[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 133 (Thursday, July 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37364-37367]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15034]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-92364; File No. SR-MIAX-2021-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend Fees for Purge Ports

July 9, 2021.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 1, 2021, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC (``MIAX''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Options Fee
Schedule (the ``Fee Schedule'') to amend the MIAX Options Fee Schedule
(the ``Fee Schedule'') to amend the fees for Purge Ports.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Fee Schedule, Section 5(d)(ii), footnote 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://www.miaxoptions.com/rule-filings, at MIAX's principal
office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange currently provides Market Makers \4\ the option to
purchase Purge Ports to assist in their quoting activity. Purge Ports
provide Market Makers with the ability to send quote purge messages to
the MIAX System.\5\ Purge Ports are not capable of sending or receiving
any other type of messages or information. The use of Purge Ports is
completely optional and no rule or regulation requires that a Market
Maker utilize them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``Market Makers'' refers to Lead Market Makers
(``LMMs''), Primary Lead Market Makers (``PLMMs''), and Registered
Market Makers (``RMMs'') collectively. See Exchange Rule 100.
    \5\ The term ``System'' means the automated trading system used
by the Exchange for the trading of securities. See Exchange Rule
100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposes to amend the monthly fee for Purge Ports
under Section 5(d)(ii) of the Fee Schedule. Unlike other options
exchanges that provide purge port functionality and charge fees on a
per port basis,\6\ the Exchange offers Purge Ports as a package and
provides Market Makers with the option to receive up to two (2) Purge
Ports per matching engine \7\ to which it connects via a Full Service
MEI Port.\8\ The Exchange currently has twenty-four (24) matching
engines which means Market Makers may receive up to forty-eight (48)
Purge Ports for a single monthly fee. The Exchange currently assesses
Market Makers a fee of $1,500 per month, regardless of the number of
Purge Ports allocated to the Market Maker. Assuming a Market Maker
connects to all twenty-four (24) matching engines during a month, with
two Purge Ports per matching engine, this results in a cost of $31.25
per Purge Port ($1,500 divided by 48) for the month. This fee has been
unchanged since the Exchange introduced Purge Ports in 2017.\9\ The
Exchange now proposes to increase the fee to $7,500 per month. Market
Makers will continue to receive two (2) Purge Ports to each matching
engine to which they are connected for the single flat monthly fee.
Assuming a Market Maker connects to all twenty-four (24) matching
engines during the month, with two Purge Ports per matching engine,
this would result in a cost of $156.25 per Purge Port ($7,500 divided
by 48).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Cboe BXZ Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'') Options Fee Schedule,
Options Logical Port Fees, Purge Ports ($750 per purge port per
month); Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``EDGX'') Options Fee Schedule,
Options Logical Port Fees, Purge Ports ($750 per purge port per
month); Cboe Exchange, Inc. (``Cboe'') Fee Schedule ($850 per purge
port per month). In Cboe's Purge Ports Frequently Asked Questions,
Cboe recommends that at least two purge ports be obtained per
exchange for redundancy purposes. See https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/features/Cboe_USO_PurgePortsFAQs.pdf. See also Nasdaq
GEMX, Options 7, Pricing Schedule, Section 6.C.(3). Nasdaq GEMX, LLC
(``Nasdaq GEMX'') assesses its members $1,250 per SQF Purge Port per
month, subject to a monthly cap of $17,500 for SQF Purge Ports and
SQF Ports, applicable to market makers.
    \7\ A ``matching engine'' is a part of the MIAX electronic
system that processes options quotes and trades on a symbol-by-
symbol basis. Some matching engines will process option classes with
multiple root symbols, and other matching engines will be dedicated
to one single option root symbol. A particular root symbol may only
be assigned to a single designated matching engine. A particular
root symbol may not be assigned to multiple matching engines. See
Fee Schedule, Section 5(d)(ii), note 29.
    \8\ Full Service MEI Ports provide Market Makers with the
ability to send Market Maker quotes, eQuotes, and quote purge
messages to the MIAX System. Full Service MEI Ports are also capable
of receiving administrative information. Market Makers are limited
to two Full Service MEI Ports per matching engine. See Fee Schedule,
Section 5(d)(ii), note 27.
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81252 (July 28,
2017), 82 FR 36172 (August 3, 2017) (SR-MIAX-2017-36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has historically undercharged for Purge Port as
compared to other options exchanges \10\ because the Exchange provides
Purge Ports as a package for a single monthly fee. As described above,
this package includes two Purge Ports for each of the Exchange's
twenty-four (24) matching engines. The Exchange understands other
options exchanges charge fees on a per port basis. The proposed monthly
fee increase for Purge Ports would bring the Exchange's fees more in
line with that of other options exchanges, while maintaining a
competitive fee structure for Purge Port.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation Date
    The proposed fee changes will become effective on July 1, 2021.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule
is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act \11\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \12\ in
particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among Exchange Members and
issuers and other persons using any facility or system which the
Exchange operates or controls. The Exchange also believes the proposal
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \13\ in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open
market and a national market system, and, in general to protect
investors and the public interest and is not designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable,
equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because, for the
flat fee, the Exchange provides each Market Maker two Purge Ports for
each matching engine to which that Market Maker is connected. The
Exchange currently has twenty-four (24) matching engines. Accordingly,
each Market Maker that is connected to all twenty-four (24) matching
engines receives a total of forty-eight (48) Purge Ports for the
existing flat fee of $1,500 per month. On a per Purge Port basis, that
equals $31.25 per Purge Port ($1,500 divided by 48). This flat fee has
remain unchanged since the Exchange introduced Purge Ports in 2017.\14\
The Exchange believes that increasing the flat monthly fee for Purge
Port (regardless of the number of matching engines to which it connects
and consequently regardless of the number of Purge Ports allocated to
the Market Maker) is equitable, reasonable, and competitive with the
fees charged by other exchanges that offer comparable purge port
services. The Exchange believes that most such exchanges charge per
port for each match engine. For example, BXZ charges a monthly fee of
$750 per purge port per month, EDGX charges a monthly fee of $750 per
purge port, Cboe charges a monthly fee of $850 per purge port,\15\ and
Nasdaq GEMX assesses its members $1,250 per SQF Purge Port per
month.\16\ When calculated on a per purge port basis, each of the above
exchanges charge monthly per purge port fees that are higher than the
proposed $7,500 per month ($156.25 per Purge Port).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 9.
    \15\ See supra note 6. Cboe further recommends that at least two
purge ports be obtained per exchange for redundancy purposes. See
https://cdn.cboe.com/resources/features/Cboe_USO_PurgePortsFAQs.pdf.
This guidance applies to Cboe's affiliate exchanges, BZX and EDGX.
    \16\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed,
there are currently 16 registered options exchanges that trade options.
Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has
more than 15% of the market share and currently the Exchange represents
only approximately

6.76% of the market share.\17\ The Commission has repeatedly expressed
its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in
determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets.
Particularly, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the
importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and,
also, recognized that current regulation of the market system ``has
been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its
broader forms that are most important to investors and listed
companies.'' \18\ The Exchange is not aware of any evidence that a
market share of approximately 6-7% provides the Exchange with anti-
competitive pricing power. If the Exchange were to attempt to establish
unreasonable pricing, then no market participant would purchase Purge
Ports, and existing market participants would cease paying for Purge
Ports, which are optional services offered by the Exchange. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\19\ in that it provides for the equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among Members and
other persons using any facility or system which the Exchange operates
or controls because Purge Ports are optional functionality offered to
Market Makers. The Exchange further believes the proposed fees are
reasonable as the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are lower on
a per port basis than the fees assessed by other exchanges that provide
similar functionality.\20\ Indeed, if the Exchange's proposed fees that
are excessively higher than established fees for similar services on
other exchanges, then the proposed fees would simply serve to reduce
demand for the Exchange's services, which as noted, is entirely
optional. The Exchange notes that Market Makers are not required by
rule or regulation to purchase Purge Ports. It is entirely a business
decision of each Market Maker that determines to purchase Purge Ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See MIAX's ``The Market at a Glance'', available at https://www.miaxoptions.com/ (last visited June 30, 2021).
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496, 37499 (June 29, 2005) (``Regulation NMS Adopting
Release'').
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \20\ See supra note 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Market Makers are not precluded from using the purge
messages provided by either the MEI protocol or the cancel messages
provided by the FIX protocol. Under the MEI protocol, Market Makers may
request that all quotations for all underlyings, or for a specific
underlying, be removed, and that new inbound quotations for all
underlyings, or specific underlyings, be blocked. Under the FIX
protocol, Electronic Exchange Members (``EEMs'') may also request that
all, or a subset, of orders for an MPID, or all Day or GTC orders for
an MPID, on the requesting session, be canceled. As such, a dedicated
Purge Port is not required or necessary. Rather, Purge Ports were
specially developed as an optional service to further assist firms in
effectively managing risk.
    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
exchanges offer various types of access services as a means to
facilitate the trading activities of Members and other participants. As
Purge Ports provide voluntary risk management functionality, excessive
fees would simply serve to reduce demand for this optional product. The
Exchange also believes that the proposed Purge Port fees are not
unfairly discriminatory because they will apply uniformly to all Market
Makers that choose to use dedicated Purge Ports. Purge Ports are
completely voluntary and, as they relate solely to optional risk
management functionality, no Market Maker is required or under any
regulatory obligation to utilize them. All Market Makers that
voluntarily select the Purge Port service will be charged the same
amount for the same respective services.
    As Purge Ports are only available for purging and not for
activities such as order or quote entry, the Purge Ports are not
designed to permit unfair discrimination but rather are designed to
enable Market Makers to manage their quoting risk and meet their
heightened quoting obligations that other market participants are not
subject to, which, in turn, benefits all market participants. The
Exchange believes the proposed fee increase will continue to encourage
better use of dedicated Purge Ports. This may, concurrent with the
ports that carry quotes and other information necessary for market
making activities, enable more efficient, as well as fair and
reasonable, use of Market Makers' resources. The Exchange also believes
that the proposed fee increase is non-discriminatory because the
proposed Purge Port fees will apply uniformly to all Market Makers.
Purge Ports are completely voluntary and no Market Maker is required or
under any regulatory obligation to utilize them. All Market Makers that
voluntarily request this service will be charged the same amount for
the same service. Separately, the Exchange is not aware of any reason
why market participants could not simply drop their Purge Ports if the
Exchange were to establish unreasonable prices for its Purge Ports
that, in the determination of such market participant, did not make
business or economic sense for such market participant. No options
market participant is required by rule, regulation, or competitive
forces to utilize Purge Ports. As evidence of the fact that market
participants can and do drop their access to exchanges based on non-
transaction fee pricing, R2G Services LLC (``R2G'') filed a comment
letter after BOX's proposed rule changes to increase its connectivity
fees (SR-BOX-2018-24, SR-BOX-2018-37, and SR-BOX-2019-04). The R2G
Letter stated, ``[w]hen BOX instituted a $10,000/month price increase
for connectivity; we had no choice but to terminate connectivity into
them as well as terminate our market data relationship. The cost
benefit analysis just didn't make any sense for us at those new
levels.'' Similarly, the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX Emerald, LLC
(``MIAX Emerald''), noted in a recent filing that once MIAX Emerald
issued a notice that it was adopting Trading Permit fees, among other
non-transaction fees, one Member dropped its access to the Exchange as
a result of those fees.\21\ Accordingly, these examples show that if an
exchange sets too high of a fee for non-transaction fees for its
relevant marketplace, market participants can choose to no longer
access that particular exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 91033 (February 1,
2021), 86 FR 8455 (February 5, 2021) (SR-EMERALD-2021-03).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any
burden intra-market competition because the use of Purge Ports is an
optional service offered by the Exchange and no Market Maker is
required or under any regulatory obligation to utilize them. The
Exchange offers Purge Ports as a package and provides Market Makers
with the option to receive up to two (2) Purge Ports per matching
engine to which it connects via a Full Service MEI Port. The Exchange
currently has twenty-four (24) matching engines which means Market
Makers may receive up to forty-eight (48) Purge Ports for a single
monthly fee. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change
represents a significant departure from previous pricing offered

by the Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors.
Additionally, Market Makers may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing
if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly,
the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the
ability of Market Makers or competing venues to maintain their
competitive standing in the financial markets.
    The Exchange believes that fees for the proposed Purge Ports and
connectivity, in general, are constrained by the robust competition for
order flow among exchanges and non-exchange markets. Further, excessive
fees for connectivity, including Purge Port fees, would serve to impair
an exchange's ability to compete for order flow rather than burdening
competition. The Exchange also does not believe the proposed rule
change would impact intramarket competition as it would apply to all
Market Makers equally.
    The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed rule change
will result in any burden on inter-market competition that is not
necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The
Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, and as discussed
above, its ability to price access and ports is constrained by
competition among exchanges and third parties. There are 15 other U.S.
options exchanges, which the Exchange must consider in its pricing
discipline in order to compete for market participants. In this
competitive environment, market participants are free to choose which
competing exchange to use to satisfy their business needs. As a result,
the Exchange believes this proposed rule change permits fair
competition among national securities exchanges. Accordingly, the
Exchange does not believe its proposed fee changes impose any burden on
competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\22\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \23\ thereunder.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change,
the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such
action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether
the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \23\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-MIAX-2021-29 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2021-29. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MIAX-2021-29 and should be submitted on
or before August 5, 2021.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15034 Filed 7-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


2 1 CHAPTER TWO METHODOLOGY For the final rule, EPA must estimate the burden and cost savings, as well as other impacts associated with the burden reduction options considered in Phase 1. This chapter presents the methodologies used to estimate: 1) the unit time facilities would save under Phase 1, 2) the unit cost savings experienced by TRI reporters, and 3) the impacts to small entities. Total reporting burden and cost savings are presented in Chapter Three. The impacts of the final rule are discussed in Chapter Four.

2.1 ESTIMATION OF UNIT BURDEN SAVINGS The final Phase 1 rule will reduce reporting burden by removing or modifying 10 existing Form R data elements, of which 4 are also Form A elements. To estimate the burden savings, EPA considered the time saved for each data element. Currently approved OMB form completion estimates, however, reflect the total time required by facilities to complete the full Form R, not the time required to complete the individual data elements that make up the form. The OMB approved reporting estimates are presented in Table 2 1.

TABLE 2 1 OMB APPROVED TIME ESTIMATES FOR FORM R CALCULATIONS/ FORM COMPLETION Activity Management Technical Clerical Total Hours First year Calculations and report completion  non PBT chemicals 11.32 24.11 1.62 37.04 Calculations and report completion  PBT chemicals 20.90 45.20 2.90 69.00 Subsequent years Calculations and report completion  non PBT chemicals 7.70 16.40 1.10 25.20 Calculations and report completion  PBT chemicals 14.30 30.80 2.00 47.10 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the row. Source: Rice, Cody Memo: Terms of Clearance for TRI ICR Renewal. Jan 20, 2004. An OMB approved estimate for first time non PBT filers does not exist; however, the RIA for the original Section 313 rulemaking estimated the time required to complete a report in the first year to be 147% of the time required in subsequent years. This factor was applied to the OMB approved subsequent year non PBT report completion times to calculate the first year non PBT completion times. ( U. S. EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis in Support of Final Rulemaking under Section 313 of Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 ( 1988). 2 2 To develop data element specific burden estimates, EPA developed, using best engineering judgement, what it believes are realistic modeled estimates of the time required to fill out each data element on the Form R. These modeled estimates are based on the activities TRI reporters undertake at a typical facility to complete each data element, and are broken into time estimates for technical, managerial, and clerical staff. The derivation of these data element specific burden estimates can be found in a memo from Hilary Eustace, David Cooper, and Susan Day of Abt Associates Inc. to Paul Borst, US EPA entitled TRI Reporting Burden Estimates ( July 16, 2004). In the data element specific reporting burden derivation, modeled data element burden estimates are scaled up to the current OMB approved burden estimates for completing the full Form R. Several sets of burden estimates were prepared, including times for both electronic and paper form preparation for every category outlined below:

° Modeled Burden Estimates for Every Form R Data Element: Modeled burden estimates were prepared for every data element on the Form R based on best engineering judgement for both management and technical time. Under the modeled scenario, which assumes electronic reporting, no clerical time is required for form completion. Separate modeled burden estimates were prepared for PBT and non PBT chemicals. ° Modeled Burden Estimates for Total Form R Completion: The modeled data element burden estimates were weighted by the incidence rate, which is the percentage of all forms containing information other than " NA" for the data element, in order to reflect the fact that not all data elements will be completed on all forms. The incidence rate was calculated using the frozen RY 2002 TRI data. This analysis was conducted separately for PBT and non PBT chemicals. ° Scaled Burden Estimates for Every Form R Data Element for PBT Chemicals: The current OMB approved time estimate for calculations and form completion for a PBT chemical assumes that all data elements are completed; therefore, the non incidence weighted modeled burden estimates were scaled up to the current OMB approved time estimate for form completion for a PBT chemical. EPA recognizes that the time required to type information into some data elements on Form R can be considered " static" ( i. e., the data element only requires typing or a quick information lookup) and unrelated to the relative degree of difficulty in determining the information to be entered into the field. As an example, the time required to record the company name is dependent only on the time required to type, and possibly a quick information lookup. Scaling such data elements up to the OMB approved total time estimate could result in a significant over estimate of the actual time required. For this reason, data elements that are deemed to be " static" were not scaled to the OMB approved time. To preserve the total OMB approved form completion time during scaling, the total time for all static data elements was subtracted from the total OMB approved time, and the non static data elements were then scaled to the remaining OMB approved time. The PBT scaling factor for technical staff is calculated by dividing the total OMB approved time for PBT chemicals ( see Table 2 1) less the total modeled time for all static elements, by the total modeled time for PBT 2 3 chemicals less the total modeled time for all static elements, as follows:

( OMB approved time  total static time)/( total modeled time  total static time)

The total modeled PBT technical staff burdens for static and non static data elements are taken from the TRI Reporting Burden Estimates memo. Separate scaling factors are computed for first year and subsequent year reporting:

First Year Scaling Factor: ( , . . ) / ( , . . ) . 2 712 00 86 25 1 770 32 86 25 156     = Subsequent Year Scaling Factor: ( , . . ) / ( , . . ) . 1848 00 2525 1 270 34 2525 146     =

The following bullets describe how scaled burden estimates were derived for management, technical, and clerical staff for PBT chemicals.

° Management   This analysis assumes that the time required for management to review a completed Form R data element is proportional to the technical time required to complete that data element. The Phase 1 management burden estimate for PBT chemicals, therefore, is calculated by multiplying the scaled technical burden for that data element by the ratio of the total OMB management burden for PBT chemicals to the total OMB technical burden for PBT chemicals ( 20.90 hr/ 45.20 hr = 0.46 first year, 14.30 hr/ 30.80 hr = 0.46 subsequent years). This method preserves OMB's ratio of management to technical, and avoids the potentially extreme and unrealistic ratios that would result if modeled management times were scaled the same way technical times were scaled. ° Technical   The modeled estimates for technical burden, except those determined to be " static" ( see above), were scaled up to the OMB approved estimates using the above first and subsequent year scaling factors. ° Clerical   The main difference between electronic and paper submission for Form R reporting burden is the clerical time needed for typing. To generate a paper copy, clerical staff would take the information prepared by the technical staff and type it onto a paper copy of the Form R. The modeled estimates for clerical time were assumed to be zero because it was assumed that technical staff complete all submissions using the TRI ME software. The Phase 1 burden estimates, however, conservatively assume that all submissions are done via paper. Unlike management and technical times, the clerical time for paper submissions is assumed to be unrelated to the relative degree of difficulty in determining the information to be entered into the field. For this reason, clerical time was not determined by scaling from the modeled estimates generated for technical time. Also, while it may not take the exact same amount of time to line up a paper form and type each data element, there is no reasonable way to estimate what the modeled time would be to type each data element. Equally distributing the OMB estimate for clerical time across each data element was determined to be the best method. The PBT clerical burdens, therefore, are calculated as the total OMB approved clerical time for PBT chemicals, divided by the total number of Form R data elements ( 2.90 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 1.18 min per data element first year, 2.00 2 4 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 0.81 min per data element subsequent years). ° Scaled Burden Estimates for Every Form R Data Element for non PBT Chemicals: The incidence weighted modeled burden estimates for non PBT chemicals were scaled up to the current OMB approved time estimate for form completion for a Form R for a non PBT chemical. Data elements that are deemed to be " static" ( see discussion above) were not scaled to the OMB approved time. To preserve the total OMB approved time, the total time for all static data elements was subtracted from the total OMB approved time, and the non static data elements were then scaled to the remaining OMB approved time. The scaling factor for the technical burden is calculated by dividing the total OMBapproved time for non PBT chemicals ( see Table 2 1) less the total modeled time for all static elements, by the total modeled time for non PBT chemicals less the total modeled time for all static elements, as follows:

( OMB approved time   total static time)/( total modeled time   total static time)

The total modeled non PBT technical staff burdens for static and non static data elements are taken from the TRI Reporting Burden Estimates memo referenced above. Separate scaling factors are computed for first year and subsequent year reporting:

First Year Scaling Factor: ( , . . ) / ( . . ) . 1 446 48 59 00 629 49 59 00 2 43     = Subsequent Year Scaling Factor: ( . . )/( . . ) . 984 00 1597 422 76 1597 2 38     =

The following bullets describe how scaled burden estimates were derived for management, technical, and clerical staff, for non PBT chemicals.

° Management   The Phase 1 management burden estimate for an individual data element is calculated by multiplying the scaled technical time for that data element by the ratio of the total OMB non PBT management time to the total OMB non PBT technical time ( 11.32 hr/ 24.11 hr = 0.47 first year, 7.70 hr/ 16.40 hr = 0.47 subsequent years). ° Technical   The modeled estimates for technical burden, except those determined to be " static" ( see above) were scaled up to the OMB approved estimates, using the first and subsequent year scaling factors described above. ° Clerical   Clerical burden times were calculated as the total OMB approved clerical time for non PBT chemicals, divided by the total number of Form R data elements ( 1.62 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 0.66 min per data element first year, 1.10 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 0.45 min per data element subsequent years).

For this analysis of the final Phase 1 rule, EPA uses the scaled data element specific burden estimates to estimate the burden savings associated with the removal or modification of the 10 data elements covered in the final rule ( see Table 2 2). Burden estimates are broken out for PBT and non PBT chemical reports to reflect the OMB approved estimates. As a conservative estimate, all facilities are assumed to file via a paper form. 2 5 TABLE 2 2 PHASE 1 REPORTING REQUIREMENT CHANGES Change Form R Section remove Part I, Section 4.6, Latitude/ Longitude ( Form R and A)

remove Part I, Section 4.8, RCRA ID number ( Form R and A)

remove Part I, Section 4.9, NPDES ID number ( Form R and A)

remove Part I, Section 4.10, UIC ID number ( Form R and A)

modify Part II, Section 7A. 1b, Waste Treatment Method( s)

remove Part II, Section 7A. 1c, Range of Influent Concentration modify Part II, Section 7A. 1d, Waste Treatment Efficiency Estimate remove Part II, Section 7A. 1e, Based on Operating Data?

modify Part II, Section 7C, On Site Recycling remove Part II, Section 8.11, Is additional information on source reduction, recycling, or pollution control activities included with this report?

2.1.1 Phase 1 Unit Burden Data Element Estimates This section presents the derivation of the change in reporting burden associated with the 10 data elements addressed in Phase 1. For each data element, the modeled reporting burden for a Form R is first presented followed by a discussion of how the scaled reporting burden for a Form R is derived. First and subsequent year burden estimates ( in minutes) are presented for management, technical, and clerical staff in parentheses at the end of each section. The first four data elements, Sections 4.6, 4.8, 4.9, and 4.10, would also apply to Form A. Burden estimates are based on the OMB approved time for completing paper submissions. The total change in burden associated with all 10 data elements is presented in Chapter Three.

Section 4.6: Latitude/ Longitude Under the final rule, Section 4.6 would be removed from Form R. Therefore, the entire reporting burden associated with this data element would be saved.

Modeled Reporting Burden Estimates Management Management burden includes proofreading this section as part of an overall review of the Form R ( 0.50 min first year, 0.50 min subsequent years).

Technical The modeled burden estimates for technical staff assume that staff will go to the TRI facility siting tool, available on the EPA Web site ( http:// www. epa. gov/ tri/ report/ siting_ tool/ index. html), and 2 6 type in their facility address. The tool will then report back the latitude and longitude. The technical staff will then record this information in Part I, Section 4.6 of the Form R ( 4.5 min first year, 1.5 min subsequent years).

Clerical The modeled burden estimates for clerical time are assumed to be zero because it is assumed that all forms are completed by technical staff using the TRI ME software.

Scaled Reporting Burden Estimates PBT Chemicals Management Scaled management burden estimates are generated by multiplying the technical reporting burden for Section 4.6 ( see below) by the PBT management scaling ratio ( 4.50 min* 0.46 = 2.08 min first year, 1.50 min* 0.46 = 0.70 min subsequent years).

Technical The OMB approved PBT burden estimates assume that all facilities fill out all Form R data elements; therefore, the Section 4.6 reporting burden estimate is not incidence weighted for PBT chemicals. All Form R filers are required to fill out Section 4.6, and the time required for technical staff to look up and type the latitude and longitude coordinates is assumed to be " static." The burden estimate for technical staff, therefore, is not scaled to the OMB approved estimate ( 4.5 min first year, 1.5 min subsequent years).

Clerical Clerical times are estimated by dividing the currently approved OMB clerical burden for a PBT chemical submission by the total number of data elements on the Form R ( 2.90 hr * 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 1.18 min per data element first year, 2.00 hr* 60( min/ yr)/ 148 data elements = 0.81 min per data element subsequent years). Since the degrees, minutes, and seconds have to be entered separately for both the latitude and the longitude, the time for typing is multiplied by six ( 7.05 min first year, 4.86 min subsequent years).

TABLE 2 3 PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVING PART I, SECTION 4.6 Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 2.08 0.70 Technical 4.50 1.50 Clerical 7.05 4.86 Total 13.63 7.06 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column. 2 7 Non PBT Chemicals Management Scaled management burden estimates are generated by multiplying the technical reporting burden for Section 4.6 ( see below) by the non PBT management scaling ratio ( 4.50 min* 0.47 = 2.11 min first year, 1.50 min* 0.47 = 0.70 min subsequent years).

Technical The Section 4.6 incidence rate for non PBT chemicals is 100% because Section 4.6 is assumed to be a required field that is filled out by all facilities. The scaling factor is not applied to the Section 4.6 incidence weighted reporting burden because the time required for technical staff to obtain the latitude and longitude is assumed to be " static" ( 4.5 min first year, 1.5 min subsequent years).

Clerical The clerical time needed for typing is derived by dividing the OMB approved total clerical burden for non PBT chemicals by the total number of data elements on the Form R, ( 1.62 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 0.66 min per data element first year, 1.10 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 0.45 min per data element subsequent years). Since the degrees, minutes, and seconds have to be entered separately for both the latitude and the longitude, the time for typing is multiplied by six ( 3.93 min first year, 2.68 min subsequent years).

TABLE 2 4 NON PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVING PART I, SECTION 4.6 Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 2.11 0.70 Technical 4.50 1.50 Clerical 3.93 2.68 Total 10.55 4.88 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column.

Section 4.8: RCRA ID Number Under the final rule, Section 4.8 would be removed from the Form R. Therefore, the entire reporting burden associated with this data element would be saved.

Modeled Reporting Burden Estimates Management Management burden includes proofreading this section as part of an overall review of the Form R ( 0.08 min first year, 0.08 min subsequent years).

Technical Unless hazardous waste manifests are stored with the technical staff preparing the report, they will need to obtain this information from elsewhere in the company by making a phone call, checking 2 8 files, or making an in person information request. For the purposes of this estimate, it is assumed that technical staff will need to obtain this information from elsewhere. Once obtained, technical staff will record this information in Part I, Section 4.8 of the Form R ( 10.00 min first year, 0.25 min subsequent years).

Clerical The modeled burden estimates for clerical time are assumed to be zero because it is assumed that all forms are completed by technical staff using the TRI ME software.

Scaled Reporting Burden Estimates PBT Chemicals Management Scaled management burden estimates are generated by multiplying the technical reporting burden for Section 4.8 ( see below) by the PBT management scaling ratio ( 10.00 min* 0.46 = 4.62 min first year, 0.25 min* 0.46 = 0.12 min subsequent years).

Technical The OMB approved PBT burden estimates assume that all facilities fill out all Form R data elements; therefore, the Section 4.8 reporting burden estimate is not incidence weighted for PBT chemicals. The time required for technical staff to obtain the RCRA ID is assumed to be " static." The burden estimate for technical staff, therefore, is not scaled to the OMB approved estimate ( 10.00 min first year, 0.25 min subsequent years).

Clerical Clerical times are estimated by dividing the currently approved OMB clerical burden for a PBT chemical submission ( see Table 2 1) by the total number of data elements on the Form R ( 2.90 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 1.18 min per data element first year, 2.00 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 = 0.81 min per data element subsequent years).

TABLE 2 5 PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVING PART I, SECTION 4.8 Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 4.62 0.12 Technical 10.00 0.25 Clerical 1.18 0.81 Total 15.80 1.18 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column. 2 9 Non PBT Chemicals Management Scaled management burden estimates are generated by multiplying the technical reporting burden for Section 4.8 ( see below) by the non PBT management scaling ratio ( 8.05 min* 0.47 = 3.78 min first year, 0.20 min* 0.47 = 0.09 min subsequent years).

Technical The Section 4.8 incidence rate for non PBT chemicals is 80.47% in RY2002. The scaling factor is not applied to the Section 4.8 incidence weighted reporting burden because the time required for technical staff to obtain the RCRA ID is assumed to be " static" ( 10.00 min* 0.80 = 8.05 min first year, 0.25 min* 0.80 = 0.20 min subsequent years).

Clerical The clerical time needed for typing is derived by dividing the OMB approved total clerical burden for non PBT chemicals ( see Table 2 1) by the total number of data elements on the Form R ( 1.62 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 0.66 min per data element first year, 1.10 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 0.45 min per data element subsequent years).

TABLE 2 6 NON PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVING PART I, SECTION 4.8 Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 3.78 0.09 Technical 8.05 0.20 Clerical 0.66 0.45 Total 12.48 0.74 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column.

Section 4.9: NPDES ID Under the final rule, Section 4.9 would be removed from the Form R. Therefore, the entire reporting burden associated with this data element would be saved.

Modeled Reporting Burden Estimates Management Management burden includes proofreading this section as part of an overall review of the Form R ( 0.08 min first year, 0.08 min subsequent years).

Technical Unless NPDES permit documents are stored with the technical staff preparing the report, they will need to obtain this information from elsewhere in the company by making a phone call, checking files, or making an in person information request. For the purposes of this estimate, it is assumed that technical staff will need to obtain this information from elsewhere. Once obtained, 2 10 technical staff will record this information in Part I, Section 4.9 of the Form R ( 10.0 min first year, 0.25 min subsequent years).

Clerical The modeled burden estimates for clerical time are assumed to be zero because it is assumed that all forms are completed by technical staff using the TRI ME software.

Scaled Reporting Burden and Cost Estimates PBT Chemicals Management Scaled management burden estimates are generated by multiplying the technical reporting burden for Section 4.9 ( see below) by the PBT management scaling ratio ( 10.00 min* 0.46 = 4.62 min first year, 0.25 min* 0.46 = 0.12 min subsequent years).

Technical The OMB approved PBT burden estimates assume that all facilities fill out all Form R data elements; therefore, the Section 4.9 reporting burden estimate is not incidence weighted for PBT chemicals. The time required for technical staff to obtain the NPDES ID is assumed to be " static." The burden estimate for technical staff, therefore, is not scaled to the OMB approved estimate ( 10.00 min first year, 0.25 min subsequent years).

Clerical Clerical times are estimated by dividing the currently approved OMB clerical burden for a PBT chemical submission ( see Table 2 1) by the total number of data elements on the Form R ( 2.90 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 1.18 min per data element first year, 2.00 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 0.81 min per data element subsequent years).

TABLE 2 7 PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVING PART I, SECTION 4.9 Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 4.62 0.12 Technical 10.00 0.25 Clerical 1.18 0.81 Total 15.80 1.18 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column.

Non PBT Chemicals Management Scaled management burden estimates are generated by multiplying the technical reporting burden for Section 4.9 ( see below) by the non PBT management scaling ratio ( 4.60 min* 0.47 = 2.16 min 2 11 first year, 0.11 min* 0.47 = 0.05 min subsequent years).

Technical The Section 4.9 incidence rate for non PBT chemicals is 45.97% in RY2002. The scaling factor is not applied to the Section 4.9 incidence weighted reporting burden because the time required for technical staff to obtain the RCRA ID is assumed to be " static" ( 10.00 min* 0.46 = 4.60 min first year, 0.25 min* 0.46 = 0.11 min subsequent years).

Clerical The clerical time needed for typing is derived by dividing the OMB approved total clerical burden for non PBT chemicals ( see Table 2 1) by the total number of data elements on the Form R ( 1.62 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 = 0.66 min first year, 1.10 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 = 0.45 min subsequent years).

TABLE 2 8 NON PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVING PART I, SECTION 4.9 Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 2.16 0.05 Technical 4.60 0.11 Clerical 0.66 0.45 Total 7.41 0.61 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column.

Section 4.10: Underground Injection Well Code ID Under the final rule, Section 4.10 would be removed from the Form R. Therefore, the entire reporting burden associated with this data element would be saved.

Modeled Reporting Burden Estimates Management Management burden includes proofreading this section as part of an overall review of the Form R ( 0.08 min first year, 0.08 min subsequent years).

Technical Unless UIC permit documents are stored with the technical staff preparing the report, they will need to obtain this information from elsewhere in the company by making a phone call, checking files, or making an in person information request. For the purposes of this estimate, it is assumed that technical staff will need to obtain this information from elsewhere. Once obtained, technical staff will record this information in Part I, Section 4.10 of the Form R ( 10.0 min first year, 0.25 min subsequent years).

Clerical The modeled burden estimates for clerical time are assumed to be zero because it is assumed that all forms are completed by technical staff using the TRI ME software. 2 12 Scaled Reporting Burden and Cost Estimates PBT Chemicals Management Scaled management burden estimates are generated by multiplying the technical reporting burden for Section 4.9 ( see below) by the PBT management scaling ratio ( 10.00 min* 0.46 = 4.62 min first year, 0.25 min* 0.46 = 0.12 min subsequent years).

Technical The OMB approved PBT burden estimates assume that all facilities fill out all Form R data elements; therefore, the Section 4.10 reporting burden estimate is not incidence weighted for PBT chemicals. The time required for technical staff to obtain the UIC ID is assumed to be " static." The burden estimate for technical staff, therefore, is not scaled to the OMB approved estimate ( 10.00 min first year, 0.25 min subsequent years).

Clerical Clerical times are estimated by dividing the currently approved OMB clerical burden for a PBT chemical submission ( see Table 2 1) by the total number of data elements on the Form R ( 2.90 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 1.18 min per data element first year, 2.00 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 0.81 min per data element subsequent years).

TABLE 2 9 PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVING PART I, SECTION 4.10 Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 4.62 0.12 Technical 10.00 0.25 Clerical 1.18 0.81 Total 15.80 1.18 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column.

Non PBT Chemicals Management Scaled management burden estimates are generated by multiplying the technical reporting burden for Section 4.10 ( see below) by the non PBT management scaling ratio ( 0.06 min* 0.47 = 0.03 min first year, 0.00 min* 0.47 = 0.00 min subsequent years).

Technical The Section 4.10 incidence rate for non PBT chemicals is 0.59% in RY2002. The scaling factor is not applied to the Section 4.10 incidence weighted reporting burden because the time required for technical staff to obtain the RCRA ID is assumed to be " static" ( 10.00 min* 0.0059 = 0.06 min first year, 0.25 min* 0.0059 = 0.001 min subsequent years). 2 13 Clerical The clerical time needed for typing is derived by dividing the OMB approved total clerical burden for non PBT chemicals ( see Table 2 1) by the total number of data elements on the Form R ( 1.62 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 0.66 min per data element first year, 1.10 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 0.45 min per data element subsequent years).

TABLE 2 10 NON PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVING PART I, SECTION 4.10 Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 0.03 0.00 Technical 0.06 0.00 Clerical 0.66 0.45 Total 0.74 0.45 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column.

Section 7A. b: Range of Influent Concentration Under the final rule, column b of Section 7A would be simplified by reducing the number of codes available for reporting. Therefore, the reporting burden associated with this data element would be reduced but not eliminated.

Modeled Reporting Burden Estimates Management Management burden includes proofreading this section as part of an overall review of the Form R ( 1.00 min first year, 0.83 min subsequent years).

Technical Section 7A requires technical staff to review process diagrams, review air or NPDES permits, or talk to the operations staff to identify any on site waste treatment activities. Column b of Section 7A requires technical staff to identify all of the treatment steps a waste stream passes through and the order of occurrence, locate the appropriate treatment codes representing the treatment activity in the TRI Reporting Forms and Instructions, and then report them in the actual order of occurrence in Part II, Section 7A. 1b of the Form R ( 20 min first year, 5 min subsequent years).

An analysis of RY 2002 TRI data indicates that there is an average of approximately two waste streams listed under on site treatment in Section 7A for both PBT and non PBT chemicals. Only incremental additional time would be needed to identify waste treatment activity steps for the second waste stream and then report them in the actual order of occurrence in Part II, Section 7A. 2b of the Form R because document review and discussions with operations staff were already conducted to identify steps for the first waste stream ( 5 min first year, 2 min subsequent years).

Under the final rule, the 64 codes that can currently be reported in column b will be replaced with 18 hazardous waste treatment codes ( H040 129) currently used in EPA's biennial Hazardous 2 14 Waste Report and the 7 air emissions treatment codes from the original list of waste treatment codes for Section 7A column b. EPA believes that decreasing the number of available codes will reduce reporting burden for two reasons: First, facilities will have fewer codes to consider when reporting in this section. Second, under this option, the same codes will be adopted for both the RCRA hazardous waste and TRI reporting programs.

The estimated modeled burden for filling out column b using the new set of codes, assuming an average of approximately two waste streams per Form R, is 23.00 minutes ( 18 min for Section 7A. 1b + 5 min for Section 7A. 2b) the first year, and 5.00 minutes ( 3 min for Section 7A. 1b + 2 min for Section 7A. 2b) in subsequent years. The modeled burden savings associated with this modification is the difference between the total modeled time estimate and the reduced modeled time estimate ( 25.00 min   23.00 min = 2.00 min first year, 7.00 min   5.00 min = 2.00 min subsequent years).

Clerical The modeled burden estimates for clerical time are assumed to be zero because it is assumed that all forms are completed by technical staff using the TRI ME software.

Scaled Reporting Burden Estimates PBT Chemicals Management Scaled management burden is calculated by multiplying the scaled technical reporting burden savings for Section 7A ( see below) by the PBT management scaling ratio ( 3.12 min* 0.46 = 1.44 min first year, 2.93 min* 0.46 = 1.36 min subsequent years).

Technical The OMB approved PBT burden estimates assume that all facilities fill out all Form R data elements; therefore, the Section 7A. b reporting burden estimate is not incidence weighted for PBT chemicals. The scaled burden savings are calculated as the difference between the scaled reporting burden before the Phase 1 modification and the scaled reporting burden after the modification. The PBT scaling factors ( first year, 1.56; subsequent years, 1.46) prior to the Phase 1 modifications are presented in Section 2.1.

The pre Phase 1 scaled reporting burden is the product of the modeled burden and the scaling factor for PBT chemicals ( 25.00 min* 1.56 = 39.98 min first year, 7.00 min* 1.46 = 10.25 min subsequent years). The post Phase 1 scaled reporting burden is the product of the modeled burden and the scaling factor for PBT chemicals ( 23.00 min* 1.56 = 35.86 min first year, 5.00 min* 1.46 = 7.32 min subsequent years). The scaled reporting burden savings for technical staff is calculated as the difference between the pre Phase 1 and the post Phase 1 scaled reporting burdens ( 38.98 min   35.86 min = 3.12 min first year, 10.25 min   7.32 min = 2.93 min subsequent years).

Clerical 2 15 The time savings for clerical staff is assumed to be zero because column b is being modified and not removed.

TABLE 2 11 PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH MODIFYING PART II, SECTION 7A COLUMN B Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 1.44 1.36 Technical 3.12 2.93 Clerical 0.00 0.00 Total 4.56 4.29 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column.

Non PBT Chemicals Management Scaled management burden savings are generated by multiplying the scaled technical reporting burden savings ( see below) by the non PBT management scaling ratio ( 2.36 min* 0.47 = 1.11 min first year, 2.31 min* 0.47 = 1.08 min subsequent years).

Technical The Section 7A. b incidence rate for non PBT chemicals is 48.52% in RY2002. The scaled burden savings are calculated as the difference between the scaled reporting burden before the Phase 1 modification and the scaled reporting burden after the Phase 1 modification. The non PBT scaling factors ( first year, 2.43; subsequent years, 2.38) prior to the Phase 1 modifications are presented in Section 2.1.

The pre Phase 1 scaled reporting burden is the product of the incidence weighted modeled burden and the pre Phase 1 scaling factor for non PBT chemicals ( 25.00 min* 0.49* 2.43 = 29.50 min first year, 7.00 min* 0.49* 2.38 = 8.08 min subsequent years). The post Phase 1 scaled reporting burden is the product of the incidence weighted modeled burden and the post Phase 1 scaling factor for non PBT chemicals ( 23.00 min* 0.49* 2.43 = 27.14 min first year, 5.00 min* 0.49* 2.38 = 5.77 min subsequent years). The scaled reporting burden savings for technical staff is calculated as the difference between the pre Phase 1 and the post Phase 1 scaled reporting burdens ( 29.50 min   27.14 min = 2.36 min first year, 8.08 min   5.77 min = 2.31 min subsequent years).

Clerical The time savings for clerical staff is assumed to be zero because column b is being modified and not removed.

TABLE 2 12 NON PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH MODIFYING PART II, SECTION 7A COLUMN B 2 16 Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 1.11 1.08 Technical 2.36 2.31 Clerical 0.00 0.00 Total 3.47 3.39 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column.

Section 7A. c: Range of Influent Concentration Under the final rule, column c of Section 7A would be removed from the Form R. Therefore, the entire reporting burden associated with this data element would be saved. Note, however, that most of the steps ( and associated time) required to determine influent concentration will still need to be conducted as part of estimating the waste treatment efficiency in Section 7a. d. As a result, burden savings in Section 7A. c will lead to an increase in reporting burden in Section 7A. d ( see Section 7A. d for more discussion).

Modeled Reporting Burden Estimates Management Management burden includes proofreading this section as part of an overall review of the Form R ( 2.00 min first year, 0.83 min subsequent years).

Technical Section 7A requires technical staff to review process diagrams, review air or NPDES permits, or talk to the operations staff to identify any on site waste treatment activities. Column c of Section 7A requires technical staff to indicate the range of concentration of the chemical in the waste stream as it typically enters the waste treatment step or sequence. Staff will locate and review monitoring data or talk with operations staff to determine the range of influent concentration ( 30.00 min first year, 15.00 min subsequent years).

An analysis of RY 2002 TRI data indicates that there is an average of approximately two waste streams listed under on site treatment in Section 7A for both PBT and non PBT chemicals. Determining the range of the influent concentration for the second waste stream would require the same effort as for the first waste stream because technical staff would be reviewing a different set of information, such as different laboratory reports. Therefore, the following additional time is needed in Part II, Section 7A. 2c for the second waste stream ( 30.00min/ 15.00min).

The estimated modeled burden for filling out column c, assuming an average of approximately two waste streams per Form R, is 60.00 minutes ( 30 min for Section 7A. 1c + 30 min for Section 7A. 2c) the first year, and 30.00 minutes ( 15 min for Section 7A. 1c + 15 min for Section 7A. 2c) in subsequent years.

Clerical The modeled burden estimates for clerical time are assumed to be zero because it is assumed that all forms are completed by technical staff using the TRI ME software. 2 17 Scaled Reporting Burden and Cost Estimates PBT Chemicals Management Scaled management burden estimates are generated by multiplying the technical reporting burden for Section 7A. c ( see below) by the PBT management scaling ratio ( 93.55 min* 0.46 = 43.26 min first year, 43.92 min* 0.46 = 20.39 min subsequent years).

Technical The OMB approved PBT burden estimates assume that all facilities fill out all Form R data elements; therefore, the Section 7A. c reporting burden estimate is not incidence weighted for PBT chemicals. The scaled reporting burden estimate is the product of the modeled technical burden estimate an the scaling factor between the total OMB time and the total modeled time for PBT chemicals ( 60 min* 1.56 = 93.55 min first year, 30 min* 1.46 = 43.92 min subsequent years).

Clerical Clerical times are estimated by dividing the currently approved OMB clerical burden for a PBT chemical submission ( see Table 2 1) by the total number of data elements on the Form R ( 2.90 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 1.18 min per data element first year, 2.00 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 0.81 min per data element subsequent years).

TABLE 2 13 PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVING PART II, SECTION 7A COLUMN C Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 43.26 20.39 Technical 93.55 43.92 Clerical 1.18 0.81 Total 137.98 65.12 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column.

Non PBT Chemicals Management Scaled management burden estimates are generated by multiplying the technical reporting burden for Section 7A. c ( see below) by the non PBT management scaling ratio ( 70.80 min* 0.47 = 33.24 min first year, 34.64 min* 0.47 = 16.26 min subsequent years). 2 18 Technical The Section 7A. c incidence rate for non PBT chemicals is 48.52% in RY2002. The scaled reporting burden estimate is the product of the incidence weighted modeled technical burden estimate and the scaling factor between the total OMB time and the total modeled time for non PBT chemicals ( 60 min* 0.49* 2.43 = 70.80 min first year, 30 min* 0.49* 2.38 = 34.64 min subsequent years).

Clerical The clerical time needed for typing is derived by dividing the OMB approved total clerical burden for non PBT chemicals ( see Table 2 1) by the total number of data elements on the Form R ( 1.62 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 0.66 min per data element first year, 1.10 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 0.45 min per data element subsequent years).

TABLE 2 14 NON PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVING PART II, SECTION 7A COLUMN C Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 33.24 16.26 Technical 70.80 34.64 Clerical 0.66 0.45 Total 104.70 51.35 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column.

Section 7A. d: Range of Influent Concentration Under the final rule, the waste treatment efficiency would be reported in column d as range codes rather than exact percentage estimates. Facilities using analytical data ( i. e., pre and posttreatment concentrations as determined by laboratory analysis or monitoring) to estimate the waste treatment efficiency will still need to conduct the same calculations with this data to determine a range as would be conducted to determine an exact efficiency percentage. For facilities not using analytical data to make this estimate, the time needed to make the estimate through other methods such as talking with operations staff, or reviewing treatment equipment manuals, may be slightly reduced with range reporting, but will not be significantly reduced.

Also, as mentioned in Section 7A. c above, the Phase 1 rule includes elimination of column c, range of influent concentration. This influent concentration information is needed to make the waste treatment efficiency estimate for column d. Because the final Phase 1 rule will eliminate column c, activities conducted to determine influent concentration, and the associated burden, would be conducted in support of column d. For facilities with available monitoring data, location and review of these data would be needed both to determine the range of influent concentration, and also to determine the waste treatment efficiency. Since use of monitoring data to determine the treatment efficiency percentage will yield a point result, there will be no burden savings associated with use of range codes in Section 7A. d. 1 Note that a general burden estimate was made here across all waste stream types, all sectors, and all chemicals for a typical TRI reporting facility. It is expected that there could be significant variation in associated burden with reporting these on site waste treatment data elements with these differing factors.

2 19 For facilities employing estimation methods other than use of monitoring data, it may be necessary to have some understanding of the influent concentration in order to determine the waste treatment efficiency. Therefore, some, but not all, of the burden associated with 7A. c is shifted to 7A. d when 7A. c is eliminated. In addition, however, use of range codes for 7A. d will require less precise reporting, and there will be some associated reduction in burden for this data element.

To account for the fact that some facilities may use monitoring data to estimate waste treatment efficiency and others may not, a weighted average reporting burden associated with the modification to Section 7A. d is estimated.

Modeled Reporting Burden Estimates Management Management burden includes proofreading this section as part of an overall review of the Form R ( 1.00 min first year, 0.83 min subsequent years).

Technical Section 7A requires technical staff to review process diagrams, review air or NPDES permits, or talk to the operations staff to identify any on site waste treatment activities. Column d of Section 7A requires technical staff to enter the percentage of the chemical removed from the waste stream through destruction, biological degradation, chemical conversion, or physical removal in Part II, Section 7A. 1d of the Form R ( 15 min first year, 5 min subsequent years).

An analysis of RY 2002 TRI data indicates that there is an average of approximately two waste streams listed under on site treatment in Section 7A for both PBT and non PBT chemicals. Determining the treatment efficiency for the second waste stream would require the same time effort as for the first waste stream because technical staff would be reviewing a different set of information, such as different equipment manuals. Therefore, the following additional time is needed in Part II, Section 7A. 2d for the second waste stream ( 15.00min/ 5.00min).

As mentioned above, the change in reporting burden for Section 7A. d depends on whether or not the facility uses monitoring data to estimated waste treatment efficiency. Under the final rule, some or all of the burden saved by not reporting Section 7A. c is shifted to Section 7A. d. Best professional judgement indicates that facilities using monitoring data would need to spend all of the time they would have spent calculating the influent concentration ( 30 minutes in the first year and 15 minutes in the subsequent years) when filling out Section 7A. 1d. Best professional judgement also indicates that facilities using methods other than monitoring data would only need to spend an additional 10 minutes in the first year and 5 minutes in subsequent years when filling out Section 7A. 1d. 1 Further, any burden savings attributable to use of range codes for this data element are offset by the shifted burden of activities previously conducted under 7A1. c. 2 The percentages do not include forms that left Section 7A. e blank.

2 20 EPA used the data reported in section 7A. e ( based on operating data) to calculate the percentage of forms that use monitoring data to calculate the data in Section 7A. d. Based on data from RY 2001, 2002, and 2003, 34% of forms use monitoring data while the remaining 66% of forms use methods other than monitoring data. 2 The weighted treatment efficiency burden is calculated as the sum of the burden to calculate the treatment efficiency and the weighted burden to calculate influent concentration. In the first year, the weighted reporting burden to calculate influent concentration for facilities that use monitoring data is the product of the modeled burden and the percentage of facilities that use monitoring data ( 30 min* 2 waste streams* 0.34 = 20.54 min). Likewise, the reporting burden for facilities that use methods other than monitoring data is the product of the modeled burden and the percentage of facilities that do not use monitoring data ( 10 min* 2 waste streams* 0.66 = 13.15 min). The weighted burden in the first year is calculated as the sum of the burden to calculate the treatment efficiency and the weighted burden to calculate influent concentration ( 30 min + 20.54 min + 13.15 min = 63.69 min).

In subsequent years, the weighted reporting burden to calculate influent concentration for facilities that use monitoring data is the product of the modeled burden and the percentage of facilities that use monitoring data ( 15 min* 2 waste streams* 0.34 = 10.27 min). Likewise, the reporting burden for facilities that use methods other than monitoring data is the product of the modeled burden and the percentage of facilities that do not use monitoring data ( 5 min* 2 waste streams* 0.66 = 6.58 min). The weighted burden in subsequent years is calculated as the sum of the burden to calculate the treatment efficiency and the weighted burden to calculate influent concentration ( 10 min + 10.27 min + 6.58 min = 26.85 min).

The estimated burden for filling out Section 7A. d if Section 7A. c is eliminated is 63.69 minutes in the first year, and 26.85 minutes in subsequent years. The modeled burden savings associated with this modification is the difference between the total modeled time estimate and the modified modeled time estimate ( 30.00 min   63.39 min =  33.39 min first year, 10.00 min   26.85 min =  16.85 min subsequent years).

Clerical The modeled burden estimates for clerical time are assumed to be zero because it is assumed that all forms are completed by technical staff using the TRI ME software.

Scaled Reporting Burden Estimates PBT Chemicals Management Scaled management burden is calculated by multiplying the scaled technical reporting burden savings for Section 7A. d ( see below) by the PBT management scaling ratio ( 52.54 min* 0.46 =  24.29 min first year,  24.66 min* 0.46 =  11.45 min subsequent years). 2 21 Technical The OMB approved PBT burden estimates assume that all facilities fill out all Form R data elements; therefore, the Section 7A. d reporting burden estimate is not incidence weighted for PBT chemicals. The scaled burden savings are calculated as the difference between the scaled reporting burden before the Phase 1 modification and the scaled reporting burden after the Phase 1 modification. The PBT scaling factors ( first year, 1.56; subsequent years, 1.46) prior to the Phase 1 modifications are presented in Section 2.1.

The pre Phase 1 scaled reporting burden is the product of the modeled burden and the scaling factor for PBT chemicals ( 30 min* 1.56 = 46.78 min first year, 10 min* 1.46 = 14.64 min subsequent years). The post Phase 1 scaled reporting burden is the product of the modeled burden and the scaling factor for PBT chemicals ( 63.69 min* 1.56 = 99.31 min first year, 26.85 min* 1.46 = 39.30 min subsequent years). The scaled reporting burden savings for technical staff is calculated as the difference between the pre Phase 1 and the post Phase 1 scaled reporting burdens ( 46.78 min   99.31 min =  52.54 min first year, 14.64 min   39.30 min =  24.66 min subsequent years).

Clerical The time savings for clerical staff is assumed to be zero because column d is being modified and not removed.

TABLE 2 15 PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH MODIFYING PART II, SECTION 7A COLUMN D Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management ( 24.29) ( 11.45)

Technical ( 52.54) ( 24.66)

Clerical 0.00 0.00 Total ( 76.83) ( 36.11)

Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column.

Non PBT Chemicals Management Scaled management burden savings are generated by multiplying the scaled technical reporting burden savings ( see below) by the non PBT management scaling ratio ( 39.76 min* 0.47 =  18.67 min first year,  19.45 min* 0.47 =  9.13 min subsequent years).

Technical The Section 7A. d incidence rate for non PBT chemicals is 48.52% in RY2002. The scaled burden savings are calculated as the difference between the scaled reporting burden before the Phase 1 modification and the scaled reporting burden after the Phase 1 modification. The non PBT scaling factors ( first year, 2.43; subsequent years, 2.38) prior to the Phase 1 modifications are presented in Section 2.1. 2 22 The pre Phase 1 scaled reporting burden is the product of the incidence weighted modeled burden and the scaling factor for non PBT chemicals ( 30 min* 0.49* 2.43 = 35.40 min first year, 10 min* 0.49* 2.38 = 11.55 min subsequent years). The post Phase 1 scaled reporting burden is the product of the incidence weighted modeled burden and the scaling factor for non PBT chemicals( 63.69 min* 0.49* 2.43 = 75.16 min first year, 26.85 min* 0.49* 2.38 = 31.00 min subsequent years). The scaled reporting burden savings for technical staff is calculated as the difference between the pre Phase 1 and the post Phase 1 scaled reporting burdens ( 35.40 min   75.16 min =  39.76 min first year, 11.55 min   31.00 min =  19.45 min subsequent years).

Clerical The time savings for clerical staff is assumed to be zero because column d is being modified and not removed.

TABLE 2 16 NON PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH MODIFYING PART II, SECTION 7A COLUMN D Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management ( 18.67) ( 9.13)

Technical ( 39.76) ( 19.45)

Clerical 0.00 0.00 Total ( 58.43) ( 28.59)

Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column.

Section 7A. e: Range of Influent Concentration Under the final rule, column e of Section 7A would be removed from the Form R. Therefore, the entire reporting burden associated with this data element would be saved.

Modeled Reporting Burden Estimates Management Management burden includes proofreading this section as part of an overall review of the Form R ( 0.08 min first year, 0.08 min subsequent years).

Technical Section 7A requires technical staff to review process diagrams, review air or NPDES permits, or talk to the operations staff to identify any on site waste treatment activities. Section 7A. 1e requires technical staff to report whether the waste treatment efficiency estimate was calculated using monitoring data by checking yes or no in Part II, Section 7A. 1e of the Form R ( 0.08 min first year, 0.08 min subsequent years).

An analysis of RY 2002 TRI data indicates that there is an average of approximately two waste streams listed under on site treatment in Section 7A for both PBT and non PBT chemicals. Reporting whether the waste treatment efficiency estimate for the second waste stream was calculated using monitoring data would require the same time effort as for the first waste stream. 2 23 Therefore, the total time needed in Part II, Section 7A. 2e is doubled ( 0.17 min first year, 0.17 min subsequent years).

Clerical The modeled burden estimates for clerical time are assumed to be zero because it is assumed that all forms are completed by technical staff using the TRI ME software.

Scaled Reporting Burden Estimates PBT Chemicals Management Scaled management burden estimates are generated by multiplying the scaled technical reporting burden ( see below) by the PBT management scaling ratio ( 0.17 min* 0.46 = 0.08 min first year, 0.17 min* 0.46 = 0.08 min subsequent years).

Technical The OMB approved PBT burden estimates assume that all facilities fill out all Form R data elements; therefore, the Section 7A. e reporting burden estimate is not incidence weighted for PBT chemicals. The time required for technical staff to fill out Section 7A. e is assumed to be " static". The burden estimate for technical staff, therefore, is not scaled to the total OMB approved time ( 0.17 min first year, 0.17 min subsequent years).

Clerical Clerical times are estimated by dividing the currently approved OMB clerical burden for a PBT chemical submission ( see Table 2 1) by the total number of data elements on the Form R ( 2.90 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 1.18 min per data element first year, 2.00 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 0.81 min per data element subsequent years).

TABLE 2 17 PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVING PART II, SECTION 7A COLUMN E Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 0.08 0.08 Technical 0.17 0.17 Clerical 1.18 0.81 Total 1.42 1.05 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column. 2 24 Non PBT Chemicals Management Scaled management burden estimates are generated by multiplying the scaled technical reporting burden ( see below) by the non PBT management scaling factor ( 0.08 min* 0.47 = 0.04 min first year, 0.08 min* 0.47 = 0.04 min subsequent years).

Technical The Section 7A. e incidence rate for non PBT chemicals is 48.52% in RY2002. The time required for technical staff to fill out Section 7A. e is assumed to be " static". The burden estimate for technical staff, therefore, is not scaled to the total OMB approved time ( 0.17 min* 0.49 = 0.08 min first year, 0.17 min* 0.49 = 0.08 min subsequent years).

Clerical The clerical time needed for typing is derived by dividing the OMB approved total clerical burden for non PBT chemicals ( see Table 2 1) by the total number of data elements on the Form R ( 1.62 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 0.66 min per data elements first year, 1.10 hr* 60( min/ hr)/ 148 data elements = 0.45 min per data element subsequent years).

TABLE 2 18 NON PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVING PART II, SECTION 7ACOLUMN E Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 0.04 0.04 Technical 0.08 0.08 Clerical 0.66 0.45 Total 0.77 0.56 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column. 2 25 Section 7C: On Site Recycling Under the final rule, Section 7C would be simplified by reducing the number of codes available for reporting. Therefore, the reporting burden associated with this data element would be reduced but not eliminated.

Modeled Reporting Burden Estimates Management Management burden includes proofreading this section as part of an overall review of the Form R ( 1.00 min first year, 0.83 min subsequent years).

Technical It is assumed that technical staff either review process flow diagrams or talk to operations staff in order to identify any on site recycling activities. For each waste stream that is undergoing treatment for on site recycling, technical staff locate the appropriate code for the activity in the TRI Reporting Forms and Instructions. The codes are reported in descending order by quantity of waste recycled in Part II, Section 7C of the Form R ( 38.00 min first year, 27.00 min subsequent years)

Under the final rule, the 16 codes that can currently be reported in Section 7C would be replaced with three reclamation and recovery management codes used in EPA's biennial Hazardous Waste Report. EPA believes that decreasing the number of codes available will reduce reporting burden for two reasons: First, facilities will have fewer codes to consider when reporting in this section. Second, under this option, the same codes will be adopted for both the RCRA hazardous waste and TRI reporting programs.

The estimated burden for filling out Section 7C using the new set of codes is 37.00 minutes the first year, and 26.00 minutes in subsequent years. The modeled burden savings associated with this modification is the difference between the total modeled time estimate and the reduced modeled time estimate ( 38.00 min   37.00 min = 1.00 min first year, 27.00 min   26.00 min = 1.00 min subsequent years).

Clerical The modeled burden estimates for clerical time are assumed to be zero because it is assumed that all forms are completed by technical staff using the TRI ME software.

Scaled Reporting Burden Estimates PBT Chemicals Management Scaled management burden is calculated by multiplying the scaled technical reporting burden savings ( see below) by the PBT management scaling ratio ( 1.56 min* 0.46 = 0.72 min first year, 1.46 min* 0.46 = 0.68 min subsequent years). 2 26 Technical The OMB approved PBT burden estimates assume that all facilities fill out all Form R data elements; therefore, the Section 7C reporting burden estimate is not incidence weighted for PBT chemicals.

The scaled burden savings are calculated as the difference between the scaled reporting burden before the Phase 1 modification and the scaled reporting burden after the Phase 1 modification. The PBT scaling factors ( first year, 1.56; subsequent years, 1.46) prior to the Phase 1 modifications are presented in Section 2.1. The pre Phase 1 scaled reporting burden is the product of the modeled burden and the scaling factor for PBT chemicals ( 38.00 min* 1.56 = 59.25 min first year, 27.00 min* 1.46 = 39.53 min subsequent years).

The post Phase 1 scaled reporting burden is the product of the modeled burden and the scaling factor for PBT chemicals ( 37.00 min* 1.56 = 57.69 min first year, 26.00 min* 1.46 = 38.06 min subsequent years). The scaled reporting burden savings for technical staff is calculated as the difference between the pre Phase 1 and the post Phase 1 scaled reporting burdens ( 59.25 min   57.69 min = 1.56 min first year, 39.53 min   38.06 min = 1.46 min subsequent years).

Clerical The time savings for clerical staff is assumed to be zero because Section 7C is being modified and not removed.

TABLE 2 19 PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH MODIFYING PART II, SECTION 7C Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 0.72 0.68 Technical 1.56 1.46 Clerical 0.00 0.00 Total 2.28 2.14 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column.

Non PBT Chemicals Management Scaled management burden savings are generated by multiplying the scaled technical reporting burden savings ( see below) by the non PBT management scaling ratio ( 0.24 min* 0.47 = 0.11 min first year, 0.23 min* 0.47 = 0.11 min subsequent years).

Technical The Section 7C incidence rate for non PBT chemicals is 9.82% in RY2002. The scaled burden savings are calculated as the difference between the scaled reporting burden before the Phase 1 modification and the scaled reporting burden after the Phase 1 modification. The non PBT scaling factors ( first year, 2.43; subsequent years, 2.38) prior to the Phase 1 modifications are 2 27 presented in Section 2.1. The pre Phase 1 scaled reporting burden is the product of the incidence weighted modeled burden and the scaling factor for non PBT chemicals ( 38.00 min* 0.098* 2.43 = 9.08 min first year, 27.00 min* 0.098* 2.38 = 6.31 min subsequent years).

The post Phase 1 scaled reporting burden is the product of the incidence weighted modeled burden and the scaling factor for non PBT chemicals ( 37.00 min* 0.098* 2.43 = 8.84 min first year, 26.00 min* 0.098* 2.38 = 6.08 min subsequent years). The scaled reporting burden savings for technical staff is calculated as the difference between the pre Phase 1 and the post Phase 1 scaled reporting burdens ( 9.08 min   8.84 min = 0.24 min first year, 6.31min   6.08 min = 0.23 min subsequent years).

Clerical The time savings for clerical staff is assumed to be zero because Section 7C is being modified and not removed.

TABLE 2 20 NON PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH MODIFYING PART II, SECTION 7C Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 0.11 0.11 Technical 0.24 0.23 Clerical 0.00 0.00 Total 0.35 0.34 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column.

Section 8.11: Is Additional Information on Source Reduction, Recycling or Pollution Control Activities Included with this Report? Under the final rule, Section 8.11 would be removed from the Form R; however, provision of additional information on source reduction, recycling, or pollution control activities is optional. For the purposes of this analysis, therefore, there is no management, technical, nor clerical burden savings attributed to the elimination of this element of the Form R.

2.1.2 Summary of Unit Burden Savings Table 2 21 summarizes the unit burden savings associated with the final Phase 1 rule. 2 28 TABLE 2 21 SUMMARY OF UNIT BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PHASE 1 RULE First year savings per form ( min) Subsequent year savings per form ( min) Management Technical Clerical Total Management Technical Clerical Total Part I, Section 4.6, Latitude/ Longitude ( Form R and A)

PBT 2.08 4.50 7.05 13.63 0.70 1.50 4.86 7.06 Non PBT 2.11 4.50 3.93 10.55 0.70 1.50 2.68 4.88 Part I, Section 4.8, RCRA ID number ( Form R and A)

PBT 4.62 10.00 1.18 15.80 0.12 0.25 0.81 1.18 Non PBT 3.78 8.05 0.66 12.48 0.09 0.20 0.45 0.74 Part I, Section 4.9, NPDES ID number ( Form R and A)

PBT 4.62 10.00 1.18 15.80 0.12 0.25 0.81 1.18 Non PBT 2.16 4.60 0.66 7.41 0.05 0.11 0.45 0.61 Part I, Section 4.10, UIC ID number ( Form R and A)

PBT 4.62 10.00 1.18 15.80 0.12 0.25 0.81 1.18 Non PBT 0.03 0.06 0.66 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.45 Part II, Section 7A. 1b, Waste Treatment Method( s)

PBT 1.44 3.12 0.00 4.56 1.36 2.93 0.00 4.29 Non PBT 1.11 2.36 0.00 3.47 1.08 2.31 0.00 3.39 Part II, Section 7A. 1c, Range of Influent Concentration PBT 43.26 93.55 1.18 137.98 20.39 43.92 0.81 65.12 Non PBT 33.24 70.80 0.66 104.70 16.26 34.64 0.45 51.35 Part II, Section 7A. 1d, Waste Treatment Efficiency Estimate PBT ( 24.29) ( 52.54) 0.00 ( 76.83) ( 11.45) ( 24.66) 0.00 ( 36.11)

Non PBT ( 18.67) ( 39.76) 0.00 ( 58.43) ( 9.13) ( 19.45) 0.00 ( 28.59)

Part II, Section 7A. 1e, Based on Operating Data?

PBT 0.08 0.17 1.18 1.42 0.08 0.17 0.81 1.05 Non PBT 0.04 0.08 0.66 0.77 0.04 0.08 0.45 0.56 Part II, Section 7C, On Site Recycling PBT 0.72 1.56 0.00 2.28 0.68 1.46 0.00 2.14 Non PBT 0.11 0.24 0.00 0.35 0.11 0.23 0.00 0.34 Part II, Section 8.11, Is additional information on source reduction, recycling, or pollution control activities included with this report?

PBT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Non PBT 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Unit Burden Savings Associated with the Phase 1 Rule ( Form A)

Non PBT 8.08 17.20 5.90 31.18 0.85 1.82 4.01 6.68 Total Unit Burden Savings Associated with the Phase 1 Rule ( Form R) PBT 37.16 80.36 12.93 130.45 12.10 26.06 8.92 47.08 Non PBT 23.91 50.92 7.21 82.04 9.22 19.63 4.91 33.75 3 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Private industry workers, Goods producing industries, white collar occupations, as published by the U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The December 2004 values for these series are listed in Table 11 of the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Summary, released March 16, 2005.

4 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, EPA 452 02 001, January 2002, pg. 2 34.

2 29 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column.

Total burden savings are presented in Chapter Three.

2.2 ESTIMATION OF UNIT COST SAVINGS To estimate the unit cost savings associated with the final rule, the typical number of hours of managerial, technical, and clerical labor saved due to the modification or elimination of each data element is combined with typical labor rates. The unit cost savings associated with each data element is calculated for the first year of compliance, when some learning must take place; and for subsequent years, when less time is needed because facilities are more familiar with the tasks.

Each cost savings estimate is made up of two components: the unit time estimates ( i. e., number of labor hours saved by each type of personnel), and the hourly wage rates associated with each level of personnel. Hourly wage rates are divided into three categories: managerial, technical, and clerical. Updated 2004 hourly wage rates, including fringe benefits and overhead, were developed by EPA for each of these categories. Average wage data for these categories was taken from the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation ( ECEC) report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS) for all goods producing, private industries. 3 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.

The additional cost of benefits, such as paid leave and insurance, is also derived from the ECEC data. Loading factors for benefits are calculated separately for managerial, technical, and clerical labor by dividing the benefits percentage of total compensation by the wage percentage of total compensation ( e. g., 0.29/ 0.71 = 0.4085).

An additional loading factor of 17 percent is applied for general overhead. This loading factor is added to the benefits loading factor, then applied to the base wage ( e. g., $ 33.61/ hr x [ 1 + ( 0.4085 + 0.17)] = $ 53.05/ hr). The total loading for indirect costs is within the range of 50 to 70 percent suggested in EPA guidance. 4 The results of this method are shown in Table 2 22. 2 30 TABLE 2 22 DERIVATION OF LOADED HOURLY RATES FOR TRI FORM COMPLETION Labor Category 2004 Average Wages 2004 Benefits and Overhead Loading Factor 2004 Loaded Hourly Rate Managerial $ 33.61 1.578 $ 53.05 Technical $ 28.52 1.571 $ 44.79 Clerical $ 14.70 1.607 $ 23.62 Unit cost savings associated with each data element are presented below in Table 2 23. 2 31 TABLE 2 23 SUMMARY OF UNIT COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PHASE 1 RULE First year savings per form ( 2004 Dollars) Subsequent year savings per form ( 2004 Dollars) Management Technical Clerical Total1 Management Technical Clerical Total1 Part I, Section 4.6, Latitude/ Longitude ( Form R and A) PBT $ 1.84 $ 3.36 $ 2.78 $ 7.98 $ 0.60 $ 1.08 $ 1.87 $ 3.55 Non PBT $ 1.87 $ 3.36 $ 1.55 $ 6.78 $ 0.62 $ 1.12 $ 1.05 $ 2.80 Part I, Section 4.8, RCRA ID number ( Form R and A) PBT $ 4.09 $ 7.47 $ 0.46 $ 12.02 $ 0.10 $ 0.19 $ 0.32 $ 0.61 Non PBT $ 3.34 $ 6.01 $ 0.26 $ 9.61 $ 0.08 $ 0.15 $ 0.18 $ 0.41 Part I, Section 4.9, NPDES ID number ( Form R and A) PBT $ 4.09 $ 7.47 $ 0.46 $ 12.02 $ 0.10 $ 0.19 $ 0.32 $ 0.61 Non PBT $ 1.91 $ 3.43 $ 0.26 $ 5.60 $ 0.05 $ 0.09 $ 0.18 $ 0.31 Part I, Section 4.10, UIC ID number ( Form R and A) PBT $ 4.09 $ 7.47 $ 0.46 $ 12.02 $ 0.10 $ 0.19 $ 0.32 $ 0.61 Non PBT $ 0.02 $ 0.04 $ 0.26 $ 0.33 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.18 $ 0.18 Part II, Section 7A. 1b, Waste Treatment Method( s) PBT $ 1.27 $ 2.33 $ 0.00 $ 3.60 $ 1.20 $ 2.19 $ 0.00 $ 3.39 Non PBT $ 0.98 $ 1.76 $ 0.00 $ 2.74 $ 0.96 $ 1.72 $ 0.00 $ 2.68 Part II, Section 7A. 1c, Range of Influent Concentration PBT $ 38.25 $ 69.84 $ 0.46 $ 108.54 $ 18.03 $ 32.79 $ 0.32 $ 51.13 Non PBT $ 29.39 $ 52.85 $ 0.26 $ 82.50 $ 14.38 $ 25.86 $ 0.18 $ 40.41 Part II, Section 7A. 1d, Waste Treatment Efficiency Estimate PBT ($ 21.48) ($ 39.22) $ 0.00 ($ 60.70) ($ 10.12) ($ 18.41) $ 0.00 ($ 28.54)

Non PBT ($ 16.51) ($ 29.68) $ 0.00 ($ 46.19) ($ 8.08) ($ 14.52) $ 0.00 ($ 22.60) Part II, Section 7A. 1e, Based on Operating Data? PBT $ 0.07 $ 0.12 $ 0.46 $ 0.66 $ 0.07 $ 0.12 $ 0.32 $ 0.51 Non PBT $ 0.03 $ 0.06 $ 0.26 $ 0.35 $ 0.03 $ 0.06 $ 0.18 $ 0.27 Part II, Section 7C, On Site Recycling PBT $ 0.64 $ 1.16 $ 0.00 $ 1.80 $ 0.60 $ 1.09 $ 0.00 $ 1.69 Non PBT $ 0.10 $ 0.18 $ 0.00 $ 0.28 $ 0.10 $ 0.17 $ 0.00 $ 0.27 Part II, Section 8.11, Is additional information on source reduction, recycling, or pollution control activities included with this report? PBT $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Non PBT $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 Total Unit Cost Savings Associated with the Phase 1 Rule ( Form A) Non PBT $ 7.14 $ 12.84 $ 2.32 $ 22.31 $ 0.75 $ 1.36 $ 1.58 $ 3.69 Total Unit Cost Savings Associated with the Phase 1 Rule ( Form R) PBT $ 32.85 $ 59.99 $ 5.09 $ 97.93 $ 10.70 $ 19.46 $ 3.51 $ 33.67 Non PBT $ 21.14 $ 38.01 $ 2.84 $ 61.99 $ 8.15 $ 14.65 $ 1.93 $ 24.73 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column. 1 Cost per chemical report, based on loaded hourly wage rates of $ 51.66, $ 43.13, and $ 23.05 for managerial, technical, and clerical labor, respectively. 5 Available at http:// www. census. gov/ epcd/ ec97sic/ E97SUSB. HTM/.

6 Value of shipments are reported by Census instead of revenues for the manufacturing and mining industries.

7 Available at http:// www. bls. gov/ ppi/.

8 Available at http:// www. bls. gov/ ppi/ ppistonagg. htm.

2 32 Total cost savings are presented in Chapter Three.

2.3 ESTIMATION OF IMPACTS Because the final rule creates cost savings rather than imposing costs on the regulated universe, a SBREFA analysis is not required. However, to characterize the impacts of Phase 1 on TRI filers, EPA calculated average annual revenues for the three largest TRI industries ( in terms of reported releases) and compared them to the estimated cost savings per form. The estimated cost savings per form is calculated for the first year of compliance, when some learning must take place; and for subsequent years, when less time is needed because facilities are more familiar with the tasks.

The impact savings calculation was made for three industries with the highest releases: Metal Mining ( SIC 10), Chemicals and Allied Products ( SIC 28), and Primary Metal Industries ( SIC 33). EPA used the 1997 Economic Census data which are the latest available data to calculate average annual revenues in those industries. 5 Average annual revenues by industry in 1997 were calculated by dividing total value of shipments by total number of establishments for each 2 digit SIC code. 6 EPA had to inflate the average revenues calculated based on the 1997 Census data to 2004 dollars to compare them to the estimated cost savings per form. The revenues were inflated from 1997 dollars to 2004 dollars using the Bureau of Labor Statistics' ( BLS) Producer Price Index ( PPI) by industry. 7 Since PPI data is not available for 2004 by SIC Code, EPA used the BLS concordance between SIC Codes and NAICS Codes to determine which indices should be used ( see Table 2 24 below). 8 TABLE 2 24 CONCORDANCE BETWEEN SIC CODE AND NAICS CODE PRODUCER PRICE INDEX DATA SIC Code SIC Code Description NAICS Code NAICS Code Description 10 Metal Mining 2122 Metal Ore Mining 28 Chemicals and Allied Products 325 Chemical Manufacturing 33 Primary Metal Industries 331 Primary Metal Manufacturing 2 33 The results of the comparison of average cost savings to average revenues for the three industries are presented in Chapter Four.