility to the universe of affected NGP facilities in each scenario. EPA estimates that NGP facilities manufacture, process, or otherwise use more than 21 different TRI-listed chemicals, including n-hexane, hydrogen sulfide, toluene, benzene, xylene, and methanol. 
Total reporting resulting from the rulemaking is estimated by combining inputs from the models outlined above (Section ‎‎1.3). Upper and Lower Bound Scenario estimates are presented in this economic analysis. As shown in Table ES-2, between 2,263 to 3,447 Forms R and 244 to 372 Forms A are expected from 321 to 489 NGP facilities under the rule.
Table ES-2 Total Estimated Forms and Facilities
                                Total Reporting
                                Lower Bound[1]
                                Upper Bound[2]
                                       
                                  Total Forms
                                 Form R Count
                                 Form A Count
                                  Total Forms
                                 Form R Count
                                 Form A Count
Forms
                                     2,507
                                     2,263
                                      244
                                     3,819
                                     3,447
                                      372
Facilities 
                                      321
                                      489
[1]The Lower Bound is defined by the universe of NGP facilities with 10+ FTEs.
[2]The Upper Bound is defined by the universe of NGP facilities with 10+ FTEs or a natural gas flow capacity greater than 24 MMcf per day.

 Costs of the Rule
Industry Costs
The incremental costs potentially incurred by industry are estimated using the Weighted Average Wage Rate (WAWR), representing the average loaded cost for a mix of Managerial, Technical, and Clerical labor per hour of TRI reporter burden. The WAWR is calculated using data from Bureau of Labor Statistics' Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2021), updated quarterly and is equal to $65.47 (in 2021 dollars).
Table ES-3 presents the total incremental industry burden of the rule in the first year of the rule and in the steady state. Table ES-4 presents annualized incremental industry costs annualized over 10 years at discount rates of 3% and 7%.
Table ES-3 First Year and Steady State Incremental Industry Burden Under the Rule
                                   Scenario
                                  Facilities
                             Total Number of Forms
                                First Year Cost
                               Steady State Cost
                                       
                                       
                                       R
                                       A
                                    Form R
                                    Form A
                                     Total
                                    Form R
                                    Form A
                                     Total
                                  Lower Bound
                                      321
                                     2,263
                                      244
                                  $11,109,081
                                   $736,668
                                  $11,845,749
                                  $5,290,041
                                   $350,788
                                  $5,640,830
                                  Upper Bound
                                      489
                                     3,447
                                      372
                                  $16,921,311
                                  $1,123,073
                                  $18,044,383
                                  $8,057,786
                                   $534,824
                                  $8,592,610

Table ES-4 Annualized Incremental Industry Cost under the Rule
                                   Scenario
                                  Facilities
                             Total Number of Forms
                             Annualized Cost (3%)
                             Annualized Cost (7%)
                                       
                                       
                                       R
                                       A
                                       R
                                       A
                                     Total
                                       R
                                       A
                                     Total
                                  Lower Bound
                                      321
                                     2,263
                                      244
                                  $5,952,341
                                   $394,707
                                  $6,347,048
                                  $6,064,340
                                   $402,134
                                  $6,466,474
                                  Upper Bound
                                      489
                                     3,447
                                      372
                                  $9,066,597
                                   $601,776
                                  $9,668,373
                                  $9,237,194
                                   $613,098
                                  $9,850,292

EPA Costs
As of January 21, 2014, all non-trade secret forms must be submitted electronically. Adjusted for inflation to be in 2021 dollars, EPA estimates that the processing cost for TRI-MEweb submissions is $6.88 per form. Therefore, the total annual incremental form processing burden for EPA associated with Form R and Form A chemical submissions under the rule is estimated to be in the range of $17,248 to $26,275.
Total Costs
The total incremental annualized cost of the rule to industry and EPA is estimated to be approximately $6,364,000 to $9,695,000 with a 3% discount rate and approximately $6,484,000 to $9,877,000 with a 7% discount rate (see ES-5).

Table ES-5 Summary of Total Incremental Costs of the Rule
                                 Cost Category
                                 Lower Bound 
                                  Upper Bound
                                       
                        Total Cost 
(3% Discount Rate, 
                                 2021 Dollars)
                        Total Cost 
(7% Discount Rate, 
                                 2021 Dollars)
                        Total Cost 
(3% Discount Rate, 
                                 2021 Dollars)
                        Total Cost 
(7% Discount Rate, 
                                 2021 Dollars)
 Industry Costs
                                  $6,347,048
                                  $6,466,474
                                  $9,668,373
                                  $9,850,292
 EPA Processing Costs
                                    $17,248
                                    $17,248
                                    $26,275
                                    $26,275
 Total Costs
                                  $6,364,296
                                  $6,483,722
                                  $9,694,648
                                  $9,876,567

 Benefits of the Rule
The benefits of the rule include improved understanding, awareness, and decision-making related to the provision and distribution of information on releases and waste management from natural gas processing facilities. The provision of information can lead to follow-on activities that create additional costs and benefits. In particular, this information can lead to voluntary initiatives by industry to review production processes, set goals for reductions in emissions, and institute "good-neighbor" policies.
EPA has not attempted to monetize the benefits of the rule due to a lack of quantitative information characterizing the range of users and non-users of TRI data and the substantial analytical challenges associated with conducting an analysis that accurately predicts behavioral responses to the provision of information. In addition, the potentially large number of beneficiaries who are not users, or who are otherwise unaware of the data (e.g., the general public), further limits EPA's ability to quantify potential benefits. However, the experience since the first forms were submitted to TRI in 1987 suggests that reporting under EPCRA section 313 has produced real gains in understanding communities' exposure to toxic chemicals. In its report entitled The Toxics Releases Inventory in Action: Media, Government, Business, Community and Academic Uses of TRI, EPA has documented numerous examples of how multiple stakeholders have used TRI data (US EPA, 2013). Moreover, a cursory search on GoogleScholar(TM) reveals thousands of academic articles referencing the Toxics Release Inventory. Adding NGP facilities to the TRI reporting universe, and the subsequent use of information reported by this sector, should provide similar gains in understanding of this particular sector and the chemicals it manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses. 
 -  -  -  - Estimated Number of Forms and Affected Facilities
This chapter updates the estimated number of additional forms and facilities that would result from the rule. These estimates are used to calculate the costs to the regulated community and to EPA (see Chapter ‎2). Currently, TRI reporting from NAICS 211130 is limited to those facilities that recover sulfur from natural gas (previously classified under SIC 2819, Industrial Inorganic chemicals, NEC (recovering sulfur from natural gas)). The rule would expand reporting requirements to SIC 1321, adding any facility primarily engaged in the recovery of liquid hydrocarbons from oil and gas field gases. 
To calculate the burden and cost to the regulated community, the number of reports each facility will submit was estimated based on the quantities of TRI chemicals manufactured, processed, or otherwise used. These analyses rely on existing information gathered from various sources including:
 EIA-757 Natural Gas Processing Plant Survey, U.S. Energy Information Administration
 Risk Management Plan (RMP) Database, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Facility Registry Source (FRS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI), Environment Canada
 Literature review of chemicals used for natural gas processing
The analytical framework used to estimate the universe of affected facilities and expected reporting is described in detail in the following sections:
 In Section ‎‎1.1, the universe of potentially affected facilities is developed.
 In Section ‎‎1.2, the expected distribution of Forms R and Forms A is determined. 
 In Section ‎‎1.3, the expected reporting from the potentially affected universe of facilities is summarized. 

Universe of Affected NGP Facilities 
As described in the 2017 economic analysis (US EPA, 2016a), the Universe of Affected NGP Facilities is defined as:
 Lower Bound Scenario: 10+ full-time employee equivalents (FTEs)
 Upper Bound Scenario: 10+ FTEs or natural gas flow capacity greater than 24 million cubic feet per day (MMcf) per day.
Specifically, these scenarios were defined by:
 Any facility with FTE > 10 from RMP data (both Upper and Lower Bound Scenario)
 Any GHGRP facilities with emissions > 41,500 tons/year (both Upper and Lower Bound Scenarios)
 Any EIA facility with > 24 MMcf capacity per day (Upper Bound Scenario only)
This analysis identified 282 to 444 facilities expected to report to TRI based on 2014 data. Data were refreshed using the most up-to-date data for this five-year update. The most recently available data from EIA-757 were 2017 data. As such, other data sources from that time were used to replicate the universe of affected NGP facilities. This analysis used these datasets to identify NGP facilities. 
 EIA-757 2017 (U.S. EIA, 2017)
 RMP (based on facilities registered December 2017) (U.S. EPA, 2017)
 GHGRP 2017 dataset (U.S. EPA, 2016b)
As the 2017 RMP data provided did not include full facility details, EPA FRS (U.S. EPA, 2018) data were joined to provide the location and ownership information used to match across the other datasets. 
Proxy NGP Reporting from Canada
Canadian National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) reporting from NGP facilities is used as a proxy for potential reporting to TRI from NGP facilities. However, because Canadian NAICS code 211110 - Oil and gas extraction (except oil sands) captures facilities other than NGP facilities, NGP facilities cannot be directly identified from the information contained in NPRI using NAICS code alone. As described in (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016a), 31 facilities with 10+ FTEs reporting to NPRI for 2014 were confirmed as NGP through the ST50A: Gas Processing Plants (Alberta Energy Regulatory, 2016). 
Table ‎1.1 presents the chemical-level count of NPRI forms reported for the TRI-equivalent NGP facilities.
Table ‎1.1 NPRI 2014 Reporting from the TRI-Equivalent NGP Facility Sets
                               TRI Chemical Name
                               NPRI Form Count: 
                                STA50A Matched
n-Hexane
                                      27
Toluene
                                      27
Hydrogen sulfide
                                      25
Cyclohexane
                                      24
Benzene
                                      23
Xylene (mixed isomers)
                                      22
Methanol
                                      20
Ethylene glycol
                                      13
Ethylbenzene
                                      13
Carbonyl sulfide
                                      13
Carbon disulfide
                                      12
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
                                      10
Sulfuric acid (acid aerosols)
                                       4
Propylene (Propene)
                                       2
Diethanolamine
                                       2
Formaldehyde
                                       1
Hydrochloric acid (acid aerosols)
                                       1
Asbestos (friable)
                                       1
Ethylene
                                       0
Aluminum oxide (fibrous forms)
                                       1
1,3-Butadiene
                                       1
All Chemicals
                                      242
Total Facilities
                                      31

Potential TRI Reporting Form Count Estimates
Based on the assumption that the Canadian facilities are suitable proxies for TRI reporting, the chemicals reported in Table ‎1.1 were used to estimate TRI reporting. To estimate the number of TRI forms expected to be submitted by potentially affected facilities, the ratio of the total number of forms for each chemical (Formsn) versus total facilities was assumed to be the same for that of TRI-equivalent NPRI sets and estimated TRI reporting. This relationship is described in the equation below.
FormsnFacilitiesTRI=FormsnFacilitiesNPRI
For each chemical listed in Table ‎1.1, the number of expected TRI forms was calculated by multiplying the ratio of the number of NPRI forms reported divided by all NPRI facilities in the dataset by the number of eligible U.S. NGP facilities (shown in the equation below). Significant reporting for TRI chemicals that are not reported to NPRI by Canadian NGP facilities is not expected. 
Formsn,TRI=FormsnFacilitiesNPRIFaciltiesTRI
An example calculation for toluene (27 toluene NPRI forms from 31 NPRI facilities) for the Lower Bound Scenario (321 TRI facilities) is shown below.
Formstoluene,TRI=27 toluene NPRI forms31 NPRI facilities   321 TRI facilities=280 toluene TRI forms
Estimated number of forms by chemical under the Lower Bound Scenario (321 facilities) and the Upper Bound Scenario (489 facilities) are presented in Table ‎1.2. The total number of forms estimated to be reported by affected facilities ranges from 2,507 to 3,819. 
Table ‎1.2 Estimated Incremental Lower and Upper Bound TRI Reporting from NGP Facilities
                                   Chemical
                            Lower Bound Scenario[1]
                            Upper Bound Scenario[2]
n-Hexane
                                      280
                                      426
Toluene
                                      280
                                      426
Hydrogen sulfide
                                      259
                                      394
Cyclohexane
                                      249
                                      379
Benzene
                                      238
                                      363
Xylene (mixed isomers)
                                      228
                                      347
Methanol
                                      207
                                      315
Ethylene glycol
                                      135
                                      205
Ethylbenzene
                                      135
                                      205
Carbonyl sulfide
                                      135
                                      205
Carbon disulfide
                                      124
                                      189
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
                                      104
                                      158
Sulfuric acid (acid aerosols)
                                      41
                                      63
Propylene (Propene)
                                      21
                                      32
Diethanolamine
                                      21
                                      32
Formaldehyde
                                      10
                                      16
Hydrochloric acid (acid aerosols)
                                      10
                                      16
Asbestos (friable)
                                      10
                                      16
Ethylene
                                       0
                                       0
Aluminum oxide (fibrous forms)
                                      10
                                      16
1,3-Butadiene
                                      10
                                      16
Form Count
                                     2,507
                                     3,819
Facility Count
                                      321
                                      489
[1]The Lower Bound Scenario is defined by the universe of NGP facilities with 10+ FTEs.
[2]The Upper Bound Scenario is defined by the universe of NGP facilities with 10+ FTEs or a natural gas flow capacity greater than 24 MMcf per day.

Distribution of Forms R and Forms A
TRI reporters who use chemicals that meet Alternative Threshold criteria can file a Form A for those chemicals. For more detailed information on the Alternative Threshold and the data and procedures used to estimate the number of Forms A expected to be filed, see the prior economic analysis (US EPA, 2016a).
The estimated percentage of modeled forms meeting the alternate threshold and annual reporting amount are shown in Table ‎1.3. As shown in Table ‎1.3, the overall percentage of Forms A expected from the universe of affected NGP facilities is estimated at 9.7%. To estimate the number of Forms A, this percentage is applied to the total expected form count, resulting in 244  -  372 Forms A and 2,263  -  3,447 Forms R. 
Table ‎1.3 Percent of NGP Facilities Meeting Form A Criteria
                                   Chemical
             % Facilities With 1,000,000 lb or Less of Waste MPOU
            % of Facilities With Less Than 500 lb of Waste Managed
          % of Facilities Potentially Eligible to Report with Form A
n-Hexane
                                      20%
                                      7%
                                      7%
Toluene
                                      61%
                                      0%
                                      0%
Xylene
                                      NA
                                      0%
                                      0%
Ethylbenzene
                                     100%
                                      36%
                                      36%
Benzene
                                      50%
                                      4%
                                      4%
1,2,4 Trimethyl Benzene
                                      NA
                                      45%
                                      45%
Hydrogen Sulfide
                                      1%
                                      0%
                                      0%
Mercury[1]
                                     100%
                                      0%
                                     0%[1]
Carbonyl Sulfide
                                     100%
                                      0%
                                      0%
Carbon Disulfide
                                     100%
                                      8%
                                      8%
Diethanolamine
                                      1%
                                      33%
                                      1%
Formaldehyde[2]
                                     100%
                                     100%
                                     0%[2]
Ethylene Glycol or Methanol
                                     100%
                                      20%
                                      20%
Cyclohexane
                                      38%
                                      28%
                                      28%
All Chemicals
                                       -
                                       -
                                     9.7%
[1] Mercury is a PBT Chemical, Form R is required.
2 Formaldehyde is a combustion byproduct from compressors and will either be managed as waste or released to the environment as a stack air emission. As such, any facility exceeding the TRI reporting threshold of 25,000 lb manufactured will also exceed the 500 lb waste management threshold for Form A.
Summary of Results
Total reporting resulting from the rulemaking is estimated by combining inputs from the methods outlined above. As shown in Table 1.4, 2,263 to 3,447 Forms R and 244 to 372 Forms A from 321 to 489 facilities are expected from the potentially affected universe of NGP facilities using Lower Bound and Upper Bound Scenarios. While some facilities are existing filers in NAICS 211130 due to the existing limited sector coverage (as described in Section ‎ES.1), this analysis has excluded these facilities. As such, all 321 to 489 facilities are expected to be first time filers.
Table 1.4 Estimated Additional Reporting from NGP Facilities
                                Total Reporting
                                Lower Bound[1]
                                Upper Bound[2]
                                       
                                  Total Forms
                                 Form R Count
                                 Form A Count
                                  Total Forms
                                 Form R Count
                                 Form A Count
Forms
                                     2,507
                                     2,263
                                      244
                                     3,189
                                     3,447
                                      372
Facilities 
                                      321
                                      489
[1]The Lower Bound is defined by the universe of NGP facilities with 10+ FTEs.
[2]The Upper Bound is defined by the universe of NGP facilities with 10+ FTEs or a natural gas flow capacity greater than 24 MMcf per day.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Growth in the Natural Gas Sector		
Natural gas production in the United States has grown steadily over the past seven years. As shown in Table ‎1.5, annual production increased from 25.9 MMcf in 2014 to 27.3 MMcf in 2017, representing a roughly 6% increase.
Table ‎1.5 Dry Natural Gas Production (MMcf)
                                       
                                     2014
                                     2015
                                     2016
                                     2017
                                     2018
                                     2019
                                     2020
                                  Production
                                  25,889,605
                                  27,065,460
                                  26,592,115
                                  27,340,115
                                  30,774,274
                                  33,967,557
                                  33,435,778
                               Increase (%)[1] 
                                       
                                    +4.54%
                                    +2.71%
                                    +5.60%
                                    +18.87%
                                    +31.20%
                                    +29.15%
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration
[1] Calculated as the percentage change since 2014, the baseline for the 2016 analysis.

The updated Lower and Upper Bound estimates using the 2017 data or the number of facilities expected to report under the rule are higher than the estimates in the 2016 analysis using 2014 data (282 and 444 vs. 321 and 489, respectively). The growth in natural gas production likely explains the higher number of expected reporting facilities. Given the increased production from 2017 to 2020, more facilities may be expected to be affected than accounted for using the 2017 data. 
Cost Estimates
This chapter presents the estimated incremental industry and EPA costs associated with the rule to add SIC 1321 to the list of industries subject to the EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements. Section ‎2.1 describes the methodology used to estimate incremental industry reporting burden and cost and presents the resulting estimates. Section ‎‎2.2 details the estimated cost to EPA. Section ‎‎2.3 summarizes the total incremental cost of the rule. Section ‎2.4 describes the small entity analysis.
Industry Burden and Cost Estimates
Incremental industry burden and costs associated with the rule are estimated using ratio-based burden methodology (RBBM). RBBM is a simplification of the previous methodology used to estimate reporting burden and cost for TRI reporting (US EPA, 2011). Section ‎‎2.1.1 describes the estimation of industry burden using RBBM. Section ‎‎2.1.2 describes the estimation of incremental industry cost using RBBM. Sections ‎2.1.3 and ‎‎2.1.4 present the resulting incremental industry burden and cost estimates. Section ‎‎2.1.5 presents annualized incremental industry costs.
Estimation of Burden
Reporting activities can be divided into two distinct groups: Form Activities, consisting of rule familiarization, reporter compliance determination, calculations and form completion, and recordkeeping and submission; and Non-Form Activities, consisting of supplier notifications, non-reporter compliance determination, and petitions. Additional details about these activities are described in the economic analysis for the proposed rule (US EPA, 2016a).
The skills required to comply with the 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 used 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 and Form A report (or multiple Form R and Form A reports) 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 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 would assist reporters in making the necessary calculations to comply with section 313 reporting requirements. In addition to technical labor, requirements for managerial and clerical staff are also considered when estimating burden and costs.
Estimating reporting burden using RBBM produces a burden estimate that reflects overall "average" reporting conditions at reporting facilities. The baseline is shown in Equation 2-1 based on the following key parameters:
      Nominal Form R Unit Burden, which reflects the burden incurred by reporters to undertake all activities necessary to file a single Form R (including both facility- and form-level activities). Nominal Form R Unit Burden is set at 35.70516 hours.
      A/R, which is the ratio of Form A burden to Form R burden. A/R is calculated to be 0.615, reflecting the fact that filing a Form A results in a 38.5% (1.00  -  0.615 = 0.385, or 38.5%) reduction in burden per chemical compared to filing a Form R. Nominal Form R Unit Burden is multiplied by A/R to estimate burden associated with reporting a Form A chemical.
      As described in the RBBM (US EPA, 2011), the baseline Non-Form Burden estimate is sufficiently large to include burden associated with future rulemakings, and does not require any maintenance or further updates. As such, all three components of Non-Form Burden (supplier notification, non-reporter compliance, and petitions) are assumed to be constant values, and any incremental Non-Form Burden under the rule is assumed to be zero. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equation 2-1: Steady State Total Burden Calculation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steady State Total Burden=Form R Burden+Form A Burden+Non-Form Burden
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where:	
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Form R Burden = (Number of Forms R) x (Nominal Form R Unit Burden) 
	Form A Burden = (Number of Forms A) x (A/R) x (Nominal Form R Unit Burden)
	Non-Form Burden = Supplier Notifications + Non-Reporter Compliance Determination +
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Petitions

Steady State Total Burden does not incorporate the greater burden incurred by facilities subject to TRI for the first time. RBBM accounts for the higher reporting burden in the first year through the use of the First-Time Filer Factor (FTFf). FTFf -  is calculated to be 2.1, indicating that the burden in the first year of a rule is estimated to be roughly twice the ongoing burden. First Year Total Burden is calculated by multiplying the Steady State Burden by FTFf, as shown in Equation 2-2. In the case of an economic analysis, the first-time filer burden includes both the burden to facilities reporting to TRI for the first time as well as the burden to existing filers in the first year of a policy or regulatory change (US EPA, 2011). 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equation 2-2: First Year Total Burden Calculation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Year Total Burden=Steady State Total BurdenxFTFf 

Estimation of Cost
To estimate total reporting cost, RBBM uses the Weighted Average Wage Rate (WAWR), which is the average loaded cost for a combination of Managerial, Technical, and Clerical labor per hour of TRI reporting burden. WAWR is based on the total cost to employ an individual and includes the cost of salaries, fringe benefits (e.g., 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. 
According to feedback from existing TRI filers, the role of each labor category in the TRI reporting process at the facility level is as follows:
 Managerial staff are responsible for reviewing and certifying the accuracy of all TRI submissions and supporting documentation, including calculations, data sources, and assumptions. Managerial staff are briefed by technical staff once annually regarding TRI submissions and any changes to TRI reporting requirements. All sections of the Form are reviewed by managerial staff at this time.
 Technical staff possess the facility knowledge and familiarity with the TRI program required to understand which processes and activities at the facility should be considered in making threshold determinations for TRI chemicals. Technical staff gather the required data, make threshold determinations, calculate release and waste management quantities, and enter the required data on the TRI form, either by hand or electronically using TRI reporting software. Technical staff are also responsible for briefing managerial staff once annually regarding TRI submissions and any changes to TRI reporting requirements. 
 Clerical staff are responsible for organizing, photocopying, and cataloging all TRI submissions and supporting documentation in accordance with TRI recordkeeping requirements. Note that as reporting facilities are predominantly filing TRI reports electronically, clerical time is minimized.
WAWR is calculated using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on "Wages and Salaries" and "Total Benefits" for three labor categories: Managerial (the "Management, Business, and Financial" occupational category), Technical (the "Professional and Related" occupational category), and Clerical (the "Office and Administrative Support" occupational category) (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016). Total Compensation is equal to the sum of Wages and Salaries and Total Benefits. In previous analyses, a loading factor of 17% was applied to Wages and Salaries to calculate Overhead based on information provided by the chemical industry and chemical industry trade associations (Heiden Associates, 1989). However, more recent guidance from EPA suggests using 20% applied to a wage rate that is already loaded with fringe benefits (US EPA, 2020). The sum of Total Compensation and Overhead is equal to the Total Loaded Hourly Wage Rate. The Total Loaded Hourly Wage Rates for these labor categories are weighted by the relative contribution of each labor category to TRI reporting activities derived from Engineering Studies conducted by Abt Associates (Abt Associates Inc., 2004). The calculation of WAWR is shown in Equation 2-3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equation 2-3: Weighted Average Wage Rate Calculation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAWR=wManagerialxpManagerial+wTechnicalxpTechnical+wClericalxpClerical
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where: 
	wi = Total Loaded Hourly Wage Rate for labor category i, given by the formula:
	Total Loaded Hourly Wage Rate = Wages and Salaries + Total Benefits + (20% x (Wages and Salaries + 	Total Benefits)))
	pi = Proportion of overall reporting burden borne by labor category i
As shown in Table 2.1, WAWR is equal to $65.47 (in 2021 dollars). 
Table 2.‎1 Derivation of Weighted Average Wage Rate (2021 Dollars)
                                   Wage Type
                                  Managerial
                                   Technical
                                   Clerical
Wages and Salaries
                                    $50.46
                                    $39.22
                                    $19.43
Total Benefits
                                    $22.42
                                    $17.06
                                     $8.63
Total Compensation
                                    $72.88
                                    $56.29
                                    $28.06
Overhead
                                    $14.58
                                    $11.26
                                     $5.61
Total Loaded Hourly Wage Rate
                                    $87.46
                                    $67.55
                                    $33.67
Labor Burden Weights
                                     0.03
                                     0.89
                                     0.08
Weighted Average Wage Rate (WAWR)
                                   $65.47[a]
a Individual numbers may not add to the total due to rounding.

Steady State Total Cost and First Year Total Cost are calculated by multiplying the relevant total burden by WAWR, as shown in Equation 2-4 and Equation 2-5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equation 2-4: Steady State Cost Calculation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steady State Total Cost=Steady State Total Burden x WAWR

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equation 2-5: First Year Cost Calculation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First Year Total Cost=First Year Total Burden xWAWR
Total Incremental Industry Burden Estimates
Table 2.2 presents the number of Forms R and Forms A estimated to be filed by facilities potentially affected by the rule, the steady state total burden (calculated using Equation 2-1), and the first year total burden (calculated using Equation 2-2). Non-form incre8,mental burden is assumed to be zero.  Results are presented for the Lower and Upper Bound estimates, as the estimates for all other scenarios fall between these two endpoints.
Table 2.2 Estimated Number of Facilities Expected to Incur Incremental Reporting Burden, Total First Year Burden, and Total Steady State Burden under the Rule
                                   Scenario
                                  Facilities
                             Total Number of Forms
                               First Year Burden
                              Steady State Burden
                                       
                                       
                                       R
                                       A
                                     R[a]
                                     A[b]
                                     Total
                                     R[c]
                                     A[d]
                                     Total
Lower Bound
                                      321
                                     2,263
                                      244
                                    169,682
                                    11,252
                                    180,934
                                    80,801
                                     5,358
                                    86,159
Upper Bound 
                                      489
                                     3,447
                                      372
                                    258,459
                                    17,154
                                    275,613
                                    123,076
                                     8,169
                                    131,245
[a]Calculated as the product of: (1) the total number of Forms R, (2) the Nominal Form R Unit Burden of 35.70516, and (3) the First-Time Filer Factor of 2.1.
[b]Calculated as the product of: (1) the total number of Forms R, (2) the Nominal Form R Unit Burden of 35.70516, (3) the A/R ratio of 0.615, and (4) the First-Time Filer Factor of 2.1.
[c]Calculated as the product of: (1) the total number of Forms R and (2) the Nominal Form R Unit Burden of 35.70516.
[d]Calculated as the product of: (1) the total number of Forms R, (2) the Nominal Form R Unit Burden of 35.70516, and (3) the A/R ratio of 0.615.

Under the rule, industry is estimated to incur approximately 181,000 to 276,000 burden hours in the first year and approximately 86,000 to 131,000 burden hours in the steady state.
Total Incremental Industry Cost Estimates
To estimate the incremental cost of the rule, total first year and total steady state industry incremental reporting burden is multiplied by the WAWR (see Equation 2-4 and Equation 2-5); the first year and steady state incremental costs are presented in Table 2.3 for the Lower and Upper Bound estimates.
Table 2.3 First Year and Steady State Incremental Industry Cost under the Rule
                                   Scenario
                                  Facilities
                             Total Number of Forms
                                First Year Cost
                               Steady State Cost
                                       
                                       
                                       R
                                       A
                                       R
                                       A
                                     Total
                                       R
                                       A
                                     Total
Lower Bound
                                      321
                                     2,263
                                      244
                                  $11,109,081
                                   $736,668
                                  $11,845,749
                                  $5,290,041
                                   $350,788
                                  $5,640,830
Upper Bound
                                      489
                                     3,447
                                      372
                                  $16,921,311
                                  $1,123,072
                                  $18,044,383
                                  $8,057,786
                                   $534,824
                                  $8,592,610

Under the rule, industry is estimated to incur incremental costs approximately $11,846,000 to $18,044,000 in the first year and approximately $5,641,000 to $8,593,000 in the steady state.
Annualized Incremental Cost Estimates
The total incremental cost to industry associated with the rule is annualized over a ten-year period using Equation 2-6 below. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equation 2-6: Cost Annualization
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Cost=Present Value of Costs x r x 1+r101+r10-1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where: 
	Present Value of Costs=t=1t=10Costtx11+rt
	and r = 3% or 7%
Ten years is assumed to be a reasonable timeframe for annualization, as greater than 40% of TRI facilities reported every year from reporting year 2005 to reporting year 2014. The annualized cost reflects both the first-year costs and steady-state costs presented in Section ‎‎2.1.4. Industry costs are annualized both at a 3% discount rate and a 7% discount rate for the Lower and Upper Bound estimates, resulting in total annualized Form R costs ranging from $5,952,341 to $9,066,597 (3%) and from $6,064,340 to $9,237,194 (7%), and total annualized Form A costs ranging from $394,707 to $601,776 (3%) and from $402,134 to $613,098 (7%). Total annualized industry costs are presented in Table 2.4.

      Table 2.4 Total Annualized Incremental Industry Cost under the Rule
                                   Scenario
                                  Facilities
                             Total Number of Forms
                             Annualized Cost (3%)
                             Annualized Cost (7%)
                                       
                                       
                                       R
                                       A
                                       R
                                       A
                                     Total
                                       R
                                       A
                                     Total
Lower Bound
                                      321
                                     2,263
                                      244
                                  $5,952,341
                                   $394,707
                                  $6,347,048
                                  $6,064,340
                                   $402,134
                                  $6,466,474
Upper Bound
                                      489
                                     3,447
                                      372
                                  $9,066,597
                                   $601,776
                                  $9,668,373
                                  $9,237,194
                                   $613,098
                                  $9,850,292

EPA Cost Estimates
For the TRI program in general, EPA incurs burden and costs to process TRI forms in five categories of activities: data processing, outreach and training, information dissemination, policy and petitions, and compliance and enforcement. The estimate of EPA burden and costs is separated into a fixed component and a variable component. Activities and expenses that are not greatly affected by marginal changes in reporting quantities are considered fixed costs. These activities and expenses include rent for the EPCRA Reporting Center, development costs for data access tools, compliance assistance measures, and other activities and expenses listed above. There are no additional fixed costs to the Agency associated with the rule. Activities and expenses that vary with marginal changes in the number of reports submitted are considered variable costs. The primary variable cost analyzed in this analysis is the cost of processing forms.
As of January 21, 2014, all non-trade secret forms must be submitted electronically. After adjusting for inflation to 2021 dollars, EPA estimates that the processing cost for TRI-MEweb submissions is $6.88 per form (E-mail communication with the TRI Data Processing Center, 2014). Therefore, the total form processing burden for EPA associated with Form R and Form A chemical submissions under the rule ranges from estimates of $17,248 to $26,275 depending on the scenario. 
Total Incremental Costs
As shown in Table 2.5, the estimated total incremental cost of the rule -- the sum of annualized industry costs and Agency costs -- ranges from approximately $6,364,000 to $9,695,000 with a 3% discount rate and approximately $6,484,000 to $9,877,000 with a 7% discount rate.
           Table 2.5 Summary of Total Incremental Costs of the Rule
                                 Cost Category
                                 Lower Bound 
                                  Upper Bound
                                       
                        Total Cost 
(3% Discount Rate, 
                                 2021 Dollars)
                        Total Cost 
(7% Discount Rate, 
                                 2021 Dollars)
                        Total Cost 
(3% Discount Rate, 
                                 2021 Dollars)
                        Total Cost 
(7% Discount Rate, 
                                 2021 Dollars)
 Industry Costs
                                  $6,347,048
                                  $6,466,474
                                  $9,668,373
                                  $9,850,292
 EPA Processing Costs
                                    $17,248
                                    $17,248
                                    $26,275
                                    $26,275
 Total Costs
                                  $6,364,296
                                  $6,483,722
                                  $9,694,648
                                  $9,876,567

Small Entity Analysis
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, including businesses, nonprofit organizations, and governments, and, in some instances, to examine alternatives to the regulations. 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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
The RFA uses the definition of a "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 the industry affected by the rule (U.S. Small Business Administration, 2016). SBA's small business size definitions vary by industry. For the Natural Gas Liquid Extraction sector affected by the rule (NAICS 211130), the small business threshold is 1,250 employees.
To measure potential impacts on small parent entities that own NGP facilities affected by the proposed rule, the 2016 analysis (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2016a) calculated annualized cost impact percentages, defined as the annualized parent entity compliance cost divided by the annual parent entity revenue. The annualized parent entity compliance cost was calculated as the annualized cost per form multiplied by the number of forms per facility and the number of facilities per parent entity. The 2016 economic analysis found that, among the small parent entities identified, all had annualized cost impacts of less than 1%. As the fundamentals of that analysis apply here as well, the rule is not expected to significantly impact a substantial number of small entities.
Benefits
In enacting EPCRA and the PPA, Congress recognized the significant benefits of providing information on the presence, releases, and waste management of toxic chemicals. The TRI program has proven to be one of the most powerful forces in empowering the federal government, state and local government, 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 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 progress can be measured by all interested or affected stakeholders.
The information reported to TRI increases community knowledge and awareness of quantities of toxic chemicals released to the environment, and potential pathways of exposure to those chemicals. This knowledge:
 Improves scientific understanding of the health and environmental risks of toxic chemicals;
 Allows the public to make informed decisions on where to work and live;
 Enhances the ability of corporate leaders and purchasers to more accurately gauge a facility's potential environmental liabilities;
 Provides reporting facilities with information that can be used to save money as well as reduce emissions; and
 Assists federal, state, and local authorities in making better decisions on acceptable levels of toxic chemicals in the environment. 
Making TRI information available to the public may provide incentives for facilities to reduce TRI chemical releases. For example, the public availability of release information may induce facilities to reduce releases when such changes would not be in the facility's interest if release information were not in the public domain. Potential social benefits derived from voluntary follow-on activities include decreased costs of waste treatment and disposal, lower probability of accidental releases and lower clean-up costs in the event of such releases, reduced contamination of natural resources, improved air and water quality, and reduced risks to human health. Such social benefits are partially offset by the social costs to implement the changes, such as using flare gas recovery recycling and installing vapor recovery systems. The net social benefits of the information provided by the rule and the possible follow-on activities equal the difference between the total benefits and the total costs of the activities leading to reduced releases. 
The potential benefits of additional TRI reporting can be understood by examining the ways in which different groups of affected stakeholders -- consumers, industry, governments, and the general public -- use TRI data. NGP facilities may find opportunities for waste reduction and cost savings through the process of obtaining reporting data. Non-federal governments may use the data in lieu of, or in support of, their own environmental protection activities. The general public may use the data to make more informed decisions about where they work and live and to enter into constructive dialogue with NGP facilities in their communities. Non-users of the TRI data benefit from its public provision whenever others' use of the data results in improvements in environmental quality.
Some examples of the ways in which various stakeholders have utilized TRI data include:
 Use of the Data by Community and Public Interest Groups: Communities use TRI data to begin dialogues with local facilities and to encourage them to reduce their emissions, develop pollution prevention plans, and improve safety measures. Public interest groups use the data to reeducate the public about toxic chemical emissions and potential risk, and in environmental justice activities.
 Use of the Data by Education and Research Institutions: TRI data are being used in many environmental education programs, particularly at the high school and university levels. Students learn about toxic chemical releases, the potential health and environmental effects of those releases, pollution prevention activities and opportunities, and the social and political aspects of environmental protection. Some organizations also are conducting educational outreach programs using TRI data.
 Use of the Data by the Financial and Business Communities: Investment analysts use TRI data to provide recommendations to clients seeking to make environmentally sound investments. Insurance companies look to TRI data as one indication of potential environmental liabilities. Consultants and others use the data to identify business opportunities, such as marketing pollution prevention and control technologies to TRI reporting facilities. Demand for environmental performance information by investors, insurance companies, and the public has led many companies to develop environmental annual reports similar to annual reports on financial information traditionally prepared for investors.
 Industry Use of TRI Data: TRI data have been used by industry for activities such as developing waste reduction strategies and improving companies' understanding of their own production processes. Industry also uses TRI submission information to show environmental progress and as a starting point for engaging with communities.
 Government Use of TRI Data: Government organizations such as the media-specific and core offices at EPA, EPA Regional offices, and other national, state, and local government agencies routinely use TRI data. TRI data have been used to: develop inspection targeting and enforcement tools; analyze and prioritize long-term trends in waste minimization; identify candidates for the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; coordinate environmental data internationally through agreements and organizations such as the Commission for Environmental Cooperation; and set priorities and allocate increasingly scarce environmental protection resources to the most pressing problems.
EPA has not attempted to monetize the benefits of the rule due to a lack of quantitative information characterizing the range of users and non-users of TRI data and the substantial analytical challenges associated with accurately predicting behavioral responses to the provision of information (Moody & Walsh, 1999; Palm, 1981). The analysis was not able to consider variations in quality or other attributes of TRI data access methods. The potentially large number of beneficiaries who are not users or who are otherwise unaware of the data (e.g., the general public) further limits EPA's ability to quantify potential benefits.
The experience since the first forms were submitted to TRI in 1987 suggests that reporting under EPCRA section 313 has produced real gains in understanding communities' exposure to toxic chemicals. In its report The Toxics Releases Inventory in Action: Media, Government, Business, Community and Academic Uses of TRI, EPA has documented numerous examples of how multiple stakeholders have used TRI data (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2013). Moreover, a cursory search on Google Scholar(TM) reveals thousands of academic articles referencing the Toxics Release Inventory. Adding NGP facilities to the TRI reporting universe, and the subsequent use of information reported by this sector, should provide similar incremental gains in understanding of this particular sector and the chemicals it manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses.
Paperwork Burden and Other Analyses
In addition to the cost analysis presented in Chapter ‎2, several other types of impacts are important to consider in evaluating the effects of a regulation. This chapter presents the incremental impact of the rule on:
          Paperwork burden, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act;
          State and local governments, as required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act;
          Federalism, as required by Executive Order 13132 - Federalism;
          Tribal governments, as required by Executive Order 13175 - Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments;
          Children, as required by Executive Order 13045 - Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks; and
          Environmental Justice, as required by Executive Order 12898 - Environmental Justice.
Paperwork Burden Analysis
This section presents a summary of the burden and associated costs for the respondents associated with the requirements of the rule. Table ‎4.1 presents the first year and steady state burden of the rule on industry. See Chapter ‎1 for more information on the procedures and data used to estimate the number of facilities affected and the number of forms per facility filed. See Chapter ‎‎2 for more information on how total costs were calculated. 
Table ‎4.1 First Year and Steady State Incremental Industry Cost under the Rule
                                   Scenario
                                  Facilities
                             Total Number of Forms
                                First Year Cost
                               Steady State Cost
                                       
                                       
                                       R
                                       A
                                    Form R
                                    Form A
                                     Total
                                    Form R
                                    Form A
                                     Total
                                  Lower Bound
                                      321
                                     2,263
                                      244
                                  $11,109,081
                                   $736,668
                                  $11,845,749
                                  $5,290,041
                                   $350,788
                                  $5,640,830
                                  Upper Bound
                                      489
                                     3,447
                                      372
                                  $16,921,311
                                  $1,123,072
                                  $18,044,383
                                  $8,057,786
                                   $534,824
                                  $8,592,610

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments, and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with "Federal mandates" that might result in expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (when adjusted annually for inflation) in any one year. This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531 - 1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.
Executive Order 13132 - Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), directs federal agencies to consider whether a rule has federalism implications (i.e., whether it has substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132). 
EPA has concluded that this action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This action would codify a definition of a data element already required of facilities that submit annual reports under section 313 of EPCRA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
Executive Order 13175 - Tribal Implications
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000), directs federal agencies to consider whether a rule has tribal implications (i.e., whether it has substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes). This rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian tribal governments, nor would it change the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes. This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. 
Executive Order 13045 - Protection of Children
Under Executive Order 13045, a regulation must be reviewed if the regulatory action is economically significant and concerns an environmental health risk or safety risk that may disproportionately affect children. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. It is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866.
Executive Orders 12898 and 14008  -  Environmental Justice
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes Federal executive policy on Environmental Justice (EJ). Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make EJ part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. Executive Order 14008 (86 FR 19, February 1, 2021) reiterates a commitment to securing EJ and, among other provisions, directs agencies to make achieving EJ a part of their missions by developing programs, policies, and activities to address the cumulative impacts of environmental, health, and climate-related issues in disadvantaged communities. 
This regulatory action is a procedural change and does not have any direct impact on human health or the environment. However, there may be facilities added to the TRI reporting universe based on the addition of NGP facilities. For communities living near these facilities, there is the potential for new information about toxic chemical releases and waste management practices occurring in those communities, which would be available through the TRI reporting data. 
To better understand how many people live near these facilities and the demographics of those communities, EPA used the EJSCREEN environmental justice screening and mapping tool (US EPA, 2021) to aggregate information about population demographics. Latitude and longitude information was available for all but seven facilities included in the Upper Bound estimate of the universe of affected NGP facilities. For those 482 facilities, EPA summarized population demographics using a three-mile radius around each facility. A three-mile radius is consistent with other recent EPA efforts to help identify a community's potential vulnerability to environmental and health concerns. 
EJSCREEN uses information about the population living in each Census block group contained within the three-mile radius to estimate the total population and related demographic indicator information. There are over 200,000 Census block groups in the U.S., and each contains between 600 and 3,000 people. Multiple block groups make up a Census tract, and multiple Census tracts make up a county. EJSCREEN and other tools often use the 80[th] national percentile for demographic indicators as a threshold for identifying a community where there are potential EJ considerations. 
In total, there are approximately 125,000 and 1.4 million people living within one and three miles of at least one of these facilities, respectively. Information about the number of these facilities exceeding the 80[th] national percentile value for demographic indicators is included below. These facilities are located in communities where there are potential EJ considerations.
Table ‎4.2 Demographic Information Around NGP Facilities Using EJSCREEN Data
                             Demographic Indicator
                                  Description
                    Facilities Exceeding 80[th] Percentile
                                       
                                       
                                One-Mile Radius
                               Three-Mile Radius
                                       
                                       
                                    Number
                                  Percent[a]
                                    Number
                                  Percent[a]
                                  Low Income
The percent of individuals in households where the household income is less than or equal to twice the federal "poverty level."
                                      42
                                     8.7%
                                      41
                                     8.5%
                                People of Color
The percent of individuals who list their racial status as a race other than white alone and/or list their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino.
                                      20
                                     4.1%
                                      31
                                     6.4%
                        Less than High School Education
The percent of people age 25 or older whose education is short of a high school diploma.
                                      87
                                     18.0%
                                      134
                                     27.8%
                             Linguistic Isolation
The percent of people living in a household in which all members age 14 years and over speak a non-English language and also speak English less than "very well" (have difficulty with English).
                                      34
                                     7.1%
                                      67
                                     14.0%
                            Population under Age 5
The percent of people under the age of 5.
                                      69
                                     14.3%
                                      66
                                     13.7%
                            Population over Age 64
The percent of people over the age of 64.
                                      65
                                     13.5%
                                      90
                                     18.7%
                               Demographic Index
Average of the Low Income and People of Color indicators.
                                      23
                                     4.8%
                                      32
                                     6.6%
[a]Calculated as the percent of the 482 NGP facilities from the Upper Bound Scenario with latitude and longitude data.

References
Alberta Energy Regulatory. (2016). ST50A Gas Processing Plants (by Gas Plant Reporting Facility ID). Alberta Energy Regulator. https://www.aer.ca/providing-information/data-and-reports/statistical-reports/st50
Moody, D., & Walsh, P. (1999). Measuring the Value of Information: An Asset Valuation Approach. European Conference on Information Systems.
Palm, R. (1981). Public Response to Earthquake Hazard Information. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 71(3), 398 - 399.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2021). Employer Costs for Employee Compensation -- March 2021. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecec_06172021.htm
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). (2017). 757 Natural Gas Processing Plant Survey. https://www.eia.gov/survey/#eia-757
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). TRI Regulatory Development Branch: Revising TRI Burden to Ratio-Based Methodology (p. 164). https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/136321RatioBasedMethodology.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). The Toxics Release Inventory in Action: Media, Government, Business, Community and Academic Uses of TRI Data. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/tri_in_action_final_report_july_2013.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016a). Economic Analysis of the Proposed Addition of Natural Gas Processing Facilities to the Toxics Release Inventory. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-TRI-2016-0390-0003
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016b, August 18). GHGRP Reported Data [Data and Tools]. https://www.epa.gov/ghgreporting/ghgrp-reported-data
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2017). Risk Management Plan (RMP) Rule [Collections and Lists]. https://www.epa.gov/rmp
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Facility Registry Service (FRS) [Collections and Lists]. https://www.epa.gov/frs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2020). EPA Valuing Time Handbook -- 2020. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/documents/epa_handbook_on_valuing_changes_in_time_use_121520_final_508.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2021). EJSCREEN Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool. https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen
U.S. Small Business Administration. (2016, February 26). Table of Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes. https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards

