Similarly, this RIA also estimates a set of reduction in burden accruing to states, again stemming from a reduced number of activities. Specifically, as only TSDFs will submit information to the e-Manifest system, this RIA estimates that states will conduct relevant activities in support of receiver TSDFs only, rather than TSDFs and generators. Additionally, this RIA assumes that states will enjoy a reduced burden associated with quality assurance checks on received submissions, as only TSDF receivers of hazardous waste will submit WR Forms in the post-rule scenario, as compared to all receivers of hazardous waste assumed to do so per the BR ICR.

       The overall impact of these changes to industry reporting in the post-rule scenario is summarized in Exhibit 5-20 below. Overall, this RIA estimates approximately $3 million in annual cost savings to states associated with reduced burden for hazardous waste reporting activities.

              waste and 460 total receivers of hazardous waste, hence, approximately 10 percent of the costs (47/460) associated with this item per the BR ICR are removed in the post-rule scenario.

                                 Exhibit 5-20
Baseline and Post-Rule Costs Accruing to States for Hazardous Waste Reporting Activities
                     (2014$, millions of $, annual costs)
Item
                                   Activity
                           Estimated Cost to States
                  Estimated Incremental Cost (Cost Savings)

Baseline
                                  Post-Rule

                                      1
Distribute Hazardous Waste Report forms and instructions
                                                                        $0.241
                                                                      $0.00489
                                                                      ($0.236)
                                      2
Assist respondents
                                                                        $0.226
                                                                      $0.00461
                                                                      ($0.222)
                                      3
Key entry of report submissions
                                                                       $0.0928
                                                                      $0.00171
                                                                     ($0.0911)
                                      4
Perform quality assurance
                                                                         $8.18
                                                                         $6.04
                                                                       ($2.14)
                                      5
                                                                         Total
                                                                         $8.74
                                                                         $6.05
                                                                       ($2.69)
Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Baseline Sources: Unit costs and activity counts: Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request
(ICR) Number 0976.17 2015 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification. January 22, 2015. Labor rates: Supporting
Statement for Information Collection Request (ICR) Number 801.20 Requirements for Generators,
Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System. April 30, 2015.
Post-rule values based on EPA assumptions regarding burden changes associated with implementation and functioning of the e-Manifest system. a Per the BR ICR, Form OI is a state-optional form that is not expected to be submitted by any entities.

       In aggregate, cost savings associated with reduced burden for hazardous waste reporting are estimated at approximately $8 million annually across both states and industry.

       5.8 Summary of Costs and Cost Savings

       This section summarizes the costs and cost savings to EPA, industry, and states as described throughout this chapter. As presented below, costs to EPA detailed in this chapter are assumed by this RIA to be directly offset by manifest fees to industry. These fees, in turn, initially exceed but eventually only partially offset the cost savings accruing to industry associated with less burdensome manifest activities stemming from the use of electronic manifests.

       All costs included in the exhibits below are based on the adoption rate depicted in Section 5.1.3.

       In a few cases, this RIA does not anticipate that certain baseline costs will be affected by the proposed rule. These costs include EPA-specific agency burden for receipt and review of paperwork associated with federal manifest (see Exhibit 4-4, under $1 million annually) and industry costs associated with recordkeeping activities for hazardous waste shipments made under reclamation agreements (see Exhibit 4-2, approximately $3 million annually).
       Additionally, while the capital costs of obtaining file cabinets may be lessened in the post-rule scenario as manifests are handled electronically and require less physical storage, these costs are assumed to stay constant in the post-rule scenario, an assumption which may slightly understate the cost savings of the proposed rule.

       Exhibit 5-21 presents an overall summary of the baseline, post-rule, and incremental (post-rule less baseline) costs (and cost savings) of the proposed rule. Compared to baseline costs of approximately $224 million, post-rule costs range from $255 million in the first year of system launch to $124 million in the sixth year of system launch. Exhibit 5-22 displays the incremental discounted costs of the rule (using three percent and seven percent discount rates), including the annualized incremental costs of the proposed rule. This RIA estimates approximately $34 million in annualized cost savings under a seven percent discount rate and approximately $41 million in annualized cost savings over this period under a three percent discount rate, though the rule results in overall costs in the first two years and cost savings in the following four years.[,42]

       Note that extending the period of analysis forward in time under the adoption rate assumptions presented in this chapter would increase the cost savings estimate, because the highest cost savings accrue after the system implementation costs have been fully accounted for (in the sixyear period and afterward). Additional years would continue to reveal substantial cost savings rather than net costs. Therefore, the estimate of a $34 million annualized cost savings can be thought of as a low-end estimate for the long-term savings associated with a functioning eManifest system. For example, extending the period of analysis to ten years from system launch, and assuming that net cost savings in Years 7 through 10 are similar to those experienced in Year 6 leads to an annualized cost savings estimate of approximately $49 million instead.

                                 Exhibit 5-21
Summary of Costs and Cost Savings of the Proposed Rule and e-Manifest System
                            (2014$, millions of $)
Item
                                      A
                                      B
                                      C
                                      D
                                      E
                                      F
                                      G
                                      H

                                 Cost Category
Baseline
                    Post-Rule (e-Manifest System Launched)

Annual
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
                         Baseline and Post-Rule Costs
Costs to EPA
                                      1
Receipt/review of federal manifests[a]
                                                                        $0.907
                                                                        $0.907
                                                                        $0.907
                                                                        $0.907
                                                                        $0.907
                                                                        $0.907
                                                                        $0.907
                                      2
e-Manifest system  -  annual payment for setup costs ($45.5M total)[b]
                                                                         $0.00
                                                                         $9.11
                                                                         $9.11
                                                                         $9.11
                                                                         $9.11
                                                                         $9.11
                                                                         $0.00
                                      3
e-Manifest system  -  operations costs[c]
                                                                         $0.00
                                                                         $23.3
                                                                         $23.9
                                                                         $24.6
                                                                         $25.6
                                                                         $25.5
                                                                         $25.5
                                      4
e-Manifest system  -  manifest processing costs[c]
                                                                         $0.00
                                                                         $28.1
                                                                         $23.2
                                                                         $9.76
                                                                         $1.08
                                                                         $1.08
                                                                         $1.08
                                      5
                                                                      Subtotal
                                                                        $0.907
                                                                        $0.907
                                                                        $0.907
                                                                        $0.907
                                                                        $0.907
                                                                        $0.907
                                                                        $0.907
Costs to Industry
                                      6
Manifest activities[d]
                                                                          $189
                                                                          $183
                                                                          $161
                                                                          $129
                                                                         $85.2
                                                                         $85.2
                                                                         $85.2
                                      7
CROMERR
                                                                         $0.00
$0.0277
                                                                        $0.123
                                                                        $0.238
                                                                        $0.405
                                                                        $0.318
                                                                        $0.392
                                      8
Manifest fees[e]
                                                                         $0.00
                                                                         $60.5
                                                                         $56.2
                                                                         $43.5
                                                                         $35.8
                                                                         $35.7
                                                                         $26.6
                                      9
Hazardous waste reporting activities
                                                                         $10.4
                                                                         $4.75
                                                                         $4.75
                                                                         $4.75
                                                                         $4.75
                                                                         $4.75
                                                                         $4.75
                                      10
                                                                      Subtotal
                                                                          $199
                                                                          $248
                                                                          $222
                                                                          $177
                                                                          $126
                                                                          $126
                                                                          $117
Costs to States
                                      11
Manifest receipt and processing[f]
                                                                         $15.0
                                                                         $0.00
                                                                         $0.00
                                                                         $0.00
                                                                         $0.00
                                                                         $0.00
                                                                         $0.00
                                      12
Hazardous waste reporting activities
                                                                         $8.74
                                                                         $6.05
                                                                         $6.05
                                                                         $6.05
                                                                         $6.05
                                                                         $6.05
                                                                         $6.05
                                      13
                                                                      Subtotal
                                                                         $23.8
                                                                         $6.05
                                                                         $6.05
                                                                         $6.05
                                                                         $6.05
                                                                         $6.05
                                                                         $6.05
                                      14
                                                                   Total Costs
                                                                          $224
                                                                          $255
                                                                          $229
                                                                          $184
                                                                          $133
                                                                          $133
                                                                          $124
           Incremental Costs (Post-Rule Costs Less Baseline Costs)
                                      15
                                                      Incremental Costs to EPA
                                                                         $0.00
                                                                         $0.00
                                                                         $0.00
                                                                         $0.00
                                                                         $0.00
                                                                         $0.00
                                      16
                                                 Incremental Costs to Industry
                                                                         $49.5
                                                                         $23.4
                                                                       ($21.8)
                                                                       ($72.8)
                                                                       ($72.9)
                                                                       ($81.9)
                                      17
                                                   Incremental Costs to States
                                                                       ($17.7)
                                                                       ($17.7)
                                                                       ($17.7)
                                                                       ($17.7)
                                                                       ($17.7)
                                                                       ($17.7)
                                      18
                         Total Incremental Costs (Cost Savings) (undiscounted)
                                                                         $31.7
                                                                         $5.71
($39.5)
($90.5)
($90.7)
($99.6)
                                      19
                  Total Incremental Costs (Cost Savings) (3% discount rate)[g]
                                                                         $28.2
                                                                         $4.93
($33.1)
($73.6)
($71.6)
($76.4)
                                      20
                  Total Incremental Costs (Cost Savings) (7% discount rate)[g]
                                                                         $24.2
                                                                         $4.07
($26.3)
($56.4)
($52.8)
($54.2)
[a] This RIA assumes that the proposed rule has no impact on this cost item. For more information on the activities involved, see Exhibit 4-4. [b] The cost for this item is $45.5 million, per Exhibit 5-4, and is incurred by in years prior to e-Manifest system launch. This cost is apportioned into five equivalent payments of $9.11 million to evidence how the fee will be applied to industry to recoup this cost. Note that the entirety of this cost is offset by fees, and it is not included in the total row. c The entirety of this cost is offset by fees, and it is not included in the total row. [d] Includes costs for federal and state manifests, capital costs to store manifests, and reclamation agreement-specific recordkeeping activities. This RIA assumes that the proposed rule has no impact on capital costs associated with storing manifests in file cabinets and recordkeeping activities for shipments under reclamation agreements; the difference between ba seline and post-rule costs results from the difference in the burden associated with manifest activities for federal and state manifests only.
 Amount equivalent to the total fee accrued in a given year, as shown in Rows 2 through 4.
 This RIA assumes that states do not undertake any manifest receipt and processing activities in the post-rule scenario, as the necessary data would be accessible through the e-Manifest system to states at no charge.  [g] Figures discounted back to 2014$. That is, the value in Column C is discounted by four years (2018  -  2014), the value in Column D is discounted by five years, and so on.
                                 Exhibit 5-22
Summary of Costs and Cost Savings of the Proposed Rule and e-Manifest System, Discounted and Annualized
                            (2014$, millions of $)
 Item
                                      A
                                      B
                                      C
                                      D
 	 E
                                       F
                                      G
                                      H
                                      I

 e-Manifest System Year
 Year 1
 Year 2
 Year 3
 Year 4
 Year 5
 Year 6
                                    Total
                             (Years 1 through 6)
                                  Annualized
                Incremental Cost (Cost Savings) (Years 1 - 6)

                                Calendar Year
                                     2018
                                     2019
                                     2020
                                     2021
                                     2022
                                     2023

                                      1
 Incremental
 Costs (Cost
 Savings)  -
 Undiscounted
 EPA
                                Offset by fee
                                Offset by fee
                                Offset by fee
                                Offset by fee
                                Offset by fee
                                Offset by fee
                                Offset by fee
                                Offset by fee
                                      2

 Industry
                                                                        $49.5
                                                                         $23.4
 ($21.8)
 ($72.8)
 ($72.9)
 ($81.9)
                                                                        ($176)
                                                                       ($29.4)
                                      3

 States
 ($17.7)
 ($17.7)
 ($17.7)
 ($17.7)
 ($17.7)
 ($17.7)
                                                                        ($106)
                                                                       ($17.7)
                                      4

                                                                         Total
                                                                       $31.7
                                                                       $5.71
 ($39.5)
 ($90.5)
 ($90.7)
 ($99.6)
                                                                        ($283)
                                                                       ($47.1)
                                      5
                                                      Discounted Total (3%)[a]
                                                                        $28.2
                                                                        $4.93
 ($33.1)
 ($73.6)
 ($71.6)
 ($76.4)
                                                                        ($221)
                                                                    ($40.9)[c]
                                      6
                                                      Discounted Total (7%)[a]
                                                                        $24.2
                                                                        $4.07
 ($26.3)
 ($56.4)
 ($52.8)
 ($54.2)
                                                                        ($161)
                                                                    ($33.8)[b]
Totals may not sum due to rounding.
 [a] Figures discounted back to 2014$. That is, the value in Row 1 is discounted by four years (2018  -  2014), the value in Row 2 is discounted by five years, and so on.

       5.9 Unquantified Benefits of the e-Manifest System

       EPA expects that electronic manifests will enhance many stakeholders' abilities to track and extract data on waste shipments by storing and distributing this data in a central, accessible location. EPA has identified seven stakeholder groups that may benefit from better access to manifest shipping data:

        Members of industry that use the manifest for tracking waste shipments;
        Federal and state government RCRA enforcement officials;
        Emergency responders;
        Foreign governments;
        Research institutions;
 Communities near RCRA-regulated facilities; and
        Other federal agencies

       This RIA does not attempt to quantify the value of this benefit.

       5.10 Caveats: Other Parameters not Considered in this Analysis

       This RIA acknowledges, but does not incorporate into its estimation of the proposed rule's economic impacts, a set of additional considerations, as described below.

        Penalties. Under the proposed rule, EPA will also apply costs, in the form of penalties, to hazardous waste industry entities that burden the non-electronic manifest processing functions of the e-Manifest system by mailing non-manifest documents. If, for example, a regulated entity opts to mail facility permit or other information required for separate submission to EPA's e-Manifest center, EPA will incur costs to receive, open, review, and return this information to the sender. EPA therefore expects to apply a penalty to such actions.

        Alteration of the fee. The regulatory framework surrounding the e-Manifest system, including this proposed rule, allows for alteration of the manifest fees applied to industry in order to prevent over-recovery or under-recovery of the system's setup and operation costs beyond a certain amount. This RIA, functioning under assumptions of certainty in the adoption rate and thus achievable full cost recovery, does not model potential alterations in the fee, though the costs associated with this process are included in EPA's costs. However, to the extent that the actual adoption rate differs from EPA's assumed adoption rate, or to the extent that EPA's system development and operations costs, including non-electronic manifest processing costs, differ from EPA's a priori estimates of these parameters, the fee may need to be altered to prevent under- or over-recovery. In these cases, fees can again be reestablished for full cost recovery using the guidelines and calculations set out in this chapter, though they may also need to be adjusted upward or downward to account for under- or over-collection that has accrued to date. EPA's burden associated with tracking the total amount collected through fees and considering alterations to the fee, including potentially calculating new fee levels, is covered under the "additional program costs" category in Section 5.2.7.

        Enforcement actions due to non-payment of fees. This RIA does not consider the costs of payment collection or other enforcement actions for TSDFs that do not provide payment of fees in a timely manner. This is considered to be an area of non-compliance outside the purview of this RIA, which considers costs and benefits under full compliance with the proposed rule. However, given that payment will be directly requested only from the small universe of receiver TSDFs, this is considered to be a relatively unlikely outcome, as these TSDFs interact with EPA and other regulatory agencies on a regular basis.

                                   Chapter 6
          Sensitivity Analyses of Proposed Rule Costs and Cost Savings

Certain aspects of EPA's compliance cost estimates are characterized by significant uncertainty and are sufficiently large that deviations from chosen assumptions may have a measurable impact on cost estimates. In this section, the analysis evaluates the sensitivity of certain results to variation in key parameters. These sensitivity analyses include evaluations of:

        Number of manifests. The analysis evaluates the effect of assuming increased hazardous waste shipping frequencies and consequently more manifests in the system.

        Adoption rate. Because cost savings result from adoption of electronic manifests, adoption patterns drive the magnitude of cost and cost savings.

        Materials costs. The analysis characterizes cost impacts on a more detailed level, specifically assuming that materials costs will be eliminated for manifests generated and submitted electronically.

        CROMERR. Chapter 5 of this RIA assumes that CROMERR applies only to TSDFs and transporters. If CROMERR applied to generators, a large number of additional facilities would incur costs related to this aspect of electronic manifest submission.

        Payback period. Because of the statutory requirement for the manifest fee to recover EPA's costs, the period over which these costs are recovered impacts the level of the fee, and in turn, industry costs.

6.1 Number of Manifests

In Chapter 3, the current number of manifests used in the main analysis assumes that LQG and TSDF shippers operate under a weekly pickup schedule and that SQGs and state hazardous waste generators operate under a monthly pickup schedule. That is, this RIA assumes that a minimum of one truck arrives weekly to haul away hazardous waste from LQGs and TSDF shippers, and a minimum of one truck arrives monthly to haul away hazardous waste from SQGs and state hazardous waste generators. This assumption underpins EPA's primary estimate of 3.2 million manifests annually. However, other methods and assumptions for estimating manifests yield different numbers, and can have important impacts on total costs and cost savings.

While a number of different parameters drive the numbers of manifests, to evaluate the impact of the number of manifests on cost and cost savings, this RIA considers alternative assumptions regarding minimum shipment frequency for LQGs/TSDF shippers and SQGs/state waste shippers. The manifest count is especially sensitive to the minimum shipment frequency of SQGs and state waste shippers because of the large number of these entities relative to LQGs and TSDF shippers. For example, assuming that every shipper has waste collected at least weekly changes the total estimate from 3.2 million manifests to 10.6 million manifests annually. This jump is driven largely by an increase in state waste manifests from 1.8 million to 7.7 million, as changing the assumption from monthly to weekly increases the number of shipments and manifests fourfold.

                                 Exhibit 6-1
       Estimate of Number of Manifests By Shipping Frequency Assumption
           Minimum Shipment Frequency Number of Manifests (millions)
                       LQGs and TSDF Shipper Frequency

                                    Weekly
                                   Monthly
                                  Quarterly
                        SQGs and State Waste Shippers
                                    Weekly
                                                                          10.6
                                                                          9.92
                                                                          9.79

                                   Monthly
                                                                          3.23
                                                                          2.58
                                                                          2.46

                                  Quarterly
                                                                          1.76
                                                                          1.12
                                                                         0.990
Note: Blue highlighted value reflects the primary estimate used in this RIA.

As shown in Exhibit 6-1, estimated total annual manifests range from:

        1.0 million to 1.8 million, assuming that SQGs and state waste shippers ship at least quarterly,
        2.5 million to 3.2 million, assuming that SQGs and state waste shippers ship at least monthly, and
        9.8 million to 10.6 million, assuming that SQGs and state waste shippers ship at least weekly.

As shown in Exhibit 6-2, cost savings increase with the number of manifests, as burden reductions to industry and states scale up proportionally. Under low shipping frequency assumptions and fewer manifests, e-Manifest system costs (which are fixed costs that do not vary by number of manifests) can outweigh per-manifest burden reductions, leading to positive net costs over the six year period. Over a longer timeframe, net cost savings may still be achieved as cost savings continue to accrue, assuming that no further system development costs are incurred. Given all other current assumptions, the proposed rule would result in net cost savings after approximately eight years.

                                 Exhibit 6-2
Total Incremental Costs (Savings) of the Proposed Rule by Shipping Frequency Assumptions
                   (2014$, millions of $, 7% discount rate)
                          Minimum Shipment Frequency
                    Annualized Costs (Cost Savings) at 7%
                           Discount Rate, Years 1-6
                            LQGs and TSDF Shippers

                                    Weekly
                                   Monthly
                                  Quarterly
                        SQGs and State Waste Shippers
                                    Weekly
                                                                        ($147)
                                                                        ($133)
                                                                        ($130)

                                   Monthly
                                                                       ($33.8)
                                                                       ($22.4)
                                                                       ($20.0)

                                  Quarterly
                                                                       ($10.4)
                                                                        $0.336
                                                                         $2.54
Note: Blue highlighted value reflects the primary estimate used in this RIA. Red highlighted value shows assumptions not resulting in overall cost savings over the Year 1 through 6 period.

6.2 Adoption Rate of the e-Manifest System

The switch from paper to electronic manifests drives cost savings under this proposed rule.
Therefore, e-Manifest adoption patterns drive the overall magnitude of cost and cost savings. This assumption generally encompasses additional unknown factors (e.g., the cost of switching to electronic submission, the influence of key market actors, etc.) and exhibits significant uncertainty.
To analyze the sensitivity of cost and cost savings to adoption rates, EPA considered a scenario with low adoption rates for the e-Manifest system, shown in Exhibit 6-3. These adoption patterns are based on several pessimistic assumptions:

        Lack of information, unwillingness to change systems, and/or costs associated with the adoption and use of electronic manifest systems result in an e-Manifest adoption rate that is half what the primary analysis assumes.
        Entities using capable of using XML submission in the baseline through internal electronic systems do not transition to fully electronic manifests.
        The rate at which entities transition from paper submission to scanned image submission rate is half that which the primary analysis assumes, and no entities transition from paper to XML submission.
        EPA fee adjustments to incentivize e-Manifest adoption do not increase e-Manifest adoption. In other words, even if implemented as described in the Proposed Option, EPA's fee adjustment to highly differentiated fees does not impact the total fee revenue recovered, but places additional cost burdens on paper manifest users.

                                 Exhibit 6-3
Alternate Adoption Rates of Manifest Creation and Submission Systems  -  Tabular Summary
Item
                                      A
                                      B
                                      C
                                      D
                                      E
                                      F
                                      G
                                      H

                               Manifest Variant
                    Baseline (Year 0, pre- implementation)
  Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
                                    Year 6
                                      1
Paper
Manifest
Process
Paper submission
                                    60.00%
55.125%
38.125%
26.875%
11.25%
11.25%
11.25%
                                      2

Scanned image submission
                                    0.00%
                                    2.375%
 9.375%
5.625%
 1.25%
1.25%
                                    1.25%
                                      3

XML schema submission
                                   0.00%[a]
                                    40.00%
 40.00%
40.00%
40.00%
40.00%
40.00%
                                      4
e-Manifest System Process (electronic manifest)
                                     N/A
                                    2.50%
 12.50%
27.50%
47.50%
47.50%
47.50%
a As indicated in Section 4.1.3 and Exhibit 5-1, this RIA assumes complete use of paper manifests in the baseline. However, responses to EPA's 2014 survey of TSDFs and EPA's conversations with an industry trade group suggest that approximately 40 percent of hazardous waste generators and receiver TSDFs may already have and use electronic and/or proprietary systems to internally manage manifest-related workflow or data, and are capable of submitting manifests in the XML schema format. These entities are modeled as submitting XML variant manifests once they are allowed to do so following implementation of the proposed rule.

With these lower adoption rates, annualized cost savings over six years fall from $34 million to $5 million, an 85 percent reduction in cost savings (Exhibit 6-4). Industry does not experience net cost savings in the first six years. Given all other current assumptions, the proposed rule would result in net cost savings after approximately nine years (undiscounted) or 10 years (discounted at a seven percent rate) in this scenario. However, this low-adoption scenario still results in net cost savings across the economy after five years, largely driven by burden reduction to states.

                                 Exhibit 6-4
Summary of Costs and Cost Savings of the Proposed Rule under Alternate (Lower) Adoption Rate, Discounted and Annualized
                            (2014$, millions of $)
Item
                                      A
                                      B
                                      C
                                      D
                                      E
                                      F
                                      G
                                      H
                                      I

                                   Category
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Year 6
                                    Total
                             (Years 1 through 6)
                                  Annualized
Incremental Cost
                                (Years 1 - 6)
                                      1
Calendar Year
                                     2018
                                     2019
                                     2020
                                     2021
                                     2022
                                     2023
                                     N/A
                                     N/A
                                      2
                                 Incremental
                                 Costs (Cost
                           Savings) - Undiscounted
EPA
                                Offset by fee
                                Offset by fee
                                Offset by fee
                                Offset by fee
                                Offset by fee
                                Offset by fee
                                Offset by fee
                                     N/A
                                      3

Industry
                                                                        $52.8
                                                                        $36.3
                                                                         $14.4
($14.9)
($15.0)
($24.0)
                                                                        $49.6
                                     N/A
                                      4

States
($17.7)
($17.7)
($17.7)
($17.7)
($17.7)
($17.7)
                                                                        ($106)
                                     N/A
                                      5

                                    Total
                                                                        $35.1
                                                                        $18.6
($3.32)
($32.6)
($32.7)
($41.7)
                                                                       ($56.8)
                                     N/A
                                      7
Costs (Cost Savings) 7% Discount Rate
                                                                        $26.7
                                                                        $13.2
($2.22)
($20.3)
($19.1)
($22.7)
                                                                       ($24.3)
                                                                    ($5.10)[c]
Totals may not sum due to rounding. Adoption rates corresponding to above estimates based on those portrayed in Exhibit 6-3.
[a] Figures discounted back to 2014$. That is, the value in Row 1 is discounted by four years (2018  -  2014), the value in Row 2 is discounted by five years, and so on. [c] Calculated as the annual payment that would need to be made, cognizant of discounting, to reach a total value of $24.6 million after six years. If the period were extended to ten years (i.e., the total period over which e-Manifest system costs are incurred, including pre-launch setup costs, plus the six-year period analyzed here), the annualized cost savings would be approximately $3.46 million instead.

As noted in Section 5.4.3, this RIA assumes that the e-Manifest system implemented under the proposed rule will not require any significant investment in either hardware or software by firms or facilities in the hazardous waste industry. To the extent that this is not the case, this sensitivity analysis considers the scenario in which investment costs faced by industry entities to adopt electronic manifests deter widespread adoption of the e-Manifest system. As shown in Exhibit 64, even under the assumption that ultimate adoption of electronic manifests is only half of what this RIA assumes in the primary analysis (Chapter 5), the proposed rule results in net cost savings over the six-year period following system launch and in perpetuity thereafter.

6.3 Materials Costs

The primary analysis estimates e-Manifest labor and materials cost savings by assuming that certain activities experience either an 80 percent burden reduction or five percent burden reduction. Because no data sources provide more detailed information about burden reductions, these values are used to approximate "major reductions" and "minimal reductions," respectively. These reductions do not distinguish between materials costs and labor costs.

However, EPA expects that many materials costs (e.g., postage, filing cabinets, etc.) may be completely eliminated by electronic manifests. To assess the impact that this set of assumptions has on net costs and cost savings, EPA considered the effect of:

        Removing all materials costs in the post-rule period,
        Removing just materials costs associated with major reductions in the main analysis, and
        Removing just materials costs associated with major reductions in the main analysis but assuming all minor reductions do not enjoy any reduction in materials costs.

Overall materials costs (not including capital costs for file cabinets) are a small portion of overall baseline costs, totaling approximately $2 million in the baseline, compared to overall baseline costs of approximately $189 million (approximately one percent). Thus, the effects of alternative assumptions do not change net costs or cost savings to a large extent. Sensitivity analyses regarding materials costs find that:

        Removing all materials costs in the post-rule scenario increases annualized cost savings by approximately $1.5 million (less than five percent).
        Removing only those materials costs associated with major reductions increases cost savings by just approximately $0.3 million (less than one percent), on an annualized basis.
        Removing materials costs associated with major reductions and assigning full materials costs to activities with minor reductions increases cost savings by approximately $0.2 million (less than one percent).

Materials costs are a very small component of overall costs associated with manifest activities. Altering how these costs are handled by the RIA in terms of the cost reduction calculations does not substantially impact the cost savings estimated by this RIA.

6.4 CROMERR

The required CROMERR registration and associated activities represent a cost to both EPA and industry that is associated with the e-Manifest system. In the main analysis, CROMERR requirements apply only to TSDFs and transporters and do not apply to generators that ship waste off-site, the largest population in the affected universe.

This RIA considers the impact of assuming that all entities in the affected universe, including generators shipping hazardous waste off-site, are be subject to CROMERR requirements upon adopting use of the e-Manifest system (i.e., use of electronic manifests). This increases the number of entities subject to CROMERR, and corresponding costs, by a factor of approximately 45 (Exhibit 6-5). For the purpose of this sensitivity analysis, all generators are assumed to have five employees that must register for CROMERR, similar to receiver TSDFs in the primary analysis. Unit costs are unchanged.

The expansion of the types of entities facing CROMERR requirements has a two-fold effect:

       Increase in costs to industry directly from more CROMERR registrations; and
       Increase in costs to industry because of higher manifest fees to recover additional EPA CROMERR-related costs.

                                          Exhibit 6-5
                          CROMERR Costs, By Assumption of Applicable Entities
                          (2014$, millions of $, undiscounted)

Item
                                      A
                                      B
                                      C
                                      D
                                      E
                                      F
                                      G
                                      H
                                      I

                                   Analysis
                                     Cost
                                    Year 1
 Year 2
 Year 3
 Year 4
 Year 5
 Year 6
                                    Total
                                      1
Primary Analysis
(CROMERR for Receivers and Transporters only)
EPA
$0.0221
$0.0994
                                    $0.196
                                    $0.329
                                    $0.264
                                    $0.305
                                                                         $1.22
                                      2

Industry
$0.0277
                                    $0.123
                                    $0.238
                                    $0.405
                                    $0.318
                                    $0.392
                                                                         $1.50
                                      3

                                                                         Total
                                                                       $0.0498
                                                                        $0.223
                                                                        $0.434
                                                                        $0.735
                                                                        $0.582
                                                                        $0.697
                                                                         $2.72
                                      4
Sensitivity Analysis
(CROMERR for Receivers,
Transporters, and Generators)
EPA
                                    $1.00
                                    $4.51
                                    $8.84
                                    $14.9
                                    $11.9
                                    $13.7
                                                                         $54.8
                                      5

Industry
                                    $1.27
                                    $5.65
                                    $10.9
                                    $18.5
                                    $14.5
                                    $17.9
                                                                         $68.7
                                      6

                                                                         Total
                                                                         $2.28
                                                                         $10.2
                                                                         $19.7
                                                                         $33.4
                                                                         $26.3
                                                                         $31.7
                                                                          $123

As shown in Exhibit 6-6 below, overall undiscounted costs increase by approximately $120 million over six years as a result of this change in assumptions. The overall impact is approximately a 50 percent reduction in annualized cost savings. However, the proposed rule remains a net cost-saving rule, as electronic manifest adoption results in burden reductions that outweigh CROMERR costs. For example, in Year 4, CROMERR costs in this analysis increase by $33 million over the primary analysis, but manifest activity-related cost savings are over $100 million in that year (per Exhibit 5-21, where Year 4 manifest activity costs to industry are approximately $85 million relative to baseline costs of $189 million). CROMERR costs are the highest in the later years, when electronic adoption is the highest.

                                 Exhibit 6-6
Summary of Costs and Cost Savings of the Proposed Rule and e-Manifest System if CROMERR required for Receivers,
                     Transporters, and Generators, Discounted and Annualized  (2014$, millions of $)
Item
                                      A
                                      B
                                      C
                                      D
                                      E
                                      F
                                      G
                                      H
                                      I

                                   Category
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
                                    Year 6
                                    Total
                             (Years 1 through 6)
                                  Annualized
Incremental Cost
                                (Years 1 - 6)
                                      1
Calendar Year
                                     2018
                                     2019
                                     2020
                                     2021
                                     2022
                                     2023
                                                                           N/A
                                     N/A
                                      2
Incremental
Costs (Cost
Savings) -
Undiscounted
EPA
                                Offset by fee
                                Offset by fee
                                Offset by fee
                                Offset by fee
                                Offset by fee
                                Offset by fee
                                Offset by fee
                                     N/A
                                      3

Industry
                                                                        $51.9
                                                                        $34.2
($0.78)
($37.2)
($44.9)
                                                                       ($48.3)
                                                                       ($45.1)
                                     N/A
                                      4

States
($17.7)
($17.7)
($17.7)
($17.7)
($17.7)
                                                                       ($17.7)
                                                                        ($106)
                                     N/A
                                      5

Total
                                                                        $34.2
                                                                        $16.5
($18.5)
($55.0)
($62.6)
                                                                       ($66.1)
                                                                        ($151)
                                     N/A
                                      6
Costs (Cost Savings)  7% discount rate[a]
                                                                        $26.1
                                                                        $11.8
($12.3)
($34.2)
($36.5)
                                                                       ($35.9)
                                                                       ($81.1)
                                                                    ($17.0)[c]
                                      7
Costs (Cost Savings)  -  Primary Analysis
7% discount rate[b]
                                                                        $24.2
                                                                        $4.07
($26.3)
($56.4)
($52.8)
                                                                       ($54.2)
                                                                        ($161)
                                                                       ($33.8)
Totals may not sum due to rounding. [a] Figures discounted back to 2014$. That is, the value in Row 1 is discounted by four years (2018  -  2014), the value in Row 2 is discounted by five years, and so on. [b] Assumes that CROMERR is not required for generators. Figures in this column are consistent with those in Exhibit 5-22. c Calculated as the annual payment that would need to be made, cognizant of discounting, to reach a total value of $81.7 million after six years. If the period were extended to ten years (i.e., the total period over which e-Manifest system costs are incurred, including pre-launch setup costs, plus the six-year period analyzed here), the annualized cost savings would be approximately $11.5 million instead.

6.5 Payback Period

EPA charges manifest fees to fulfill the statutory requirement to recover all costs incurred from developing and operating the e-Manifest system. The payback period over which these costs are recovered affects the level of the fees levied on industry. A longer payback period means lower fees as costs are spread over a longer time period and more manifests, while a shorter payback period means higher manifest fees. The main analysis assumes a payback period of five years. However, short payback periods can substantially increase the fee. Exhibit 5-14, reproduced as Exhibit 6-7 below, and Exhibit 6-8 illustrate the increase in manifest fees when the payback period is reduced from five years (Exhibit 6-7) to two years (Exhibit 6-8). The payback period does not impact the overall fee revenue and industry cost burden over the six year period if discounting is not considered. Rather, it redistributes the costs accruing to industry in the form of manifest fees over time. Shorter payback periods increase net annualized costs by increasing costs during early years, when costs face less discounting.

                                            Exhibit 6-7
                Fee Option 2 (Marginal Cost Fee)  -  Payback Period = 5 years
                                       (2014$, undiscounted)

Item
                                      A
                                      B
                                      C
                                      D
                                      E
                                      F
                                      G

                               Manifest Variant
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                                      1
Paper
Manifest
Variants
Paper Variant
                                                                       $24.03
                                                                       $24.18
                                                                       $24.41
                                                                       $24.72
                                                                       $24.69
                                                                       $21.89
                                      2

Image Variant
                                                                       $17.86
                                                                       $18.01
                                                                       $18.24
                                                                       $18.55
                                                                       $18.52
                                                                       $15.72
                                      3

XML Variant
                                                                       $12.59
                                                                       $12.74
                                                                       $12.97
                                                                       $13.28
                                                                       $13.25
                                                                       $10.45
                                      4
e-Manifest
Electronic Variant
                                                                       $10.05
                                                                       $10.21
                                                                       $10.43
                                                                       $10.74
                                                                       $10.72
                                                                        $7.91

                                       Exhibit 6-8
                Fee Option 2 (Marginal Cost Fee)  -  Payback Period = 2 years
                                  (2014$, undiscounted)

Item
                                      A
                                      B
                                      C
                                      D
                                      E
                                      F
                                      G

                               Manifest Variant
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                                      1
Paper
Manifest
Variants
Paper Variant
                                                                       $28.26
                                                                       $28.41
                                                                       $21.59
                                                                       $21.90
                                                                       $21.87
                                                                       $21.89
                                      2

Image Variant
                                                                       $22.09
                                                                       $22.24
                                                                       $15.42
                                                                       $15.73
                                                                       $15.70
                                                                       $15.72
                                      3

XML Variant
                                                                       $16.82
                                                                       $16.97
                                                                       $10.15
                                                                       $10.46
                                                                       $10.43
                                                                       $10.45
                                      4
e-Manifest
Electronic Variant
                                                                       $14.82
                                                                       $14.44
                                                                        $7.61
                                                                        $7.92
                                                                        $7.90
                                                                        $7.91

Under a seven percent discount rate, the payback period does not have a very substantial impact on overall cost or cost savings. For example, changing the payback period to a requirement that all setup costs be repaid in the first year decreases the annualized cost savings by less than $1 million over a six-year period.

However, shorter payback periods would result in higher fees to industry in early years, which may potentially affect industry behavior. Higher fees would occur in years that industry may also be incurring other voluntary costs to upgrade systems in order to better use electronic manifests. Under a one-year payback "period," Year 1 manifest fees under Option 2 are $35.31 for paper, $29.14 for image, $23.87 for XML, and $21.33 for electronic manifests. This represents a 47 percent to 111 percent increase in fees, depending on the manifest type, over the primary analysis. At this time, EPA does not have enough information to determine system-wide implications from shorter payback periods, and higher fees.

                                   Chapter 7
                                          Supplemental Analyses

As required by applicable statutes and Executive Orders, this chapter summarizes EPA's analysis of equity considerations and other regulatory concerns associated with the proposed rule. This chapter assesses potential impacts, with respect to the following issues:

           Regulatory planning and review: requires examination and quantification of costs and benefits of regulating with and without the proposed rule;
           Regulatory flexibility: focuses on the potential effects of the proposed rule on small entities;
           Employment impacts: assesses the potential impact of the proposed rule on employment;
           Unfunded mandates: examines the implications of the proposed rule with respect to unfunded mandates;
           Federalism: considers potential issues related to state sovereignty;
           Tribal governments: extends the discussion of federal unfunded mandates to include impacts on Native American tribal governments and their communities;
           Environmental justice: considers potential issues for minority and low-income populations;
           Children's health protection: examines the potential impact of the proposed rule on the health of children; and
           Energy Impacts: examines the impacts of the proposed rule on energy use, supply, and distribution.

7.1  	Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], as amended by Executive Order 13563, the Agency, in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), must determine whether a regulatory action is "significant" and therefore subject to OMB review and the full requirements of the Executive Order. Executive Order 12866 defines "significant regulatory action" as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

       Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

       Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

       Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

       Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

This RIA estimates the potential costs and benefits associated with e-Manifest, described in Chapter 5. This rule is not expected to result in more than $31.7 million in incremental costs across the economy in any given year and results in net cost savings in most years. Manifest fees to industry do not exceed $60.5 million in any year, and are, even in early years with lower adoption rates, at least partially offset by industry and state government cost savings. The cost savings estimated for Year 6, prior to discounting, equal $99.6 million. However, with discounting at a seven percent discount rate, the cost savings for Year 6 are $54.2 million, and the annualized impact of this rule over the adoption period (discounted at seven percent) is $34 million. As a result, this RIA concludes that the e-Manifest system is not an economically significant regulatory action, though it may still be deemed significant due to the novel legal and policy issues it raises.

7.2  	Regulatory Flexibility

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et seq., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute. This analysis must be completed unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. For this analysis, the proposed rule is not expected to result in a "significant economic impact for a substantial number of small entities" (SISNOSE) if the costs of the regulation per entity do not exceed one percent or three percent of annual revenues for 20 percent of small entities across sectors, or 100 small entities in the affected universe.

This section first discusses the likely impacts of the proposed rule on small entities based on the costs and cost savings estimated in Chapter 5. The section then considers a "worst case" scenario in which small entities continue to use paper manifests and do not pass through any fee-related costs to their customers (generators and transporters). This section finds that the proposed rule will not result in SISNOSE.

7.2.1 Small Entity Impacts based on Costs and Costs Savings Estimates in the Main Analysis

This RIA finds that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. In making this determination, the impact of concern is any significant adverse economic impact on small entities. An agency may certify that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities if the rule relieves regulatory burden, has no net burden or otherwise has a positive economic effect on the small entities subject to the rule. As described in Chapter 5, this RIA estimates that industry time and material burden associated with manifest completion tasks will decrease under the eManifest system. Given adoption rate assumptions over a six-year period, undiscounted net cost savings to industry, accounting for burden reductions in manifest activities as well as cost increases due to manifest fees and CROMERR requirements, total approximately $140 million. On an annualized basis over the same six-year period, undiscounted, incremental cost savings are approximately $24 million. Approximately $76 million in annual savings to industry occurs in perpetuity assuming 95 percent adoption of electronic manifests. Additionally, industry experiences approximately $5.7 million annually in cost savings from reduced hazardous waste reporting activities. This RIA concludes that this action will likely relieve regulatory burden for all directly-regulated small entities.

7.2.2 Distribution of Small Entities Affected

This RIA finds that directly affected entities, both small and non-small, will largely adopt electronic manifests and realize cost savings. Consequently, the proposed rule will not result in SISNOSE. This conclusion is reflected in the adoption rates presented in Section 5.1.3, and is based on consultation with industry representatives. As described in Chapter 1, EPA also intends to adjust the manifest fee structure to incentivize adoption of electronic manifests if necessary.

To the extent that entities do not adopt electronic manifests, however, they may face incremental manifest fees. The small entities potentially affected by the rule are TSDFs who will be required to pay manifest fees. The rule does not impose any direct costs on other industrial entities that elect not to use the e-Manifest system.

The remainder of this section provides information about potentially affected small entities, and examines whether the number of small entities potentially affected by any price increase (however unlikely) would be sufficient even in a worst case scenario to be "substantial." To develop this section, EPA:

       Identified affected entities and industries (Section <IP_ADDRESS>). As described in Chapter 5, EPA expects to levy manifest fees on TSDFs only. Firms only face net incremental costs by continuing to submit paper manifests.

 Estimated the number of entities that are small (Section <IP_ADDRESS>). To identify the number of small entities in the potentially affected universe, this analysis relies on Dun & Bradstreet, Hoover's, and other publicly available data to link TSDF facilities listed in EPA's RCRAInfo database to their corporate ownership. Although small business size standards are specified for individual 6-digit NAICS codes, company-level financial or employment data were not available for most companies. Further, TSDFs do not predominantly fall under any single industry. Therefore, this analysis classifies major TSDF companies, publicly-traded companies, and multinational corporations as "nonsmall" entities. All other entities are considered "potentially small," and it is these entities
            that are evaluated. The small entities examined in this section are potentially small TSDFs that use paper manifests and pay manifest fees. At most, 74 potentially small entities may be impacted. These entities are spread across 42 sectors with at most 15 potentially small entities in a single sector (NAICS 562211  -  Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal).

<IP_ADDRESS> Sectors with Potentially Affected Entities

This section identifies the industries (as defined by 6-digit NAICS codes) that contain potentially small businesses. The identification process uses a list of 392 facilities identified in the RCRA Biennial Report that reported receiving waste from off-site in 2011 and were not owned by government entities (federal or state). Using corporate ownership data from Dun & Bradstreet (D&B), these 392 facilities were matched to 183 ultimate corporate entities (i.e., 25 companies owned multiple facilities, and 160 companies owned only one TSDF each).

Exhibit 7-1 shows the range of industries that contain three or more TSDFs and the relevant small business size standard for each industry.[,] Many TSDFs are associated with parent companies operating in industries other than the primary industry identified for the TSDF. Based on the establishment-specific six-digit NAICS classification from D&B, 85 industries are represented, with 14 percent of facilities in NAICS 562211 (Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal) and 23 percent of facilities in the broader industry of NAICS 5622 (Waste Treatment and Disposal). Twenty-seven industries have only one TSDF each, and 15 industries have only two TSDFs each.

                                 Exhibit 7-1
Industries with Three or More Facilities Affected by the Proposed Rule and SBA Size Standards
NAICS Code
                              NAICS Description
                         Small Business Size Standard

                                   Revenue
                                 ($ Millions)
                                  Employees
                                    213112
Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations
                                     38.5

                                    221118
Other Electric Power Generation

                                     250
                                    238990
All Other Specialty Trade Contractors
                                      15

                                    324191
Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing

                                     750
                                    325110
Petrochemical Manufacturing

                                    1,000

                                 Exhibit 7-1
Industries with Three or More Facilities Affected by the Proposed Rule and SBA Size Standards
NAICS Code
                              NAICS Description
                         Small Business Size Standard

                                   Revenue
                                 ($ Millions)
                                  Employees
                                    325180
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing

                                    1,000
                                    325199
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing

                                    1,250
                                    325211
Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing

                                    1,250
                                    325212
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing

                                    1,000
                                    325320
Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing

                                    1,000
                                    325412
Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing

                                    1,250
                                    325510
Paint and Coating Manufacturing

                                    1,000
                                    325612
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing

                                     750
                                    325920
Explosives Manufacturing

                                     750
                                    325998
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing

                                     500
                                    327310
Cement Manufacturing

                                     750
                                    331410
Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining

                                    1,000
                                    331491
Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) Rolling, Drawing and Extruding

                                     750
                                    331492
Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of
Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum)

                                     750
                                    333249
Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing

                                     500
                                    335911
Storage Battery Manufacturing

                                    1,250
                                    336412
Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing

                                    1,500
                                    336415
Guided Missile and Space Vehicle Propulsion Unit and Propulsion Unit Parts Manufacturing

                                    1,250
                                    423930
Recyclable Material Merchant Wholesalers

                                     100
                                    424690
Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers

                                     150
                                    424720
Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and Terminals)

                                     200
                                    523910
Miscellaneous Intermediation
                                     38.5

                                    532490
Other Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment Rental and Leasing
                                     32.5

                                    541330
Engineering Services
                                      15

                                    541380
Testing Laboratories
                                      15

                                    541620
Environmental Consulting Services
                                      15

                                    541712
Research and Development in the Physical, Engineering, and Life Sciences (except Biotechnology)

                                    1,000
                                    561990
All Other Support Services
                                      11

                                    562112
Hazardous Waste Collection
                                     38.5

                                    562119
Other Waste Collection
                                     38.5

                                    562211
Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal
                                     38.5

                                 Exhibit 7-1
Industries with Three or More Facilities Affected by the Proposed Rule and SBA Size Standards
NAICS Code
                              NAICS Description
                         Small Business Size Standard

                                   Revenue
                                 ($ Millions)
                                  Employees
                                    562212
Solid Waste Landfill
                                     38.5

                                    562219
Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal
                                     38.5

                                    562910
Remediation Services
                                     20.5

                                    562920
Materials Recovery Facilities
                                     20.5

                                    562991
Septic Tank and Related Services
                                     7.5

                                    562998
All Other Miscellaneous Waste Management Services
                                     7.5

                                    622110
General Medical and Surgical Hospitals
                                     38.5

Ideally, this assessment of the rule's small entity impacts would identify specific entities affected by the rule as small and assess impacts for these entities. However, detailed revenue and employment data necessary for the assessment of regulatory impacts for individual entities are not available. Financial data on the potentially affected universe are limited because (1) for many industries, entities managing hazardous waste represent a small percentage of all entities in their respective industries (thus, industry-wide data may not be generally representative of these particular entities) and (2) many of these entities are privately-held, so financial data are not available.

<IP_ADDRESS> Count of Potentially Small Business Impacted by the Proposed Rule

This RIA relies on information from D&B, Hoover's, and other online financial data sources, including SEC annual reports and company websites, to determine which entities might be small. In the absence of entity-specific revenue or employment data for all entities, this analysis considers any entity to be potentially small if it is not publicly-traded, does not have multinational operations, and does not report confirmed financial data to Hoover's (i.e., if it cannot be verified as large). This analysis also assumes that the six hazardous waste management companies responding to the 2015 EPA questionnaire described in Chapter 3 are not small businesses, as these companies were identified to be the among largest in their industry. These assumptions provide a highly conservative (upper bound) estimate of 74 potentially small entities (approximately 40 percent of entities), corresponding to 89 facilities (approximately 23 percent of facilities). These entities span 42 industries, with only 14 industries having more than one potentially small entity. Exhibit 7-2 shows, by industry, the distribution of potentially small entities. Within each of these industries, only between one and 15 entities are potentially small.

                                  Exhibit 7-2
    Industries of Potentially Small Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule
                                  NAICS Code
                               NAICS Description
                                   Number of
                               Potentially Small
                                     Firms
                                    213112
Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations
                                       1
                                    238990
All Other Specialty Trade Contractors
                                       1
                                    324191
Petroleum Lubricating Oil and Grease Manufacturing
                                       1
                                    325180
Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing
                                       1
                                    325199
All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing
                                       1
                                    325212
Synthetic Rubber Manufacturing
                                       1

                                    325612
Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing
                                       1
                                    325998
All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing
                                       1
                                    326113
Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing
                                       1
                                    326199
All Other Plastics Product Manufacturing
                                       1

                                    331410
Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining
                                       3
                                    331491
Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) Rolling, Drawing and Extruding
                                       2
                                    331492
Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum)
                                       3
                                    332618
Other Fabricated Wire Product Manufacturing
                                       1

                                    333249
Other Industrial Machinery Manufacturing
                                       1

                                    334512
Automatic Environmental Control Manufacturing for Residential, Commercial and Appliance Use
                                       1
                                    335911
Storage Battery Manufacturing
                                       1

                                    423930
Recyclable Material Merchant Wholesalers
                                       4
                                    423940
Jewelry, Watch, Precious Stone, and Precious Metal Merchant Wholesalers
                                       1
                                    424690
Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers
                                       1
                                    424720
Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant Wholesalers (except Bulk Stations and Terminals)
                                       2
                                    454390
Other Direct Selling Establishments
                                       1
                                    484110
General Freight Trucking, Local
                                       1
                                    484220
Specialized Freight (except Used Goods) Trucking, Local
                                       1
                                    488999
All Other Support Activities for Transportation
                                       1
                                    493110
General Warehousing and Storage
                                       1
                                    522390
Other Activities Related to Credit Intermediation
                                       1
                                    523910
Miscellaneous Intermediation
                                       3
                                    541330
Engineering Services
                                       1
                                    541380
Testing Laboratories
                                       2
                                    541620
Environmental Consulting Services
                                       3
                                    561210
Facilities Support Services
                                       1
                                    561990
All Other Support Services
                                       2
                                 Exhibit 7-2
    Industries of Potentially Small Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule
                                  NAICS Code
                              NAICS Description
                                  Number of
                              Potentially Small
                                    Firms

                                    561210
Facilities Support Services
                                       1
                                    561990
All Other Support Services
                                       2
                                    562112
Hazardous Waste Collection
                                      3
                                    562119
Other Waste Collection
                                      1
                                    562211
Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal
                                      15
                                    562212
Solid Waste Landfill
                                      2
                                    562213
Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators
                                      1
                                    562219
Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal
                                      3
                                    562910
Remediation Services
                                      1
                                    562920
Materials Recovery Facilities
                                      9
                                    562998
All Other Miscellaneous Waste Management Services
                                      1
                                                                         Total
                                      74
*Rows do not sum because some potentially small firms own multiple facilities corresponding to different NAICS codes.

The count of 74 firms in Exhibit 7-2 represents a worst-case, upper bound estimate of potentially small firms that may be impacted by e-Manifest. However, several aspects of this analysis and of the examined industry should be noted to properly contextualize the results in Exhibit 7-2. The count of 74 entities likely includes large, privately-held firms which could not be verified to be small, as well as a number of firms whose primary line of business does not appear to be hazardous waste treatment. The impact of e-Manifest on these large firms is already found in Chapter 5, where it is shown to relieve burden.

Additionally, this analysis assumes that small firms will not be sophisticated enough to transition away from paper manifests to any of the lower-cost options provided by the rule. Hazardous waste treatment and disposal is an inherently technical field. These 74 potentially small firms are therefore likely more sophisticated, and thus more able to adopt electronic manifests, than assumed within this analysis. Finally, this analysis focuses solely on firms that may be adversely impacted by the rule; the many thousands of small firms that will likely be beneficially affected by the rule are not examined in detail here.

<IP_ADDRESS> Screening Assessment Confirming Finding of No SISNOSE

For this analysis, EPA considers estimates of greater than 20 percent of total small entities or 100 small entities in the affected universe as indications that a substantial number of small entities may be affected by the rule. The worst-case, upper bound estimate of small entities that will be required to pay manifest fees (and could therefore potentially experience cost increases) under the rule is 74, as shown in Exhibit 7-2. Exhibit 2-15 summarizes the universe of entities affected by the rule; EPA anticipates that many of these entities (especially generators and transporters) are small entities. EPA also anticipates that a large majority of these small entities will experience cost reductions under the rule by using the e-Manifest system (see Section 5.4.1). Therefore, the 74
TSDF entities potentially adversely affected by the rule do not represent 20 percent of affected small entities.

EPA conducted a screening-level assessment of these 74 potentially small TSDF entities. To estimate revenues and potential impacts for these 74 potentially small entities, EPA used the following assumptions and steps:

          Since EPA does not have revenue data for these 74 potentially small entities, the Agency uses the conservative assumption that all of them are small.

          EPA assumed that these entities would only use paper manifests, and would incur the entire cost of the paper manifest fee.

          For entities that report NAICS codes with revenue-based small business thresholds, EPA assumes that revenues equal the midpoint of the revenue range for small entities.  For example, for facilities in a NAICS code with a $15 million per-firm revenue SBA threshold, EPA assumed these entities had average revenues of $7.5 million.

          For facilities whose NAICS codes have employment-based small business thresholds, EPA examined 2012 Economic Census data (which lists total revenues for facilities within a range of employment) to identify revenues associated with the mid-point range of employees under the small business threshold, using the method documented in the following example of NAICS 325612 (Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing):

 NAICS 325612 has an SBA threshold for small entities of 750 employees.
 The midpoint of this threshold is 375 employees.
                    Based on employment size categories used by the Economic Census, the midpoint employment size falls within the "100 to 499 employees" category.
 Average per-firm revenues within this employment size category for
           NAICS 325612 are approximately $43 million. Therefore, EPA uses $43
 million as the estimate of annual revenues received by a small entity that reports this NAICS code.

          For each entity, EPA then calculated a upper-bound cost by multiplying the paper manifest fee by an estimated number of manifests completed by the entity, and compared it to the estimated annual revenues for small entities in that sector.

Using this method, EPA found that paper manifest costs exceed one percent of midpoint-derived revenues only for 10 of the 74 potentially small entities (14 percent). This confirms the finding of no SISNOSE.

7.3 Employment Impact Analysis

Executive Order 13563 "Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review" (76 FR 3821; January 18, 2011) requires Federal agencies to consider the employment impacts of regulatory policy. Specifically, Executive Order 13563 states, "Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation,
competitiveness, and job creation." Consistent with the requirements of the Executive Order, this RIA considers the employment impacts of the proposed rule. For this rule, EPA presents a qualitative assessment of the potential for employment impacts at regulated facilities.

This section first describes the theoretical framework used to analyze regulation-induced employment impacts, discussing how economic theory alone cannot predict whether such impacts are positive or negative, and concludes with a qualitative description of some labor changes that might occur as a result of the proposed rule.

7.3.1 Economic Theory and Employment

Regulatory employment impacts are difficult to disentangle from other economic changes affecting employment decisions over time and across regions and industries. Labor market responses to regulation are complex, and reflect labor demand and supply elasticities, decisions at a firm and industry level to adopt technologies and realign products, and possible labor market imperfections (e.g., wage stickiness, long-term unemployment, etc.). The unit of measurement (e.g., number of jobs, types of jobs, hours worked, and earnings) may affect observability of that response.

Microeconomic theory describes how firms adapt their operations in response to changes in economic conditions. Labor is one aspect of operations, along with capital, energy, and materials; all of these are affected by technology.

In competitive markets, firms choose inputs and outputs to maximize profit as a function of market prices and technological constraints.[11,12] Berman and Bui (2001) adapt this model to analyze how environmental regulations affect labor demand. They model environmental regulation as effectively requiring certain factors of production, such as pollution abatement capital, at levels that firms would not otherwise choose. Berman and Bui (2001) model two components that drive changes in firm-level labor demand: output effects and substitution effects. Regulation affects the profit-maximizing quantity of output by changing the marginal cost of production. If a regulation causes marginal production costs to increase, it will place upward pressure on output prices, leading to a decrease in demand, and resulting in a decrease in production. The output effect describes how, holding labor intensity constant, a decrease in production causes a decrease in labor demand. As noted by Berman and Bui, although many assume that regulations must increase marginal cost, in cases such as the proposed rule, they may decrease it. The proposed rule gives firms the option of converting to a more efficient technology for meeting the same regulatory requirements. Firms may then optimize their internal operations to focus on more profitable operations, or to reduce the costs paid by generators of hazardous wastes. For state governments, the reduction in requirements also allows realignment of labor toward other activities; this is offset nationally by EPA's costs to operate the e-Manifest system.

The substitution effect describes how, holding output constant, regulation affects the laborintensity of production. Berman and Bui (2001) model the substitution effect as the effect of regulation on pollution control equipment and expenditures required by the regulation and the corresponding change in the labor-intensity of production. Under the proposed rule, moving from paper to electronic manifests is expected to reduce the labor intensity of manifest activities of industries generating and handling hazardous wastes. The cost savings could lead affected firms to realign labor toward other production activities.

The proposed rule aims to reduce the effects of regulation on production. In response to the proposed rule, if it is cost effective to do so, entities may undertake a number of labor changes, depending on the type of entity (generator, TSDF, transporter, state) and their use of systems to generate and process manifests in the baseline and post-rule scenarios. Appendix C provides the complete set of activities comprising the manifest process; as described in Chapter 5, this RIA assumes that under an electronic manifest system, these activities take less time (i.e., fewer labor hours) to complete, with the extent of the reduction varying by the specific activity in question. These activities must be completed regardless of an entity's use of electronic manifests; the effect of using electronic manifests, from the entity's perspective, is to reduce the costs associated with completing these activities. Entities that save labor hours as a result of the transition to electronic manifests can allocate these hours to other productive uses within their organization.

This RIA estimates a reduction in labor hours (approximately 22.8 million over six years) and labor costs faced by all affected entities, including states, hazardous waste generators, transporters, and TSDFs. The RIA does not reflect a complete analysis of labor market effects related to the rule, as the effects are spread across hundreds of thousands of firms in different sectors, and responses to cost reductions are likely to be sector- and firm-specific. Neither the data nor methods were available to conduct such an analysis.

7.4 Unfunded Mandates Analysis

Among its other purposes and federal agency rulemaking requirements, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) requires federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector, to determine whether any proposed rulemaking may result in "any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year."

Section 202 of UMRA requires federal agencies that proposed rules that are likely to exceed this expenditure threshold to prepare a "Written Statement" containing the following five components, supply the statement to OMB, and summarize it in the Federal Register:

        Identification of the applicable authorizing federal law;

        Qualitative and quantitative assessment of the anticipated costs and benefits of the rule including the costs and benefits to state, local, and tribal governments or the private sector, and an analysis of whether federal resources may be available to pay these costs;

        Estimates of future compliance costs and any disproportionate budgetary effects;

        Estimates of effects on the national economy such as productivity, economic growth, employment, job creation, international competitiveness; and

        Description and summary of agency's prior consultation with elected representatives of the affected state, local, and tribal governments.

The e-Manifest proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. As described in Chapter 5, this RIA estimates that the net impact of eManifest will be to reduce costs to state governments. The e-Manifest rule will not impose any burden on local or tribal governments as they are not stakeholders in the hazardous waste manifest system. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of
UMRA.

This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The current hazardous waste paper manifest system imposes no burden or requirements on small governments.

7.5 Federalism Analysis

The 1999 Federalism Executive Order 13132 furthers the policies of UMRA by establishing federalism principles, federalism policymaking criteria, and a state and local government consultation process for the development of federal regulations with implications for federalism. These include regulations and other federal policies and actions that have substantial direct effects on states, on the relationship between the federal government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
Pursuant to the consultation process of Executive Order 13132, this section evaluates whether the proposed rule may "impose substantial direct compliance costs" on state and local governments. EPA's 2008 guidance for compliance with Executive Order 13132 describes two numerical methods for evaluating whether an EPA rule may have federalism implications with respect to "substantial direct compliance costs":

        The $25 million test. Annualized direct compliance cost expenditures to state and local governments in aggregate of $25 million or more.

        The one percent test. Annualized direct compliance costs faced by state and local governments are likely to equal or exceed 1percent of their annual revenues.
As indicated in the UMRA discussion above, this RIA estimates cost savings for state agencies. Thus, the proposed rule would not result in substantial direct compliance costs, as defined in the EPA guidance, for entities owned by state and local governments.

EPA does not estimate that the proposed rule would affect the relationship between the federal government and the states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, however, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from state and local officials.

 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications." As indicated in the UMRA discussion above, EPA does not estimate any costs of the proposed rule for state and local governments. Based on these results, the proposed rule is not expected to impose a substantial burden on tribal governments.

 Environmental Justice Analysis

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States. Among other actions, the Order directs agencies to improve research and data collection regarding health and environmental effects in minority and low-income communities.

EPA does not anticipate that the proposed rule would result in disproportionately high or adverse impacts for minority or low-income populations. Overall, the Agency anticipates that the rule will support the safe shipment and management of hazardous waste, which benefits all communities. As the rule encourages environmentally sound recordkeeping of hazardous wastes, it will likely reduce the risks associated with treatment, disposal, and recovery.

 Children's Health Protection Analysis

Executive Order 13045, entitled "Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and
Safety Risks" (62 FR. 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be "economically significant" as defined under Executive Order 12866, or (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

EPA does not anticipate that the proposed rule would lead to a disproportionate negative impact on children. As described in the Environmental Justice section above, the rule improves the information available to EPA through notification, tracking, and reporting requirements, and provides for environmentally sound disposal and recovery.

 Energy Impact Analysis

Executive Order 13211, "Actions Concerning Regulations that Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (May 18, 2001), addresses the need for regulators to more fully consider the potential energy impacts of regulatory action. Under this Executive Order, agencies are required to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects when a regulatory action may have significant adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use, including impacts on price and foreign supplies. Additionally, the requirements obligate agencies to consider reasonable alternatives to regulatory actions with adverse effects and the impacts that such alternatives might have on energy supply, distribution, or use.

The proposed rule would not directly regulate energy production or consumption. In addition, with annualized net costs of no more than $31.7 million per year (including both industry and government net costs), this rule is not considered an economically significant action under Executive Order 12866.

Changes in the management of hazardous waste resulting from the proposed rule are not expected to significantly impact energy production or distribution, as these changes relate only to reporting, though the reduction in material (paper) use anticipated under the rule is likely associated with reduced energy demand to manufacture and transport paper. Changes in hazardous waste manifest practices may lead to changes in the management practices of hazardous waste, although the effect of these changes on energy use and generation is uncertain and likely to be minimal. Aside from the potential change in paper use and waste management practices described above, the requirements of the rule would have minimal impact on energy consumption; therefore, the rule is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on energy supply, distribution, or use.

Sources Cited
40 CFR Part 261 Subpart A
40 CFR Part 262 Subpart B  -  The Manifest
40 CFR Part 263 Subpart B  -  Compliance with the Manifest System and Recordkeeping
40 CFR Part 264 Subpart E  -  Manifest System, Recordkeeping, and Reporting  40 CFR Part 265 Subpart E  -  Manifest System, Recordkeeping, and Reporting  45 Federal Register 12724 (February 26, 1980).
Booz Allen Hamilton , State Manifest Program Summary, submitted as
      StateManifestProgramSummary BAH3-28-14.xlsx under contract to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  March 28, 2014.
      Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy: Electronic Submission of Hazardous Waste Manifests  -  Modernizing for the 21st
      Century. U.S. House of Representatives, 112[th] Cong. 1-7 (2012) (Testimony of David R. Case, Executive Director, Environmental Technology Council)
Executive Order 12866. "Regulatory Planning and Review." October 4, 1993
      Executive Order 12898. "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations." February 16, 1994.
      Executive Order 13045. "Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks." April 23, 1997.
      Executive Order 13175.  "Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments." November 9, 2000.
      Executive Order 13211. "Actions Concerning Regulations that Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use." May 18, 2001.
      Greenstone, M. 2002. "The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Industrial Activity:  Evidence from the 1970 and 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments and the Census of Manufactures," Journal of Political Economy 110(6): 1175-1219.
Hamermesh. 1993. Labor Demand (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), Chapter 2.
      Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act.  112 U.S.C. § 1451 et seq. (2012). Accessed at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ195/html/PLAW112publ195.htm.
Layard, P.R.G., and A. A. Walters. 1978. Microeconomic Theory (McGraw-Hill, Inc.), Chapter
      9.
Morgenstern, Richard D., William A. Pizer, and Jhih-Shyang Shih. "Jobs Versus the
      Environment: An Industry-Level Perspective." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 43 (2002):  412-436.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2007 Economic Census of the United States.
      U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Transportation Policy Studies. Analysis of the Vehicle Inventory and Use Survey for Trucks with Five
      Axles or More. May 2011. Accessed at:
      http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/tswstudy/vius97.pdf.
      U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Transportation Policy Studies. Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study Report No. 6. Activity I:
      Task B: Identify Market Segments -- Competitive and Noncompetitive. October 1996.  Accessed at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/tswstudy/rpt6_mai.pdf.
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 25 Years of RCRA: Building on Our Past to Protect Our Future. April 2002. Accessed at:
      http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/pubs/k02027.pdf.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Action Development Process: Guidance on Executive Order 13132: Federalism. November 2008.
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Approved Registered Printers for the Manifest.  Accessed at:
      http://www.epa.gov/wastes/hazard/transportation/manifest/registry/printers.htm
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Assessment of the Potential Costs, Benefits, and Other Impacts of the Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program, as Proposed. May 2015. Accessed at:
      https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-RCRA-2012-0121-0005.
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cross-Media Reporting Rule (CROMERR) Cost Benefit Analysis. Final. November 17, 2004.
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. e-Manifest Requirements Meeting Summary, March 8, 2013, p. 2. Accessed at: http://www3.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/transportation/manifest/pdf/emanfst_%20requirmnts_%20mtg_sum_arlngtn.pdf.
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. e-Manifest Technical Architecture: Helpdesk Operations. Final Version 1.0. November 5, 2014.
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Compliance Assistance Program (EnvCAP). Gateway to State Resource Locators. Accessed at: www.envcap.org/statetools/.
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Compliance Assistance Program (EnvCAP). Hazardous Waste State Resource Locator: Arkansas. Accessed at: http://www.envcap.org/statetools/hzrl/hwr2001.cfm?st=AR.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Final Guidance for EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.  November 2006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A .
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System. Electronic Manifest Past Meetings. Accessed at:
      https://www3.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/transportation/manifest/e-man-pastmeetings.htm.
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System ("eManifest"). Accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/transportation/manifest/eman.htm
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System. Federal Register, May 22, 2001, Vol. 66, pages 28240 -28318.  Accessed at: https://www. federalregister. gov/articles/2001/05/22/0111909/hazardous-waste-management-system-modification-of-the-hazardous-wastemanifest-system.
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System; Final Rule.  Federal Register, March 4, 2005.  Accessed at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-RCRA-20010032-0105.
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System. Federal Register, April 18, 2006, Vol. 71, pages
      19842 -19848. Accessed at: https://www.federalregister. gov/articles/2006/04/18/E65745/hazardous-waste-management-system-modification-of-the-hazardous-wastemanifest-system.
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System.  Federal Register, February 26, 2008, Vol. 73, pages 10204 -10210. Accessed at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2008/02/26/E8-3615/hazardous-wastemanagement-system-modification-of-the-hazardous-waste-manifest-system.
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hazardous Waste Management System; Modification of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System. Federal Register, February 7, 2014, Vol. 79, pages 7517-7563. Accessed at: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/02/07/201401352/hazardous-waste-management-system-modification-of-the-hazardous-wastemanifest-system-electronic.
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. Budget Office Summary of e-Manifest-related Expenditures for Fiscal Year 2014 Costs.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery. State Government Annual Costs for Collecting & Processing Completed Hazardous Waste Paper Manifests: Summary of Cost Data from Two Case Studies Supplied to Office of Solid Waste in 2007. May 2009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste, Economics, Methods & Risk
      Analysis Division. Economics Background Document: Economic Analysis of the USEPA's Final Rule Revisions to the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest Form, 2004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 0976.17 "2015 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification. January 22, 2015.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request (ICR) 2330.01: Pesticide Registration Fees Program. November 2010.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Supporting Statement for Information Collection
      Request (ICR) 0801.15: Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System (Final Rule). March 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Supporting Statement for Information Collection
      Request (ICR) 0801.18: Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System (Final Rule). February 2012.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Supporting Statement for Information Collection
      Request (ICR) 0801.20: Requirements for Generators, Transporters, and Waste Management Facilities under the RCRA Hazardous Waste Manifest System (Final Rule). April 2015.
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  The 2011 National Hazardous Waste Biennial Report. 2011. Accessed at: https://www3.epa.gov/epawaste/inforesources/data/br11/index.htm.
      U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Webinar 2: e-Manifest Alternatives Analysis Document. Final Version 4.0.  November 11, 2009.
      U.S. Internal Revenue Service. Publication 946: How to Depreciate Property. Accessed at: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p946.pdf.
U.S. Office of Budget and Management. Federal Collection of Information.  Accessed at:
      https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_infocoll/.
      U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Statement No. 4. Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and Standards for the Federal Government. July 31, 1995. Accessed at: http://www.fasab.gov/pdffiles/sffas-4.pdf.
U.S. Small Business Agency. Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System.  Accessed March 2015 from:
      https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf.

                                  Appendices
                                      For
                          Regulatory Impact Analysis
   For EPA's 2016 Proposed Rule Establishing User Fees for the RCRA Electronic Hazardous Waste Manifest System (e-Manifest)
                   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
              Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR)
                  1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (Mailstop 5305P)
                            Washington DC, 20460 USA
                                  April 2016
                              Table of Appendices
Appendix A. Methodology for Estimating Hazardous Waste Tonnage Shipped by SQGs,
CESQGs, and Generators of State Hazardous Wastes ...........................A-1
Appendix B. State Hazardous Waste Programs...................................................  B-1
Appendix C. 2014 EPA Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal
Companies ............................................................................. C-1
Appendix D. Manifest-Related Activities from the Hazardous Waste Manifest System
ICR...................................................................................... D-1
Appendix E. EPA Paper Processing Cost Model..................................................E-1
Appendix F. e-Manifest Technical Architecture: Helpdesk Operations.........................F-1
Appendix G. Industries Potentially Affected by the Proposed Rule and SBA Size
Standards, by NAICS Code...........................................................G-1

                                   Appendix A
  Methodology for Estimating Hazardous Waste Tonnage Shipped by SQGs, CESQGs, and Generators of State Hazardous Wastes

This RIA uses data from the 2011 RCRA Biennial Report to estimate hazardous waste tonnage shipped by large quantity generators (LQGs) and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs). However, hazardous waste tonnage data for shipments originating from small quantity generators (SQGs) and conditionally-exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs) is not consistently available via the RCRA Biennial Report.