2 1 CHAPTER TWO METHODOLOGY For the proposed rule, EPA must estimate the burden and cost savings, as well as other impacts associated with the burden reduction options considered under Tier III. This chapter presents the methodologies used to estimate: 1) the unit time facilities would save under Tier III, 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 proposed rule are discussed in Chapter Four.

2.1 ESTIMATION OF UNIT BURDEN SAVINGS The proposed Tier III rule will reduce reporting burden by removing or modifying 13 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 estimates of the time required to fill out each data element on the Form R. These realistic 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, on July 16, 2004, entitled TRI Reporting Burden Estimates. In the data element specific reporting burden derivation, realistic 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:

° Realistic Burden Estimates for Every Form R Data Element: Realistic 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 realistic scenario, which assumes electronic reporting, no clerical time is required for form completion. Separate realistic burden estimates were prepared for PBT and non PBT chemicals. ° Realistic Burden Estimates for Total Form R Completion: The realistic 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 realistic 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 realistic time for all static elements, by the total realistic time for PBT chemicals less the total realistic time for all static elements, as follows:

( OMB approved time  total static time)/( total realistic time  total static time) 2 3 The total realistic 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 Tier III 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 realistic management times were scaled the same way technical times were scaled. ° Technical   The realistic 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 realistic 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 Tier III 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 realistic 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 realistic 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 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 realistic 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 2 4 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 realistic time for all static elements, by the total realistic time for non PBT chemicals less the total realistic time for all static elements, as follows:

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

The total realistic non 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: ( , . . ) / ( . . ) . 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 Tier III 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 realistic 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 proposed Tier III rule, EPA uses the scaled data element specific burden estimates to estimate the burden savings associated with the removal or modification of the 13 data elements covered in the proposed 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 TIER III PROPOSED 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)

remove Part II, Section 5.3. C, % From Stormwater remove Part II, Section 7A. 1a, General Waste Stream 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 7B, On Site Energy Recovery 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 Tier III Unit Burden Data Element Estimates This section presents the derivation of the change in reporting burden associated with the 13 data elements addressed in Tier III. For each data element, the realistic 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 4.5, 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 13 data elements is presented in Chapter Three. 2 6 Section 4.6: Latitude/ Longitude Under the proposed rule, Section 4.6 would be removed from Form R. Therefore, the entire reporting burden associated with this data element would be saved.

Realistic 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 realistic 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 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 realistic 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 ( 4.50 min first year, 1.50 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. 2 7 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.

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.

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. 2 8 Section 4.8: RCRA ID Number Under the proposed rule, Section 4.8 would be removed from the Form R. Therefore, the entire reporting burden associated with this data element would be saved.

Realistic 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 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 realistic 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). 2 9 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.

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. 2 10 Section 4.9: NPDES ID Under the proposed rule, Section 4.9 would be removed from the Form R. Therefore, the entire reporting burden associated with this data element would be saved. 2 11 Realistic 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, 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 realistic 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). 2 12 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 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 proposed rule, Section 4.10 would be removed from the Form R. Therefore, the entire reporting burden associated with this data element would be saved. 2 13 Realistic 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 realistic 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 4.10 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). 2 14 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).

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 5.3. C: % from Storm Water Under the proposed rule, Section 5.3. C would be removed from the Form R. Therefore, the entire reporting burden associated with this data element would be saved. 2 15 Realistic Reporting Burden Estimates Management Management burden includes proofreading this section as part of an overall review of the Form R ( 0.25 min first year, 0.25 min subsequent years).

Technical The percentage of chemical released from storm water is calculated by dividing the quantity of the chemical contained in the storm water by the total quantity of the chemical released to water. Technical staff will record this percentage in Part II, Section 5.3.1. C of the Form R ( 2.00 min first year, 2.00 min subsequent years).

Clerical The realistic 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 5.3. C ( see below) by the PBT management scaling ratio ( 2.0 min* 0.46 = 0.92 min first year, 2.0 min* 0.46 = 0.93 min subsequent years).

Technical The OMB approved PBT burden estimates assume that all facilities fill out all Form R data elements; therefore, the Section 5.3 C reporting burden estimate is not incidence weighted for PBT chemicals. The time required for technical staff to calculate the percentage of chemical released from storm water is assumed to be " static." The burden estimate for technical staff, therefore, is not scaled to the OMB approved estimate ( 2.00 min first year, 2.00 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). 2 16 TABLE 2 11 PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVING PART II, SECTION 5.3. C Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 0.92 0.93 Technical 2.00 2.00 Clerical 1.18 0.81 Total 4.10 3.74 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 5.3. C ( see below) by the non PBT management scaling ratio ( 0.33 min* 0.47 = 0.16 min first year, 0.33 min* 0.47 = 0.16 min subsequent years).

Technical The Section 5.3. C incidence rate for non PBT chemicals is 16.64% in RY2002. The scaling factor is not applied to the Section 5.3. C incidence weighted reporting burden because the time required for technical staff to obtain the RCRA ID is assumed to be " static" ( 2.00 min* 0.17 = 0.33 min first year, 2.00 min* 0.17 = 0.33 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 12 NON PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVING PART II, SECTION 5.3. C Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 0.16 0.16 Technical 0.33 0.33 Clerical 0.66 0.45 Total 1.14 0.93 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column.

Section 7A. 1a: General Waste Stream Under the proposed rule, column a of Section 7A. 1 would be removed from the Form R. Therefore, the entire reporting burden associated with this data element would be saved. 2 17 Realistic 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. Section 7A. 1a requires technical staff to identify the type of waste stream ( gaseous, wastewater, liquid waste, or solid waste) associated with those activities, and report the appropriate code in Part II, Section 7A. 1a ( 10.00 min first year, 5.00 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. However, no additional time would be needed to identify types of waste streams undergoing onsite treatment for the second waste stream because the necessary review was already conducted to identify the first waste stream. Therefore, no additional time is needed in Part II, Section 7A. 2a for the second waste stream ( 0.00 min first year, 0.00 min subsequent years).

Clerical The realistic 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 savings for Section 7A. 1a ( see below) by the PBT management scaling ratio ( 15.59 min* 0.46 = 7.21 min first year, 7.32 min* 0.46 = 3.40 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. 1a reporting burden estimate is not incidence weighted for PBT chemicals. The scaled reporting burden estimate is the product of the realistic technical burden estimate and the scaling factor between the total OMB time and the total realistic time for PBT chemicals ( 10.00 min* 1.56 = 15.59 min first year, 5.00 min* 1.46 = 7.32 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 2 18 data elements = 0.81 min per data element subsequent years).

TABLE 2 13 PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVING PART II, SECTION 7A. 1A Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 7.21 3.40 Technical 15.59 7.32 Clerical 1.18 0.81 Total 23.98 11.53 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 scaled technical reporting burden for Section 7A. 1a ( see below) by the non PBT management scaling ratio ( 11.80 min* 0.47 = 5.54 min first year, 5.77 min* 0.47 = 2.71 min subsequent years).

Technical The Section 7A. 1a incidence rate for non PBT chemicals is 48.52% in RY2002. The scaled reporting burden estimate is the product of the incidence weighted realistic technical burden estimate and the scaling factor between the total OMB time and the total realistic time for non PBT chemicals ( 10.00 min* 0.49* 2.43 = 11.80 min first year, 5.00 min* 0.49* 2.38 = 5.77 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 7. A. 1A Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 5.54 2.71 Technical 11.80 5.77 Clerical 0.66 0.45 Total 18.00 8.93 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column. 2 19 Section 7A. 1b: Range of Influent Concentration Under the proposed rule, column b of Section 7A. 1 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.

Realistic 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 proposed rule, the 64 codes that can currently be reported in column b would be replaced with five of the M codes used for reporting in Section 6.2. 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 proposed option, the codes will be used in two sections of the form, relieving facilities of the need to learn two different sets of waste management codes when reporting in both Section 6.2 and 7A.

The estimated realistic 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 realistic burden savings associated with this modification is the difference between the total realistic time estimate and the reduced realistic 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 realistic 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. 1The post modification scaling factors only include changes to fields that are modified under Tier III; they do not take into account fields that are removed because the OMB estimates that are used for scaling are based on the completion of the current Form R.

2 20 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 ( 2.69 min* 0.46 = 1.24 min first year, 2.81 min* 0.46 = 1.31 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. 1b 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 Tier III modification and the scaled reporting burden after the modification. The PBT scaling factors ( first year, 1.56; subsequent years, 1.46) prior to the Tier III modifications are presented in Section 2.1. Post modification scaling factors are calculated separately in this economic analysis because the scaling factor is directly related to the total realistic burden, which is different for the modified data elements and the non modified data elements. 1 The PBT scaling factors following the Tier III modifications follow:

First Year Scaling Factor ( , . . ) / ( , . . ) . 2 712 00 86 25 1 750 32 86 25 158     = Subsequent Year Scaling Factor: ( , . . ) / ( , . . ) . 1848 00 2525 1 25134 2525 149     =

The pre Tier III scaled reporting burden is the product of the realistic burden and the pre Tier III scaling factor for PBT chemicals ( 25.00 min* 1.56 = 38.98 min first year, 7.00 min* 1.46 = 10.25 min subsequent years).

The post Tier III scaled reporting burden is the product of the realistic burden and the post Tier III scaling factor for PBT chemicals ( 23.00 min* 1.58 = 36.29 min first year, 5.00 min* 1.49 = 7.43 min subsequent years).

The scaled reporting burden savings for technical staff is calculated as the difference between the pre Tier III and the post Tier III scaled reporting burdens ( 38.98 min   36.29 min = 2.69 min first year, 10.25 min   7.43 min = 2.81 min subsequent years).

Clerical The time savings for clerical staff is assumed to be zero because column b is being modified and not removed. 2The post modification scaling factors only include changes to fields that are modified under Tier III; they do not take into account fields that are removed because the OMB estimates that are used for scaling are based on the completion of the current Form R.

2 21 TABLE 2 15 PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH MODIFYING PART II, SECTION 7A. 1B Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 1.24 1.31 Technical 2.69 2.81 Clerical 0.00 0.00 Total 3.93 4.12 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 ( 2.27 min* 0.47 = 1.07 min first year, 2.28 min* 0.47 = 1.07 min subsequent years).

Technical The Section 7A. 1b 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 Tier III modification and the scaled reporting burden after the modification. The non PBT scaling factors ( first year, 2.43; subsequent years, 2.38) prior to the Tier III modifications are presented in Section 2.1. Post modification scaling factors are calculated separately for this economic analysis because the scaling factor is directly related to the total realistic burden, which is different for the modified data elements and the non modified data elements. 2 The non PBT scaling factors following the Tier III modifications follow:

First Year Scaling Factor: ( , . . ) / ( . . ) . 1 446 48 59 00 627 67 59 00 2 44     = Subsequent Year Scaling Factor: ( . . )/( . . ) . 984 00 1597 420 99 1597 2 39     =

The pre Tier III scaled reporting burden is the product of the incidence weighted realistic burden and the pre Tier III 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 Tier III scaled reporting burden is the product of the incidence weighted realistic burden and the post Tier III scaling factor for non PBT chemicals ( 23.00 min* 0.49* 2.44 = 27.23 min first year, 5.00 min* 0.49* 2.39 = 5.80 min subsequent years). 2 22 The scaled reporting burden savings for technical staff is calculated as the difference between the pre Tier III and the post Tier III scaled reporting burdens ( 29.50 min   27.23 min = 2.27 min first year, 8.08 min   5.80 min = 2.28 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 16 NON PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH MODIFYING PART II, SECTION 7A. 1B Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 1.07 1.07 Technical 2.27 2.28 Clerical 0.00 0.00 Total 3.34 3.36 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column.

Section 7A. 1c: Range of Influent Concentration Under the proposed rule, column c of Section 7A. 1 would be removed from the Form R. However, if column c is eliminated but column d ( waste treatment efficiency) is not, then most of the steps ( and associated time) required to determine the influent concentration will still need to be conducted as part of estimating the treatment efficiency. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, no burden savings will be attributed to the eliminations of column c or d ( see Section 7A. 1d for more discussion). There may be some small potential burden savings with the combined proposal to eliminate column c and introduce range reporting in column d that will require further analysis to characterize.

Section 7A. 1d: Range of Influent Concentration Under the proposed rule, column d would require the waste treatment efficiency to be reported as range codes rather than exact percentage estimates. It does not appear that this proposed simplification will significantly reduce the burden associated with this data element. For facilities using analytical data ( i. e., pre and post treatment concentrations as determined by laboratory analysis or monitoring) to estimate the waste treatment efficiency, they 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. 1c above, the Tier III proposal 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 Tier III proposes to eliminate column c, activities conducted to determine influent concentration, and the associated burden, would be 2 23 conducted in support of column d.

Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, no burden savings will be attributed to the elimination of columns c or d. There may be some small potential burden savings with the combined proposal to eliminate column c and introduce range reporting in column d that will require further analysis to characterize.

Section 7A. 1e: Range of Influent Concentration Under the proposed rule, column e of Section 7A. 1 would be removed from the Form R. Therefore, the entire reporting burden associated with this data element would be saved.

Realistic 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. 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 realistic 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 2 24 The OMB approved PBT burden estimates assume that all facilities fill out all Form R data elements; therefore, the Section 7A. 1e reporting burden estimate is not incidence weighted for PBT chemicals. The time required for technical staff to fill out Section 7A. 1e is assumed to be " static". The burden estimate for technical staff, therefore, is not scaled to the total OMBapproved 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. 1E 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.

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. 1e incidence rate for non PBT chemicals is 48.52% in RY2002. The time required for technical staff to fill out Section 7A. 1e 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). 2 25 TABLE 2 18 NON PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVING PART II, SECTION 7A. 1E 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.

Section 7B: On Site Energy Recovery Under the proposed rule, Section 7B 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.

Realistic 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 energy recovery activities. For each waste stream that is undergoing treatment for on site energy recovery, 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 energy recycled in Part II, Section 7B of the Form R ( 32.00 min first year, 24.00 min subsequent years).

Under the proposed rule, facilities would be required to indicate whether or not they perform energy recovery on site, instead of reporting one or more of the three energy recovery method codes currently available. The estimated realistic burden for indicating whether or not a facility performs energy recovery on the Form R is 15 minutes in the first year and 8 minutes in subsequent years. The realistic burden savings associated with this modification is the difference between the total realistic time estimate and the reduced realistic time estimate ( 32.00 min   15.00 min = 17.00 min first year, 24.00 min   8.00 min = 16.00 min subsequent years).

Clerical The realistic 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. 3The post modification scaling factors only include changes to fields that are modified under Tier III; they do not take into account fields that are removed because the OMB estimates that are used for scaling are based on the completion of the current Form R.

2 26 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 ( 26.22 min* 0.46 = 12.13 min first year, 23.24 min* 0.46 = 10.79 min subsequent years).

Technical The Section 7B realistic burden savings is not incidence weighted for PBT chemicals because the OMB approved PBT burden estimates assume that all facilities fill out all Form R data elements.

The scaled burden savings are calculated as the difference between the scaled reporting burden before the Tier III modification and the scaled reporting burden after the modification. The PBT scaling factors ( first year, 1.56; subsequent years, 1.46) prior to the Tier III modifications are presented in Section 2.1. Post modification scaling factors are calculated separately in this economic analysis because the scaling factor is directly related to the total realistic burden, which is different for the modified data elements and the non modified data elements. 3 The PBT scaling factors following the Tier III modifications follow:

First Year Scaling Factor ( , . . ) / ( , . . ) . 2 712 00 86 25 1 750 32 86 25 158     = Subsequent Year Scaling Factor: ( , . . ) / ( , . . ) . 1848 00 2525 1 25134 2525 149     =

The pre Tier III scaled reporting burden is the product of the realistic burden and the pre Tier III scaling factor for PBT chemicals ( 32.00 min* 1.56 = 49.89 min first year, 24.00 min* 1.46 = 35.13 min subsequent years).

The post Tier III scaled reporting burden is the product of the realistic burden and the post Tier III scaling factor for PBT chemicals ( 15.00 min* 1.58 = 23.67 min first year, 8.00 min* 1.49 = 11.89 min subsequent years).

The scaled reporting burden savings for technical staff is calculated as the difference between the pre Tier III and the post Tier III scaled reporting burdens ( 49.89 min   23.67 min = 26.22 min first year, 35.13 min   11.89 min = 23.24 min subsequent years).

Clerical The time savings for clerical staff is assumed to be zero because Section 7B is being modified and not removed. 4The post modification scaling factors only include changes to fields that are modified under Tier III; they do not take into account fields that are removed because the OMB estimates that are used for scaling are based on the completion of the current Form R.

2 27 TABLE 2 19 PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH MODIFYING PART II, SECTION 7B Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 12.13 10.79 Technical 26.22 23.24 Clerical 0.00 0.00 Total 38.35 34.03 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 ( 1.81 min* 0.47 = 0.85 min first year, 1.67 min* 0.47 = 0.78 min subsequent years).

Technical The Section 7B incidence rate for non PBT chemicals is 4.40% in RY2002.

The scaled burden savings are calculated as the difference between the scaled reporting burden before the Tier III modification and the scaled reporting burden after the modification. The non PBT scaling factors ( first year, 2.43; subsequent years, 2.38) prior to the Tier III modifications are presented in Section 2.1. Post modification scaling factors are calculated separately for this economic analysis because the scaling factor is directly related to the total realistic burden, which is different for the modified data elements and the non modified data elements. 4 The non PBT scaling factors following the Tier III modifications follow:

First Year Scaling Factor: ( , . . ) / ( . . ) . 1 446 48 59 00 627 67 59 00 2 44     = Subsequent Year Scaling Factor: ( . . )/( . . ) . 984 00 1597 420 99 1597 2 39     =

The pre Tier III scaled reporting burden is the product of the incidence weighted realistic burden and the pre Tier III scaling factor for non PBT chemicals ( 32.00 min* 0.044* 2.43 = 3.42 min first year, 24.00 min* 0.044* 2.38 = 2.51 min subsequent years).

The post Tier III scaled reporting burden is the product of the incidence weighted realistic burden and the post Tier III scaling factor for non PBT chemicals ( 15.00 min* 0.044* 2.44 = 1.61 min first year, 8.00 min* 0.044* 2.39 = 0.84 min subsequent years). 2 28 The scaled reporting burden savings for technical staff is calculated as the difference between the pre Tier III and the post Tier III scaled reporting burdens ( 3.42 min   1.61 min = 1.81 min first year, 2.51min   0.84 min = 1.67 min subsequent years).

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

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

Management 0.85 0.78 Technical 1.81 1.67 Clerical 0.00 0.00 Total 2.67 2.46 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column.

Section 7C: On Site Recycling Under the proposed 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.

Realistic 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 proposed rule, the 16 codes that can currently be reported in Section 7C would be replaced with four of the M codes used for reporting in Section 6.2. 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 proposed option, the codes will be used in two sections of the form, relieving facilities of the need to learn two different sets of waste management codes when reporting in both Section 6.2 and 7C. 5The post modification scaling factors only include changes to fields that are modified under Tier III; they do not take into account fields that are removed because the OMB estimates that are used for scaling are based on the completion of the current Form R.

2 29 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 realistic burden savings associated with this modification is the difference between the total realistic time estimate and the reduced realistic 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 realistic 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 ( 0.87 min* 0.46 = 0.40 min first year, 0.87 min* 0.46 = 0.41 min subsequent years).

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 Tier III modification and the scaled reporting burden after the modification. The PBT scaling factors ( first year, 1.56; subsequent years, 1.46) prior to the Tier III modifications are presented in Section 2.1. Post modification scaling factors are calculated separately for this economic analysis because the scaling factor is directly related to the total realistic burden, which is different for the modified data elements and the non modified data elements. 5 The PBT scaling factors following the Tier III modifications follow:

First Year Scaling Factor ( , . . ) / ( , . . ) . 2 712 00 86 25 1 750 32 86 25 158     = Subsequent Year Scaling Factor: ( , . . ) / ( , . . ) . 1848 00 2525 1 25134 2525 149     =

The pre Tier III scaled reporting burden is the product of the realistic burden and the pre Tier III 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 Tier III scaled reporting burden is the product of the realistic burden and the post Tier III scaling factor for PBT chemicals ( 37.00 min* 1.58 = 58.38 min first year, 26.00 min* 1.49 = 6The post modification scaling factors only include changes to fields that are modified under Tier III; they do not take into account fields that are removed because the OMB estimates that are used for scaling are based on the completion of the current Form R.

2 30 38.65 min subsequent years).

The scaled reporting burden savings for technical staff is calculated as the difference between the pre Tier III and the post Tier III scaled reporting burdens ( 59.25 min   58.38 min = 0.87 min first year, 39.53 min   38.65 min = 0.87 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 21 PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH MODIFYING PART II, SECTION 7C Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 0.40 0.41 Technical 0.87 0.87 Clerical 0.00 0.00 Total 1.27 1.28 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 ( 0.2 min* 0.47 = 0.10 min first year, 0.21 min* 0.47 = 0.10 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 Tier III modification and the scaled reporting burden after the modification. The non PBT scaling factors ( first year, 2.43; subsequent years, 2.38) prior to the Tier III modifications are presented in Section 2.1. Post modification scaling factors are calculated separately for this economic analysis because the scaling factor is directly related to the total realistic burden, which is different for the modified data elements and the non modified data elements. 6 The non PBT scaling factors following the Tier III modifications follow:

First Year Scaling Factor: ( , . . ) / ( . . ) . 1 446 48 59 00 627 67 59 00 2 44     = 2 31 Subsequent Year Scaling Factor: ( . . )/( . . ) . 984 00 1597 420 99 1597 2 39     =

The pre Tier III scaled reporting burden is the product of the incidence weighted realistic burden and the pre Tier III 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 Tier III scaled reporting burden is the product of the incidence weighted realistic burden and the post Tier III scaling factor for non PBT chemicals ( 37.00 min* 0.098* 2.44 = 8.86 min first year, 26.00 min* 0.098* 2.39 = 6.10 min subsequent years)

The scaled reporting burden savings for technical staff is calculated as the difference between the pre Tier III and the post Tier III scaled reporting burdens ( 9.08 min   8.86 min = 0.21 min first year, 6.31min   6.10 min = 0.21 min subsequent years).

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

TABLE 2 22 NON PBT REPORTING BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH MODIFYING PART II, SECTION 7C Personnel Type First Year Burden ( minutes) Subsequent Year Burden ( minutes)

Management 0.10 0.10 Technical 0.21 0.21 Clerical 0.00 0.00 Total 0.31 0.30 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 proposed 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 23 summarizes the unit burden savings associated with the proposed Tier III rule. 2 32 TABLE 2 23 SUMMARY OF UNIT BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TIER III 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 5.3. C, % From Stormwater PBT 0.92 2.00 1.18 4.10 0.93 2.00 0.81 3.74 Non PBT 0.16 0.33 0.66 1.14 0.16 0.33 0.45 0.95 Part II, Section 7A. 1a, General Waste Stream PBT 7.21 15.59 1.18 23.98 3.40 7.32 0.81 11.53 Non PBT 5.54 11.80 0.66 18.00 2.71 5.77 0.45 8.93 Part II, Section 7A. 1b, Waste Treatment Method( s)

PBT 1.24 2.69 0.00 3.93 1.31 2.81 0.00 4.12 Non PBT 1.07 2.27 0.00 3.34 1.07 2.28 0.00 3.35 Part II, Section 7A. 1c, Range of Influent Concentration 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 TABLE 2 23 SUMMARY OF UNIT BURDEN SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TIER III RULE First year savings per form ( min) Subsequent year savings per form ( min)

Management Technical Clerical Total Management Technical Clerical Total 2 33 Part II, Section 7A. 1d, Waste Treatment Efficiency Estimate 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 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 7B, On Site Energy Recovery PBT 12.13 26.22 0.00 38.35 10.79 23.24 0.00 34.03 Non PBT 0.85 1.81 0.00 2.67 0.78 1.67 0.00 2.46 Part II, Section 7C, On Site Recycling PBT 0.40 0.87 0.00 1.27 0.41 0.87 0.00 1.28 Non PBT 0.10 0.21 0.00 0.31 0.10 0.21 0.00 0.30 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 Tier III Rule ( Form A)

PBT 15.94 34.50 10.59 61.03 1.06 2.25 7.29 10.60 Non PBT 8.08 17.21 5.91 31.18 0.84 1.81 4.03 6.68 Total Unit Burden Savings Associated with the Tier III Rule ( Form R)

PBT 37.92 82.04 14.13 134.1 17.98 38.66 9.72 66.35 Non PBT 15.84 33.71 7.89 57.41 5.70 12.15 5.38 23.23 Note: Due to rounding, the total may not equal the sum of the column.

Total burden savings are presented in Chapter Three. 7Employer 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 March 2004 values for these series are listed in Table 11 of the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Summary, released June 24, 2004.

8U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth Edition, EPA 452 02 001, January 2002, pg. 2 34.

2 34 2.2 ESTIMATION OF UNIT COST SAVINGS To estimate the unit cost savings associated with the proposed 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. 7 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., 0.289/ 0.711 = 0.41).

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., $ 32.77/ hr x [ 1 + ( 0.41 + 0.17)] = $ 51.66/ hr). The total loading for indirect costs is within the range of 50 to 70 percent suggested in EPA guidance. 8 The results of this method are shown in Table 2 24. 2 35 TABLE 2 24 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 $ 32.77 1.576 $ 51.66 Technical $ 27.53 1.567 $ 43.13 Clerical $ 14.40 1.601 $ 23.05 Unit cost savings associated with each data element are presented below in Table 2 25.

TABLE 2 25 SUMMARY OF UNIT COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TIER III 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 $ 1.79 $ 3.23 $ 2.71 $ 7.74 $ 0.60 $ 1.08 $ 1.87 $ 3.55 Non PBT $ 1.82 $ 3.23 $ 1.51 $ 6.56 $ 0.61 $ 1.08 $ 1.03 $ 2.71 Part I, Section 4.8, RCRA ID number ( Form R and A)

PBT $ 3.98 $ 7.19 $ 0.45 $ 11.62 $ 0.10 $ 0.18 $ 0.31 $ 0.59 Non PBT $ 3.25 $ 5.78 $ 0.25 $ 9.29 $ 0.08 $ 0.14 $ 0.17 $ 0.40 Part I, Section 4.9, NPDES ID number ( Form R and A)

PBT $ 3.98 $ 7.19 $ 0.45 $ 11.62 $ 0.10 $ 0.18 $ 0.31 $ 0.59 Non PBT $ 1.86 $ 3.30 $ 0.25 $ 5.41 $ 0.05 $ 0.08 $ 0.17 $ 0.30 Part I, Section 4.10, UIC ID number ( Form R and A)

PBT $ 3.98 $ 7.19 $ 0.45 $ 11.62 $ 0.10 $ 0.18 $ 0.31 $ 0.59 Non PBT $ 0.02 $ 0.04 $ 0.25 $ 0.32 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.17 $ 0.17 Part II, Section 5.3. C, % From Stormwater PBT $ 0.80 $ 1.44 $ 0.45 $ 2.69 $ 0.80 $ 1.44 $ 0.31 $ 2.55 Non PBT $ 0.13 $ 0.24 $ 0.25 $ 0.63 $ 0.13 $ 0.24 $ 0.17 $ 0.55 TABLE 2 25 SUMMARY OF UNIT COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TIER III RULE First year savings per form ( 2004 Dollars) Subsequent year savings per form ( 2004 Dollars)

Management Technical Clerical Total1 Management Technical Clerical Total1 2 36 Part II, Section 7A. 1a, General Waste Stream PBT $ 6.21 $ 11.21 $ 0.45 $ 17.87 $ 2.93 $ 5.26 $ 0.31 $ 8.50 Non PBT $ 4.77 $ 8.48 $ 0.25 $ 13.50 $ 2.33 $ 4.15 $ 0.17 $ 6.65 Part II, Section 7A. 1b, Waste Treatment Method( s)

PBT $ 1.07 $ 1.93 $ 0.00 $ 3.00 $ 1.13 $ 2.02 $ 0.00 $ 3.15 Non PBT $ 0.92 $ 1.63 $ 0.00 $ 2.55 $ 0.92 $ 1.64 $ 0.00 $ 2.57 Part II, Section 7A. 1c, Range of Influent Concentration 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 Part II, Section 7A. 1d, Waste Treatment Efficiency Estimate 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 Part II, Section 7A. 1e, Based on Operating Data?

PBT $ 0.07 $ 0.12 $ 0.45 $ 0.64 $ 0.07 $ 0.12 $ 0.31 $ 0.50 Non PBT $ 0.03 $ 0.06 $ 0.25 $ 0.34 $ 0.03 $ 0.06 $ 0.17 $ 0.26 Part II, Section 7B, On Site Energy Recovery PBT $ 10.44 $ 18.85 $ 0.00 $ 29.29 $ 9.29 $ 16.71 $ 0.00 $ 26.00 Non PBT $ 0.73 $ 1.30 $ 0.00 $ 2.03 $ 0.68 $ 1.20 $ 0.00 $ 1.88 Part II, Section 7C, On Site Recycling PBT $ 0.34 $ 0.62 $ 0.00 $ 0.97 $ 0.35 $ 0.63 $ 0.00 $ 0.98 Non PBT $ 0.09 $ 0.15 $ 0.00 $ 0.24 $ 0.08 $ 0.15 $ 0.00 $ 0.23 Part II, Section 8.11, Is additional information on source reduction, recycling, or pollution control activities included with this report? TABLE 2 25 SUMMARY OF UNIT COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TIER III RULE First year savings per form ( 2004 Dollars) Subsequent year savings per form ( 2004 Dollars)

Management Technical Clerical Total1 Management Technical Clerical Total1 9 Available at http:// www. census. gov/ epcd/ ec97sic/ E97SUSB. HTM/.

2 37 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 Tier III Rule ( Form A)

PBT $ 13.73 $ 24.80 $ 4.06 $ 42.60 $ 0.90 $ 1.62 $ 2.80 $ 5.32 Non PBT $ 6.95 $ 12.35 $ 2.26 $ 21.58 $ 0.74 $ 1.30 $ 1.54 $ 3.58 Total Unit Cost Savings Associated with the Tier III Rule ( Form R)

PBT $ 32.66 $ 58.97 $ 5.42 $ 97.05 $ 15.46 $ 27.79 $ 3.74 $ 46.99 Non PBT $ 13.63 $ 24.23 $ 3.02 $ 40.89 $ 4.92 $ 8.75 $ 2.06 $ 15.72 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.

Total cost savings are presented in Chapter Three.

2.3 ESTIMATION OF IMPACTS Because the proposed rule creates cost savings rather than imposing costs on the regulated universe, a SBREFA analysis is not required. However, to characterize the impacts of Tier III 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. 9 Average annual revenues by industry in 1997 were calculated by dividing total value of shipments by total number of establishments for 10 Value of shipments are reported by Census instead of revenues for the manufacturing and mining industries.

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

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

2 38 each 2 digit SIC code. 10 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 ( annual) to March 2004 dollars using the Bureau of Labor Statistics' ( BLS) Producer Price Index ( PPI) by industry. 11 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 26 below). 12 TABLE 2 26 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 The results of the comparison of average cost savings to average revenues for the three industries are presented in Chapter Four.


[Federal Register: January 23, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 14)]
[Notices]
[Page 3584-3586]
[DOCID:fr23ja06-106]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-53132; File No. SR-NASD-2005-144]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities
Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Order Entry and Execution Practices

January 17, 2006.
    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 December 8, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by NASD. 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

    NASD is proposing to add Rule 3380 to prohibit members and
associated persons from splitting any order into multiple smaller
orders for execution or any execution into multiple smaller executions
for transaction reporting for the primary purpose of maximizing a
monetary or in-kind payment to the member or associated persons as a
result of the execution of such orders or the transaction reporting of
such executions. The text of the proposed rule change appears below.
Additions are in italics.
* * * * *

3380. Order Entry and Execution Practices

    No member or associated person may engage in conduct that has the
intent or effect of splitting any order into multiple smaller orders
for execution or any execution into multiple smaller

executions for transaction reporting for the primary purpose of
maximizing a monetary or in-kind amount to be received by the member or
associated person as a result of the execution of such orders or the
transaction reporting of such executions. For purposes of this rule,
``monetary or in-kind amount'' shall be defined to include, but not be
limited to, any credits, commissions, gratuities, payments for or
rebates of fees, or any other payments of value to the member or
associated person.
* * * * *

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

    In its filing with the Commission, NASD 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. NASD 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 the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    ``Trade shredding'' is a term used to describe the practice of
splitting customer orders for securities into multiple smaller orders
(e.g., a 1,000 share order is split into 10 100 share orders) for the
primary purpose of maximizing payments or rebates to the member. Among
other things, concerns have been raised about market participants
increasingly engaging in the practice of trade shredding as a means to
increase their share of market data revenues under the joint industry
plans (``Plans''),\3\ where the Plan participant has adopted a practice
of sharing its Plan revenues with market participants who send it
orders. Specifically, because the current allocation formulas for
distributing Plan income heavily emphasize the number of trades, no
matter how small the size of the trade, an incentive can exist for
market participants to engage in distortive behavior, such as trade
shredding, as a means to increase their share of market data revenues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The three joint-industry plans are (1) the CTA Plan, which
is operated by the Consolidated Tape Association and disseminates
transaction information for exchange-listed securities, (2) the CQ
Plan, which disseminates consolidated quotation information for
exchange-listed securities, and (3) the Nasdaq UTP Plan, which
disseminates consolidated transaction and quotation information for
Nasdaq-listed securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To address these concerns, among others, the Commission adopted
Regulation NMS, which contains amendments to the current Plan formulas
used to allocate Plan income.\4\ These modifications incorporate a more
broad-based measure of a self-regulatory organization's (``SRO'')
contribution to the consolidated trade stream, including both an SRO's
quotes and trades, intended to reduce the incentives for trade
shredding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although these modifications in Plan formulas should reduce the
incentives for trade shredding, the Commission continues to believe
that SRO rules prohibiting trade shredding are necessary and
appropriate and has requested that all SROs implement rule changes to
inhibit the practice of trade shredding. In response to the
Commission's request, NASD is proposing to adopt new Rule 3380, which
would prohibit such practices. Specifically, new Rule 3380 would
prohibit members and associated persons from splitting any order into
multiple smaller orders for execution or any execution into multiple
smaller executions for transaction reporting for the primary purpose of
maximizing a monetary or in-kind payment to the member or associated
persons as a result of the execution of such orders or the transaction
reporting of such executions. For purposes of the proposed new rule,
``monetary or in-kind amount'' shall be defined to include, but not be
limited to credits, commissions, gratuities, payments for or rebates of
fees, or any other payments of value to the member or associated
person.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\5\ which requires, among other things,
that NASD rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative
acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade,
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. NASD
believes that the proposed rule change will further the goal of
preventing manipulative acts and practices by prohibiting this
potentially distortive practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASD believes that the proposed rule change will impose no 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

    NASD has neither solicited nor received comments on this proposal.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NASD-2005-144 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-144. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail 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 Web site (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 inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal offices of NASD. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-144 and should be
submitted on or before February 13, 2006.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-663 Filed 1-20-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 153 (Thursday, August 10, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54361-54362]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-98058; File No. SR-MIAX-2023-22]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC; Notice of Designation of a Longer Period for Commission
Action on a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Exchange Rule 404, Series of
Option Contracts Open for Trading, To Implement a Low Priced Stock
Strike Price Interval Program

August 4, 2023.
    On June 5, 2023, Miami International Securities Exchange LLC filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant
to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'')
\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend
Exchange Rule 404, Series of Option Contracts Open for Trading. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on June 22, 2023.\3\ The Commission has received one comment on the
proposed rule change.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 97733 (June 15,
2023), 88 FR 40887.
    \4\ The comment is available at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-miax-2023-22/srmiax202322.htm.

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

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \5\ provides that within 45 days of the
publication of notice of the filing of a proposed rule change, or
within such longer period up to 90 days as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding, or as to which the self-regulatory organization
consents, the Commission shall either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved. The
45th day after publication of the notice for this proposed rule change
is August 6, 2023. The Commission is extending this 45-day time period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has
sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the
Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\6\ designates
September 20, 2023 as the date by which the Commission shall either
approve or disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether to
disapprove, the proposed rule change (File No. SR-MIAX-2023-22).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(31).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sherry R. Haywood,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-17105 Filed 8-9-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 23, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23914-23915]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11000]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 5728-020]

Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-
Application Document, and Approving Use of the Traditional Licensing
Process; Sandy Hollow Power Company, Inc.

    a. Type of Application: Notice of Intent to File License
Application and Request to Use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    b. Project No.: 5728-020.
    c. Date Filed: February 12, 2018.
    d. Submitted by: Sandy Hollow Power Company, Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Sandy Hollow Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: Located on the Indian River in Philadelphia, Jefferson
County, New York. No federal lands are occupied by the project works or
located within the project boundary.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Mr. Richard Ely, Principal, 27264
Meadowbrook Drive Davis, CA 95618, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
[email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Brandi Sangunett, Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Email:
[email protected].
    j. Sandy Hollow Power Company, Inc. filed its request to use the
Traditional Licensing Process on February 12, 2018. Sandy Hollow Power
Company, Inc. provided public notice of its request on April 4, 2018.
In a letter dated May 16, 2018, the Director of the Division of
Hydropower Licensing approved Sandy Hollow Power Company, Inc.'s
request to use the Traditional Licensing Process.
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under section
7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency regulations
thereunder at 50 CFR, part 402; and NOAA Fisheries under section 305(b)
of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 600.920. We are also initiating
consultation with the New York State Historic Preservation Office, as
required by section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the
implementing regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Sandy Hollow Power Company,
Inc. as the Commission's non-federal representative for carrying out
informal consultation pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act and section 305(b) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act; and consultation pursuant to section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Sandy Hollow Power Company, Inc. filed a Pre-Application
Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the
Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's website
(http://www.ferc.gov), using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at

[email protected],<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free), or (202) 502-
8659 (TTY). A copy is also available for inspection and reproduction at
the address in paragraph h.
    o. The licensee states its unequivocal intent to submit an
application for a new license for Project No. 5728. Pursuant to 18 CFR
16.8, 16.9, and 16.10 each application for a new license and any
competing license applications must be filed with the Commission at
least 24 months prior to the expiration of the existing license. All
applications for license for this project must be filed by February 28,
2021.
    p. Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.

    Dated: May 17, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-11000 Filed 5-22-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P