## Economic Analysis of the Proposed Rule to add 1

-

B romopropane to the EPCRA Section 313

List of Toxic Chemicals

February 1 7 , 201 5

Prepared by Abt Associates for: Analytical Support Branch Environmental Analysis Division Office of Information Analysis and Access Office of Environmental Information US Environmental Protection Agency

### CONTENTS

Econo mic Analysis of the Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. i ES. Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ............... iii

ES.1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... iii

ES.2 Need for Rule

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. iii

ES.3 Add ition of 1

- Bromopropane

................................ ................................ ......................... iii

ES.4 Estimated Reporting Activity

................................ ................................ ......................... iii

ES.5 Costs of the Proposed Rule

................................ ................................ ............................. iv

ES.5.1 Industry Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ .... iv

ES.5.2 EPA Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... v
ES.5.3 Total Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... v
ES.6 Small Entity Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... v
ES.7 Benefits of the Proposed Rule

................................ ................................ ....................... vii

1. Background and Overview of Analysis

................................ ................................ .............. 1

- 1

1.1 Overview of TRI

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 1

- 1

1.1.1 Po llution Prevention Act

................................ ................................ ................. 1

- 3

1.1.2 Changes to the List of Chemicals

................................ ................................ .... 1

- 3

1.1.3 Alternate Threshold

................................ ................................ ......................... 1

- 3

1.1.4 Executive Order 12856

................................ ................................ ................... 1

- 4

1.1.5 Changes to the List of Industries

................................ ................................ ..... 1

- 4

1.1.6 Changes for Chemicals that are Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic

....... 1

- 4

1.1.7 Toxic Chemical Release Reporting Using North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Rule

................................ .............................. 1

- 4

1.1.8 TRI Dioxin and Dioxin

- like Compounds Toxic Equivalency (TEQ)
Information Rule

................................ ................................ ............................. 1

- 5

1.2 Addition of 1

- Bromopropane to EPCRA Section 313 Reporting Requirements

......... 1

- 5

1.3 Organization of This Report

................................ ................................ ......................... 1

- 5

2. Estimates of the Number of Reports and Affected Facilities

................................ ........... 2

- 1

2.1 Background

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 2

- 1

2.2 Methodology

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 2

- 2

2.2.1 Identifying Actual Facilities

................................ ................................ ............ 2

- 3

2.2.2 Proxy Methods

................................ ................................ ................................ 2

- 4

2.2.3 Form As

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 2

- 10

2.2.4 Existing Filers and First Time Filers

................................ ............................. 2

- 10

2.3 Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 2

- 11

3. Cost Estimates

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 3

- 1

3.1 Industry Burden and Cost Estimates

................................ ................................ ............ 3

- 1

3.1.1 Estimation of Burden

................................ ................................ ...................... 3

- 1

### CONTENTS

Econo mic Analysis of the Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. ii 3.1.2 Estimation of Cost

................................ ................................ ........................... 3

- 3

3.1.3 Total Industry Burden Estimates

................................ ................................ ..... 3

- 5

3.1.4 Total Indust ry Cost Estimates

................................ ................................ ......... 3

- 7

3.1.5 Annualized Cost Estimates

................................ ................................ ............. 3

- 9

3.2 EPA Cost Estimates

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 3

- 11

3.3 Total Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 3

- 12

4. Small Entity Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 4

- 1

4.1 Impact on Small Entities

................................ ................................ .............................. 4

- 1

4.2 Definitions of Small Entities

................................ ................................ ........................ 4

- 1

4.3 Methodology Overview

................................ ................................ ............................... 4

- 2

4.3.1 Small Entity Impacts for Known Facilities

................................ ..................... 4

- 4

4.3.2 Small Entity Impacts Analyzed using Census Data

................................ ........ 4

- 5

4.4 Summary of Impacts to Small Parent Entities

................................ ............................. 4

- 9

5. Benefits

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5

- 1

6. References

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 6

- 1

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Econo mic Analysis of the Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. iii 

## ES. Executive Summary

ES.1 Introduction

Under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right

- to

- Know Act (EPCRA), and section
6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), certain facilities are required to file annual reports to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to states or Indian Country officials on their releases, transfers, and other waste management practices f or certain toxic chemicals if they are manufactured, processed, or otherwise used above certain threshold amounts. This information is included in a publicly available database known as the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).

Currently, there are 594 chemicals and 3 1 chemical categories on the list of chemicals subject to EPCRA section 313 requirements. EPCRA section 313(d) authorizes EPA to add chemicals to the list of reportable substances. Under the proposed rule, EPA adds 1

- Bromopropane (1

- BP) to the list of individual chemicals subject to EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements.



### ES.2 Need for Rule

EPA believes that 1

- B P meets the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) criteria for listing because it is consider ed to be a human carcinogen. The classification is based on suff icient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and supporting data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis. Further, EPA believes that facilities currently manufacture, process, or otherwise use th i s chemical above TRI thresholds and
therefore will fil e TRI reports based on the analysis presented in this document.



### ES.3 Addition of 1

- Bromopropane

1

- BP is a short chain, brominated, alkyl molecule, which is a colorless liquid under standard conditions. Human exposure by inhalation or skin contact can lead to irritation and neurologic effects such as headaches, dizziness, slurred speech or loss of consciousness. In addition, studies with animal subjects
have linked 1

- BP to certain cancers, as well as toxicity in the liver, reproductive system, and nervous syst em (National Institute of Health and Safety, OSHA, 2014)

. The halogenated alkane properties of 1

- BP make it an ideal organic solvent. In industry, the main uses of
1

- BP are as an aerosol solvent in asphalt, aircraft, and synth etic fiber manufacturing, as a vapor and immersion degreaser in metals, metal products, plastics, optics, and electronics manufacturing, and as a cleaning solvent for dry cleaning. In addition, 1

- BP can be used as an adhesive in laminates and foam product s, and as a chemical intermediate in pharmaceuticals, pesticides, quaternary ammonium compounds, flavors, and fragrances

.


### ES.4 Estimated Reporting Activity

The number of additional TRI reports expected due to the proposed rule is summarized in Table ES

- 1 : Total Estimated Forms and Facilities

.

Table ES

- 1 : Total Estimated Forms and Facilities

Fa cilities Form Rs Form As

140 126 14

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Econo mic Analysis of the Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. iv 

### ES.5 Costs of the Proposed Rule

The proposed rule will result in associated c osts to both industry and EPA. Affected facilities will spend time reporting the required information to EPA on Form R or Form A. The Agency will spend time processing new forms.

ES.5.1 Industry Costs

For the proposed rule, the burden and cost potentially incurred by industry are estimated using the Ratio

Based Burden Methodology (RBBM) which is a simplified formulation of the previously employed burden methodology ( U.S. EPA, 2011b )

. According to RBBM, reporting activities can be divided into two groups:

 Form Activities, co nsisting of rule familiarization, reporter compliance determination, calculations and form completion, and recordkeeping and sub mission; and

 Non

- Form Activities, consisting of supplier notification and non

- rep orter compliance
determination.

Form Activity burden is estimated using the Nominal Form R U nit B urden to represent average burden incurred by filers to file a Form R. The Nominal Form R Unit Burden is set at 35.70516 hours. 1 Form A burden is closely linked to that of Form R, and is therefore quantifi ed by the ratio A/R (set at 0.615 ), thus reflecting the burden of a Form A as 61.5 percent of the burden of a Form R. Form Activity Burden can be calculated using the Nominal Form R U nit B urden, the A/R ratio, and the number of Form R and Form
A chemicals expected to be reported due to the proposed rule. RBBM combines Form Activity Burden
with Non

- Form Activity Burden (consisting of supplier notification and non

- reporter compliance determination) in order to calculate Steady State Total Burden , which is the ongoing burden estimated to be incurred by filers due to the proposed rule. To represent the elevated level of effort incurred by both filers reporting to TRI for the first

- time and those already reporting to TRI but considering the requirements of the pr oposed rule for the first time, a First

- Time Filer Factor (FTF f ) is compute d at 2.1.

The costs potentially incurred by industry are estimated using the weighted average wage rate, WAWR, representing the average loaded cost for a mix of Managerial, Technical and Clerical labor pe r hour of TRI reporter burden. The WAWR is calculated using data from Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, updated quarterly. As of December 10 , 2014, the WAWR reflecting September 2014 wage rate data is calculated at 52.61

.

1 The burden of 35.70516 includes the addition of 0 .00516 hours of burden associated with the Dioxin Reporting
Re quirements promulgated in May 10, 2007, and account ed for in the 2011 ICR (Docket# EPA

- HQ

- OEI

- 2010

- 0835 )

.

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Econo mic Analysis of the Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. v Table ES

- 2 : Total First Year and Steady State Industry Burden under the Proposed Rule presents the total industry burden of the proposed rule in the first year of th e rule and in the steady state. Table ES

- 3 presents annualized industry costs annualized at discount rates of 3% and 7%.

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Econo mic Analysis of the Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. vi Table ES

- 2 : Total First Year and Steady State Industry Burden under the Proposed Rule

First Year Form R Burden (hrs) First Year

Form A Burden (hrs) First Year

Total Burden (hrs) Steady State

Form R Burden (hrs) Steady State

Form A Burden (hrs) Steady State

Total Burden (hrs)
9,449 64 4 10,093 4, 500 308 4,808

Table ES

- 3 : Total Annualized Industry Cost under the Proposed Rule

Annualized Form R Cost (3%) Annualized

Form A Cost (3%) Total

Annualized Cost (3%) Annualized

Form R Cost (7%) Annualized

Form A Cost (7%) Total

Annualized Cost (7%) $266,3 21 $18,200 $284,521 $271,326 $18,539 $289,865

ES.5.2 EPA Costs
In general, EPA incurs burden and costs for five categories of activities related to the TRI program: data processing, outreach and training, information dissemination, policy and petitions, and compliance and enforcement. These activities involve both fixed ( e.g. , rent for the EPCRA reporting center) and variable costs (activities such as data processing that depend on th e number of forms submitted). As a result of the proposed rule, the Agency is only expected to incur variable costs associated with data processing.

As of January 21, 2014, all non

- trade secret forms must be submitted electronically. EPA estimates that the processing cost for TRI

- MEweb submissions is $ 6.05 per form. Therefore, the total form processing
burden for EPA associated with Form R and Form A chemical submissions under the proposed rule is estimated at $ 847

.

ES.5.3 Total Costs

The total cost of the proposed rule to in dustry and EPA is estimated at approximately $ 3 00,000 under a 3% or 7% discount rate

. Table ES

- 4 summarizes the total annualized costs to industry and EPA as a result
of the proposed rule.

Table ES

- 4 : Summary of Total Costs of the Proposed Rule

Cost Category Total Cost (3% Discount Rate) Total Cost (7% Discount Rate) Industry Costs $284,5 21 $289,865
EPA Processing Costs $847 $847

Total Costs $285,36 8 $290,7 12



### ES.6 Small Entity Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. § 601 et. seq. ) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of regulations on small entities, and in some instances, to examine alternatives to the regulations that may reduce adverse economic effects on significantly impacted small entities. The RFA requires agenci es to prepare an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis for each rule unless the

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Econo mic Analysis of the Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. vii Agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.

This analysis uses annualized cost impact per centages to measure potential impacts on small entities. The cost impact percentage is defined as annualized compliance costs resulting from the proposed rule as a percentage of annual revenues or sales. For purposes of determining small entity impacts, co mparing annualized compliance costs to annual revenues provides a reasonable 

### indication of the magnitude of the regulatory burden relative to a commonly available and objective measure of a company's business volume. Where regulatory costs represent a smal l fraction of a typical firm's revenue, the impacts of the regulation are likely to be minimal.

Small entity impacts for the 140 facilities estimated to be affected by the proposed rule are estimated either using actual facility and parent entity data or u sing U.S. Census data.

For the sectors where the identity of each facility is known, (facilities manufacturing or importing 1

- BP)

cost impact percentages are calculated using the actual compliance costs per facility, the number of facilities per parent com

pany for small entities, and the annual revenues of the small entities. Company revenue data, facility

- parent relationships, and the data necessary to determine if the parent entity is small were obtained from Hoover’s, Inc.’s business information database , which provides data including annual revenue, number of employees, line of business, parent company identity, and corporate linkages ( Hoover's Inc, 2014 )

. Small entity impacts in sectors where the identify of each facility is not known (facilities processing or otherwise using 1

- BP) were estimated using revenue, employment, and facility

- parent relationship data from the U.S. Census Bureau‘s Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) ( U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 ) . The SUSB provides annual data for U.S. business establishments by geography, industry, and enterprise size, including counts of establishments, firms, employees, and payroll. Data on total revenues are also provided by SUSB every five years. The data available from the SUSB can therefore be used to estimate annual revenues and calculate cost impact percentages for affected smal l parent entities

. A sensitivity analysis using industry

- specific wage rates to construct the cost to employ ten workers as a
revenue floor was also conducted to ensure that impacts to the smallest potentially

- affected parent entities
were considered

. 2

Although the specific methodology used to estimate small entity impacts differs based on the data available for each sector, the general methodology employed consists of the following steps:

Step 1: Identify the universe of facilities expected to incur com pliance costs due to the proposed rule.

Step 2: Characterize the relationships between these facilities and their global ultimate parent entities.

Step 3: Estimate annual revenues of parent entities.

Step 4: Identify small parent entities based on SBA or R FA definitions.

2 Industry

- specific wage rates are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014a)

.

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Econo mic Analysis of the Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. viii Step 5: Develop annualized compliance cost estimates for small parent entities using the per

- facility reporting cost and the number of facilities per parent entity that will report to TRI.

Step 6: Calculate the entity

- level impact percentag es, defined as annualized compliance costs as a percentage of annual revenues, to measure regulatory burden.

Step 7: Estimate the number and percentage of small parent entities with entity

- level impact percentages in each of three categories: (1) less than one percent of annual revenues; (2) between one and three percent of annual revenues; and (3) greater than or equal to three percent of annual revenues.

The 140 facilities expected to report under the proposed rule were linked to 140 parent entities, 136 of which were categorized as small pare nt entities. All of the 136 small parent entities are estimated to incur annualized cost impacts of less than 1%. Therefore, the proposed rule is not expected to significantly impact a substantial number of small enti ties. Table ES

- 5 summarizes the results of the small entity analysis.

Table ES

- 5 : Summary of Small Entity Analysis

Facilities Potential

Parent Entities Potential Small

Parent Entit ies Small Parent Entities Incurring Annualized (7%) Cost Impacts of...
<1% 1% to 3% >3%

140 140 136 136 (100%) 0

(0%) 0

(0%)



### ES.7 Benefits of the Proposed Rule

The benefits of the proposed rule include improved understanding, awareness, and decision making related to the provision and distribution of information on releases and waste management of 1

- B P . The provision of information can lead to follow

- on activities that create additional costs and benefits. In particular, this information can lead to volunta ry initiatives by industry to review production processes, set goals for reductions in emissions, and institute “good neighbor” policies.

EPA has not attempted to monetize the benefits of the proposed rule due to the lack of quantitative
information charac terizing the range of users and non

- users of TRI data and the substantial analytical challenges associated with conducting an analysis that accurately predicts behavioral responses to the provision of information. In addition, the potentially large numbers of beneficiaries who are not TRI data users, or who are otherwise unaware of the data ( e.g. , general public), further limits EPA’s ability to quantify potential benefits. However, the experience since the first forms were submitted to TRI in 1987 suggests that reporting under EPCRA section 313 has produced real gains in understanding about communities’ exposure to toxic chemicals. In its report entitled The Toxics Release Inventory in Action: Media, Government, Business, Community and Academic Uses of TRI

, EPA has documented numerous examples of how multiple stakeholders have used TRI data ( U.S. EPA, 2013b ) . Moreover, a cursory search on GoogleScholarTM reveals thousands of academic articles referencing the Toxics Release Inventory. Listing 1

- B P , and the subsequent use of the reported information, should provide similar gains in understanding of this particular chemical. EPA believes that 1

- B P meets the statutory toxicity criteria of section 313, and is at least as toxic as some of the chemicals for w hich Congress initially believed there were net benefits due to reporting (i.e., the initial list of section 313 chemicals).

### BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 1

- 1 

## 1. Background and Overview of Analysis

The Emergency Planning and Community Right

- to

- Know Act (EPCRA), also known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), created a broad range of emergency response planning and reporting requirements for manufacturers, processors, and users of toxic chemicals
in the United States. U nder section 313 of EPCRA, certain facilities are required to submit annual reports to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to States and Indian Country officials on their release(s), transfer(s), and waste management activities for certain toxic chemicals if they are manufactured, processed, or otherwise used above thresholds amounts. In addition, the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990 requires these same facilities to report prevention, recycling, and other waste management info rmation for these same chemicals. EPA maintains the data collected under EPCRA section 313 and the PPA in a database known as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). 3

EPCRA section 313(f)(1) contains default reporting thresholds for facilities. These reporting thresholds are 25,000 pounds for toxic chemicals that are manufactured (including imported) or processed, and 10,000 pounds for toxic chemicals that are otherwise used. For chemicals that are considered to be persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT)

, reporting thresholds are set at 10 or 100 lbs, with the exception of dioxin, which is set at 0.1 grams. Facilities that meet these reporting thresholds, as well as other reporting criteria, are required to submit annual reports. Under this rule, reporting would be required
for 1

- B romopropane ( 1

- BP ) which EPA considers to be a human carcinogen. The classification is based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals and supporting data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014)

This report analyzes the economic impacts of the proposed rule. To understand the effects of the proposed rule, however, it is first necessary to understand how EPCRA section 313 and TRI curre ntly operate. This chapter provides an overview of TRI followed by a description of the rule and organization of the report.



### 1.1 Overview of TRI

In 1986, Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Commun ity Right

- to

- Know Act (EPCRA). The law was passed in resp onse to the accidental release of methyl isocyanate gas in Bhopal, India, in December 1984, and to a number of chemical accidents in the United States, including on e in Institute, West Virginia. These accidental releases highlighted the lack of information readily available to the public about toxic chemicals being manufactured, processed, used, and transp orted within their
communities. EPCRA is based on the premise that the public has the right to know about the use of chemicals, as well as their ro utine and accidental releases. The broad purposes are to encourage planning for response to accidental chemical releases as well as daily management of routine releases, and to

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

### BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 1

- 2 provide the public and government agencies with information about the presence, release, and management of toxic chemicals.

EPCRA contains four main provisions:

 Planning for chemical emergencies (sections 301

- 303),

 Emergency notification of chemical accidents and releases (section 304),

 Reporting of hazardous chemical inventories (sections 311

- 312), and

 Toxic chemical release reporting (section 313).

Because this rule falls under section 313 of EPCRA, the remainder of this overview only addresses the reporting provisions of section 313.

The first regulations implementing EPCRA sect ion 313 were promulgated on February 16, 1988 (53 FR 4500), and are codified at 40 CFR part 372. Under these original regulations, owners or operators of certain facilities must complete and submit one or more Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting
For m R reports. The information to be submitted on a Form R report includes, but is not limited to, information on releases to air, water, and land, as well as on

- site waste treatment and transfers of the

c hemical to off

- site locations.

A facility must report under section 313 if it meets all of the following three criteria:

1. It is in an Industrial Classification code covered by the regulations;

2. It has ten or more full

- time employees (or the hourly equivalent of 20,000 hours); and

3. It manufactures, processes, o r otherwise uses any of the listed toxic chemicals or chemical categories above the applicable reporting threshold.

A completed Form R must be submitted for each listed toxic chemical manufactured, processed, or
otherwise used above threshold levels at eac h regulated facility as described in 40 CFR part 372. For most chemicals, threshold levels are set at 25,000 lbs for manufacturing and processing and 10,000 lbs for otherwise use (40 CFR § 372.25). The EPCRA section 313 list currently contains over 600 tox ic chemicals and chemical compound categories (hereinafter, “TRI chemicals”). Reports for each Calendar Year are due by July 1 of the following year.

TRI is unique among environmental databases because of the multimedia data it collects, and because it

was designed for public access. The primary purpose of TRI data is to inform the public of releases and other waste management activities of toxic chemicals in their communities, and enable citizens to make informed decisions regarding the consequences of suc h activities to human health and the environment. TRI data are also used by the federal, state and local governments for prioritization purposes and to assess pollution prevention activities. Researchers, public interest groups, as well as others use TRI d ata for a variety of purposes. In general, TRI data have proven to be a powerful tool in environmental decision

making.

### BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 1

- 3 1.1.1 Pollution Prevention Act
In 1990, Congress passed the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), which adopted as national policy an
environmental hierarchy that establishes pollution prevention as the first choice among waste management options (42 U.S.C. § 13101

- 13109). For waste that cannot be prevented at the source, recycling is considered the next best option, and treatment or disposal should b e considered only when source reduction and recycling options cannot be implemented. Section 6607 of the PPA requires facilities to also provide information on their pollution prevention, recycling, and other waste management activities. This information c omplements the information reported under EPCRA section 313 by providing information about the waste management activities related to the reported chemicals. The data elements required by the Pollution Prevention Act are included as Section 8 of Form R.

1.1.2 Ch anges to the List of Chemicals
When Congress passed EPCRA it provided an initial list of approximately 300 chemicals and chemical categories subject to TRI reporting. The statutory list was derived from chemical lists used in New Jersey and Maryland. Congr ess also included a provision in EPCRA that allows EPA to amend the list of chemicals subject to TRI reporting. Under section 313(d), EPA has the authority to add a chemical to the list if it determines that the chemical can cause or can be reasonably anti cipated to cause:

 Adverse acute human health effects at concentration levels reasonably likely to exist beyond facility site boundaries as a result of continuous or frequently recurring releases;

 In humans, carcinogenic or teratogenic effects, serious or i rreversible reproductive dysfunctions, neurological disorders, heritable genetic mutations, or other chronic health effects; or

 A significant adverse effect on the environment. See, 42 U.S.C.§ 11023(d).

EPA has added chemicals to the list through its autho rity under section 313(d). Most notably, EPA added 286 chemicals and chemical categories to the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic chemicals on November 30, 1994 (59 FR 61432).

EPA may remove a chemical from the list if it does not meet any of the above crite ria found in 313(d). According to section 313(e) of EPCRA, any person may petition EPA to add or delete a chemical from the list on the basis of whether or not it meets the above criteria (see 42 U.S.C. § 11023(e)). All changes to the list are made through the rulemaking process under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

1.1.3 Alternate Threshold
On November 30, 1994, EPA finalized the “TRI Alternate Threshold for Facilities with Low Annual Reportable Amounts” (59 FR 61488). This rule was intended to reduce t he compliance burden associated with EPCRA section 313. It established a streamlined reporting option for facilities that manufacture, process or otherwise use a TRI chemical in annual quantities of one million pounds or less and where the annual reportabl e amount of the chemical does not exceed 500 pounds. 4 Under such circumstances the facility has the option of filing a two

- page certification statement known as a “Form A” instead of the longer Form R (40 CFR 372.27). The Form A is a certification that onc e completed and signed certifies

4 The annual reportable amount is equal to the combined total quantities recycled, combusted for energy recovery, treated, or released. It can be calculated as is the sum of data elements 8.1 through 8.7 on Form R.

### BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 1

- 4 that the facility is not required to file a Form R for the chemical because the facility did not exceed 500 pounds for the total annual reportable amount for that chemical, and that their amounts manufactured or processed o r otherwise used did not exceed one million pounds. EPA has excluded certain chemicals designated as persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (see below) from Form A eligibility.

1.1.4 Executive Order 12856
On August 3, 1993, Executive Order 12856, “Federal Compli ance with Right

- to

- Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements” was signed by the President (58 FR 41981). The Executive Order requires federal facilities to comply with EPCRA requirements beginning with the 1994

- reporting year.
The Executive Order als o asked all federal agencies to set a voluntary goal of 50% reduction from baseline quantities of their releases and transfers by 1999.

1.1.5 Changes to the List of Industries
On May 1, 1997, EPA added facilities in seven industry groups to the list of facilities subject to the reporting requirements of section 313 (62 FR 23833). The first reports from these facilities were required to be submitted by July 1, 1999 for the calend ar year 1998. Prior to this action, reporting was limited to facilities in the manufacturing sector (SIC codes 20

- 39) and federal facilities. This action added facilities in the following sectors:

 Metal mining,

 Coal mining,

 Electric utilities,

 Commercial hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities

,

 Chemicals and allied products

- wholesale,

 Petroleum bulk terminals and plants

- wholesale, and

 Solvent recovery services.

1.1.6 Changes for Chemicals that are Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic

On O ctober 29, 1999, EPA published a final rule that lowered the reporting thresholds to 10 or 100 pounds for certain TRI chemicals (persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals, or PBT chemicals) that are of special concern (64 FR 58666). In the same rule, EPA also added to the section 313 list of toxic chemicals certain PBT chemicals that were not already listed, including a dioxin category with a reporting threshold of 0.1 gram. Additionally, this rulemaking included other changes to PBT chemical reportin g, such as disallowing the use of the de minimis exemption, range reporting, and Form A for PBT chemicals (40 CFR § 372.28(b)). On January 17, 2001, EPA published a final rule that designated lead and its compounds as PBTs, lowered the reporting threshold for these chemicals to 100 pounds, and applied the same limitations that are applied to other PBT chemicals (40 CFR § 372.28).

1.1.7 Toxic Chemical Release Reporting Using North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Rule
On June 6, 2006, EPA published a final rule requiring facilities reporting to TRI to use North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes in place of the Standard Industry Classification (SIC)

### BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 1

- 5 codes previously used on TRI reporting forms. This rule required facilities that re port to TRI to use 2002 NAICS codes on reporting Form R and the Form A Certification Statement. The 2007 NAICS Revision Final Rule published on June 9, 2008, required facilities to use 2007 NAICS codes on TRI reporting
forms. NAICS reporting requirements w ere revised again on July 18, 2013. Under the 2012 NAICS Revision Final Rule, facilities are required to use 2012 NAICS codes when submitting forms for reporting years 2013 and beyond.

1.1.8 TRI Dioxin and Dioxin

- like Compounds Toxic Equivalency (TEQ) Informatio n Rule
On May 10, 2007, the Toxics Release Inventory Program issued a final rule expanding reporting requirements for the dioxin and dioxin

- like compounds category. There are seventeen distinct members of this chemical category that are included on the EPC RA section 313 list of toxic chemicals. The final rule requires that, in addition to the total grams released for the entire category, facilities must report the quantity for each individual member on a new Form R Schedule 1. EPA will then use the individu al mass quantity data to calculate TEQ values that will be made available to the public along with the mass data. The final rule also removes the requirement to report the single distributio n of compounds in the category.



### 1.2 Addition of 1

- B romopropane to EPCR A Section 313 Reporting Requirements

1

- BP is a short chain, brominated, alkyl molecule, which is a colorless liquid under standard conditions. Human exposure by inhalation or skin contact can lead to irritation and neurologic effects such as headaches, di zziness, slurred speech or loss of consciousness. In addition, studies with animal subjects
have linked 1

- BP to certain cancers, as well as toxicity in the liver, reproductive system, and nervous system (National Institute of Healt h and Safety, OSHA, 2014)

. The halogenated alkane properties of 1

- BP make it an ideal organic solvent. In industry, the main uses of
1

- BP are as an aerosol solvent in asphalt, aircraft, and synthetic fiber manufacturing, as a vapor and immersion degreaser i n metals, metal products, plastics, optics, and electronics manufacturing, and as a cleaning solvent for dry cleaning. In addition, 1

- BP can be used as an adhesive in laminates and foam products, and as a chemical intermediate in pharmaceuticals, pesticides, quaternary ammonium

c ompounds, flavors, and fragrances

.



### 1.3 Organization of This Report

This report examines the potential impact to industry and the Agency of adding 1

- BP to the list of
EPCRA s ection 313 report able chemicals

. The remainder of this report is organized as follows:

 Chapter 2 : Estimates of the Number of Reports and Affected Facilities summarizes the expected number of reports and facilities affected by the proposed rule.

 Chapter 3 : Cost Estimates presents the methodology used to estimate costs, as well as the results of the analysis in terms of total incremental cost to industry and total incremental cost to
EPA.

 Chapter 4 : Small Entity Analysis examines the impacts of the p roposed rule, specifically those impacts on “small” entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980.

 Chapter 5 : Benefits evaluates the benefits of the proposed rule.

### BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 1

- 6  Chapter 6 : References provides references cited in this analysis

.

### ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 2

- 1 

## 2. Estimates of the Number of Reports and Affected Facilities

This chapter presents the estimate of the number of additional forms and affected facilities that would
result from the proposed addition of 1

- Bromopropane (1

- BP) to the TRI list of reportable chemicals

. Background information on 1

- BP is provided in Section 2.1 of this chapter. T he methods and associated assumptions used to estimate reporting for 1

- BP are presented in Section 2.2

. Section 2.3 provides a summary of expected rep orting from the potentially affected universe of facilities.



### 2.1 Background

1

- BP is a short chain, brominated, alkyl molecule, which is a colorless liquid under standard conditions. It is manufactured domestically and imported to the US . As shown in Table 2

- 1

, domestic production of 1

- BP has increased significantly in the past 20 years. In 2007, 1

- BP was approved for use under EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) as a suitable replacement for ozone depleting chemicals , and has found significant new use as a substitute for chlorofluorocarbons and perchloroethylene.

Table 2

- 1 : Historical 1

- BP Production Volume

Year Production Volume (lb)

1986 1 10K

- 500K

1990 1 10K

- 500K

1994 1 500K

- 1M

1998 1 1M

- 10M

2002 1 1M

- 10M

2006 1 1M

- 10M

2012 2 15,348,727

1 Inventory Update Reporting: http://www.epa.gov/cdr/tools/previouslycollected.html

2 2012 Chemical Data Reporting: http://www.epa.gov/cdr/

The halogenated alkane properties of 1

- BP make it an ideal organic solvent. While specific data regarding quantities of 1

- BP used by application were not available, sources indicate that 1

- BP is primarily otherwise used in application such as : 5

 an aerosol solvent in asphalt, aircraft, and synthetic fiber manufacturing;

 a vapor and immersion degreaser in metals, metal products, plastics, optics, and electronics manufacturing; and

 a cleaning solvent in dry cleaning.

To a lesser extent, 1

- BP also has proces sing applications such as:

5 Abt Associates Memorandum: Percent 1

- Bromopropane in Formulation by Usage, November 8, 2013.

### ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 2

- 2  adhesives in laminates and foam products; and

 limited use as a chemical intermediate in pharmaceuticals, pesticides, quaternary ammonium compounds, flavors, and fragrances

.


### 2.2 Methodology

Due to the widespread use of 1

- BP

, characteriz ing all potential reporters in all potential ly affected
industries is not feasible . Therefore, this analysis focuse s on the sectors that capture the majority of the
manufactur e, processing and otherwise use of 1

- BP . Thus, t his method assumes tha t most reports for 1

- BP would come from these sectors. Although reports could potentially be filed for 1

- BP by facilities in additional sectors, reporting from the additional sectors is expected to be minimal.

The estimates of reporting developed in this analysis rely on RY2012 CDR production data. Note that it is possible that the trend toward increasing 1

- BP production in the US over the past decade will continue, however, this analysis does not account for potential further increased use of the chemical

.

The primary sectors manufacturing, processing, or otherwise using 1

- BP were identified based on information available from:

 TSCA 2012 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR; U.S. EPA, 2013),

 Directory of World Chemical Producers (DWCP; CIS, 20 13 ), and

 SNAP

– 1

- B romopropane as a substitute for Ozone depleting substances (Federal Reg., 2007)

 Japanese PRTR Data (PRTR, Ministry of the Environment, Japan, 2014)

 TRI data for existing reporters (U.S. EPA, 2012 ).

The primary TRI

- covered sectors manufacturing, processing or otherwise using 1

- BP are listed in Table
2

- 2 . Note that not all six

- digit NAICS codes within the three

- digit NAICS code are expected to
manufactur e , process, or otherwise us e 1

- BP.

Table 2

- 2 : NAICS codes M anufacturing, P rocessing or O therwise using 1

- Bromopropane

Sector NAICS Code NAICS Description

Chemical and Chemical Products Manufacturers 325 Chemical Manufacturing

325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing

325220 Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing

325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing

325520 Adhesive Manufacturing

Plastics and Rubber 3261 Plastics Product Manufacturing

326140 Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing

326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene)

Manufacturing

3262 Rubber Product Manufacturing

331 Primary Metal Manufacturing.

331110 Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing

### ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 2

- 3 Table 2

- 2 : NAICS codes M anufacturing, P rocessing or O therwise using 1

- Bromopropane

Sector NAICS Code NAICS Description

Metals/ Metal Products Manufacturing 3314 Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Production and Processing

332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing

332992 Small Arms Ammunition Manufacturing.

332721 Precision Turned Product Manufacturing

333 Machinery Manufacturing

Electronics and Optics Manufacturing 333314 Optical Instrument and Lens Manufacturing

334 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing

33441 Semiconductor and Other Electronic Component Manufacturing

335 Equipment

, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing.

Aircraft Manufacturing 336 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing

336411 Aircraft Manufacturing

336412 Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing

336413 Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing

Wood Products Manufacturing 321 Wood Product Manufacturing

337 Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing.

Other Manufacturing 323 Printing and Related Support Activities

324121 Asphalt Paving Mixture and Block Manufacturing

3271 Clay Product and Refractory Manufacturing

3279 Other Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing

339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing

Wholesaler s and Waste Treatment 424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers

5622 Waste Treatment and Disposal

562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal

For the purposes of the EA, the potential number of forms and facilities reporting 1

- BP are estimated by
NAICS code

. Where possible, actual facilities expected to report to TRI if 1

- BP is added are identified. However, due to the limited amount of available information for facilities processing or otherwise using
1

- BP , actual facilities processing or otherwise using 1

- BP could not be identified

. Potential reporting was estimated by using Japanese p ollutant rel ease and transfer registry (PRTR ) data for 1

- BP and

— for the
limited number of TRI

- reportable US sectors not covered by the Japanese PRTR

— TRI data for a proxy
che mical to model 1

- BP reporting under the proposed rule

.

2.2.1 Identifying Actual Facilit ies
Companies or facilities manufacturing or importing 1

- BP or chemicals manufactured from 1

- BP can be identified in the open literature. Specifically, the number of facilitie s manufactur ing or importing 1

- BP is
estimated based on actual companies or facilities identified in the 2012 Chemical Data Reporting ( CDR;

### ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 2

- 4 U.S. EPA, 2013 ) , 2013 Directory of World Chemical Producers (DWCP; CIS, 2014), and other available publications. Usi ng these resources, eight facilities were identified that are expected to report 1

- BP as a manufacturer or importer ( Table 2

- 3 ).

Table 2

- 3 : Count of US Facilities Estimated to Report 1

- BP by US NAICS Codes
NAICS Code Industry Facility Count

325188 All Other Basic Ino rganic Chemical Manufacturing 3

325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 5

Total 8

No significant derivatives of 1

- BP have been identified to date, although some sources indicate 1

- BP is used as a derivative in pharmaceuticals. As such, reports for actual facilities manufacturing derivatives of
1

- BP are not expected

.

2.2.2 Proxy Methods
Information on quantities of 1

- BP processed and otherwise used in the US is not currently available. Japanese domestic production and PRTR data were therefore used as a proxy (see Section 2.2.1 ). While the Japanese PRTR has generally good coverage of the sectors expected to report 1

- BP to TRI, it does not include data for chemical wholesalers. Therefore, reporting in NAICS 424690 : Other Chemical and
Allied P roducts Merchant Wholesalers is estimated separately using a scaling method ( described later in
this section ).

In both models, a proxy chemical is used to control for reporti ng differences between countries ( Proxy Pollutant Release and Transfer Register ( PRTR ) Method ) or a base line estimate of facilities reporting ( Proxy C hemical Scaling Method ). C hemicals that have relevant production volume and PRTR data available for both the US and Japan were identified , and share similar industrial use characteristics as 1

- BP including:

 Signif

icant otherwise use;

 Use as an industrial solvent;

 Production volume on the order of 15.5 million lb in 2012

. 6

Based on this analysis, N,N

- dimethylformamide is considered a suitable proxy chemical for 1

- BP based on the following characteristics:

 Reported a s otherwise used by 41% of RY2012 TRI Form Rs;

 Used as an industrial solvent; and

 Comparable production volume of 49.6 million lb in 2012

. 7

6 2012 Chemical Data Reporting: http://www.epa.gov/cdr/

7 2012 Chemical Data Reporting: http://www.epa.gov/cdr/

### ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 2

- 5 Proxy Pollutant Release and Transfer Register ( PRTR ) Method Japanese PRTR data for 1

- BP were obtained by sector for reporting year 2012, matching the most recent year of Japanese and US production data available for 1

- BP. 8 Specifically, the data obtained includes the number of reporting facilities, number of forms, and aggregated release and transfer quantities by secto r. Facility

- level data were not available in the public data set. Japanese industry codes were manually cross walked to corresponding US NAICS codes ( Table 2

- 4 ). Comparing US sectors likely to process or
otherwise use 1

- BP to Japanese PRTR sectors, industries reporting 1

- BP to the Japanese PRTR align well with expected uses in the US, supporting the assumption that Japanese production and use of 1

- BP is similar to US production and use.

Table 2

- 4 : 1

- BP Reporting to Japanese PRTR (2012)
Count of Japanese Facilities Japanese Industry Code NAICS Codes (US)

62 2 800: Manufacture of fabricated metal

products 332 : Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing

50 3000 : Manufacture of electrical machinery,

equipment and supplies 334 : Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing

30 3200 : Manufacture of precision instruments

and machinery 332721 : Precision Turned Product Manufacturing

29 3100 : Manufacture of transportation

equipment 336 : Transportation Equipment Manufacturing

20 290 0 : Manufacture of general machinery 333 : Machinery Manufacturing

16 2000 : Manufacture of chemical and allied

products 325 : Chemical Manufacturing

15 2200 : Manufacture of plastic products,

except otherwise classified 3261 : Plastics Product Manufacturing

14 2700 : Manufacture of non

- ferrous metals and

products 3314 : Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Production and Processing

9 2300 : Manufacture of rubber products 3262 : Rubber Product Manufacturing

7 3400 : Miscellaneous manufacturing

industries 339 : Misce llaneous Manufacturing

7 2600 : Manufacture of iron and steel 331110 : Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing

4 1900 : Publishing, printing and allied

industries 323 : Printing and Related Support Activities

3 8722 : Industrial waste disposal industry 5622 : Waste Treatment and Disposal

2 2500 : Manufacture of ceramic, stone and

clay products 3271 and 3279 : Clay Product and Refractory Manufacturing

8 Japan Ministry of the Environment, 2014. Available at: http://www.env.go.jp/en/chemi/prtr/prtr.html

### ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 2

- 6 Table 2

- 4 : 1

- BP Reporting to Japanese PRTR (2012)
Count of Japanese Facilities Japanese Industry Code NAICS Codes (US)

1 1600 : Manufacture of lumber and wood

products 321 : Wood Product Manu facturing
337: Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing

1 7810 : Machinery and equipment repair

industry 8113 : Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment Repair and Maintenance

270 Total Count of Japanese Facilities Reporting 1

- BP

In order to estimate potential US reporting for processors and otherwise users of 1

- BP from existing Japanese reporting, differences in total use of 1

- BP and PRTR reporting requirements must be accounted
for. 9 Specifically, the three key factors summarized in Table 2

- 5 are addressed in the proxy PRTR method. Controlling for these factors n ormalize s differences in reporting frequency due to higher production volume in the US and account s for differing reporting thresholds between the US and Japanese PRTR. Specifically, a lower reporting rate is likely for the US due to the significantly higher US activity thresholds compared to Japanese activity thresholds. No te that the lower US reporting rate is somewhat counterbalanced by lower employment threshold in the US which may increase the reporting

rate.

Table 2

- 5 : Key Factors Determining Reporting Differences for 1

- BP

Key Factors US Japan

2012 Production Volume for 1

- BP 15.3 million lb 1 4,000

- 5,000 metric tons (estimate 9.9 million lb using the range midpoint) 2
PRTR Chemical Activity Threshold 10,000 lb for otherwise use; 25,000 lb for manufacturing and processing 1 metric tons (2,205 lb)

PRTR Employment threshold 10 FTE 21 FTE

1 2012 CDR, available a t : http://www.epa.gov/cdr/

2 J

- CHECK, available at: http://www.safe.nite.go.jp/jcheck/top.action

The number of expected facilities reporting 1

- BP for any country can be represented by the following function, which includes scaling functions for production volume, chemical activity threshold, and employme nt threshold:

9 270 Japanese facilities reported 1

- BP in 2012. Japan Ministry of the Environment, 2014. Available at: http://www.env.go.jp/en/chemi/prtr/prtr.html

### ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 2

- 7 F 1BP = C 1BP f ( PV ) f ( CT ) f ( ET ) Equation 2

- 1

where: F 1BP = the n umber of facilities reporting

C 1BP = a u niversal reporting constant specific to 1

- BP PV = production volume
CT = chemical activity threshold ET = employment threshold

Solving for the number of US facilities reporting includes the following steps:

1) Assume that for any country, reporting facility count is linear ly related to production volume (scaling assumption)

.

F 1BP = C 1BP PV 1BP f ( CT ) f ( ET ) Equation 2

- 2
2) Develop a ratio comparing US and Japan (JP) reporting and production using Equation 2

- 2 for each country. Note that the universal reporting constants cancel.

F 1BP

, US F 1BP

, JP = PV 1BP

, US PV 1BP

, JP f ( CT ) US f ( ET ) US f ( CT ) JP f ( ET ) JP Equation 2

- 3

3) Rearrange the equation to solve for US facility co unt.

F 1BP

, US = F 1BP

,

JP PV 1BP

, US PV 1BP

, JP f ( CT ) US f ( ET ) US f ( CT ) JP f ( ET ) JP Equation 2

- 4

4) S ubstitute the known US and Japanese 2012 production volumes and the Japanese PRTR facility count yields:

F 1BP

, US = 270 facilities 15

. 3 million lb

9

. 9 million lb f ( CT ) US f ( ET ) US

f ( CT ) JP f ( ET ) JP Equation 2

- 5

F 1BP

, US = 418 facilities f ( CT ) US f ( ET ) US f ( CT ) JP f ( ET ) JP Equation 2

- 6

Assuming that there were no effects on reporting due to differences between US and Japanese PRTR
reporting thresholds ( i.e., the threshold scaling term f ( CT ) US f ( ET ) US f ( CT ) JP f ( ET ) JP is equal to 1), 418 facilities are expected to report 1

- BP to TRI. However, as noted in Table 2

- 5 , the thresholds are not identical, and it is important to estimate the effects of the higher TRI chemical activity threshold and lower employment threshold relative to the Japanese PRTR. Both linear and exponential relationships were considered for modeling the employment and chemical activity thresholds. However, rather than solving the models directly, the most effective approach is to solve for the threshold scaling term using data on the c hemical proxy N,N

- dimethylformamide. T he scaling term for 1

- BP would likely be close to that of the proxy
chemical due to the similar industrial uses of 1

- BP and N,N

- dimethylformamide.

5) To isolate the ratio of the threshold functions, Equation 2

- 3 is re arranged using the 1

- BP proxy chemical (N,N

- dimethylformamide).

### ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 2

- 8 f ( CT ) US f ( ET ) US f ( CT ) JP f ( ET ) JP = F 1BP Proxy

, US

F 1BP Proxy

,

JP PV 1BP Proxy

,

JP

PV 1BP Proxy

, US Equation 2

- 7

6) Using 2012 US and Japanese production volume and PRTR data for N,N

- dimethylformamide, solve
for the threshold scaling term.

f ( CT ) US f ( ET ) US f ( CT ) JP f ( ET ) JP = 465 facilities

145 facilities 49

. 6 million lb

50

. 0 million lb Equation 2

- 8

f ( CT ) US f ( ET ) US f ( CT ) JP f ( ET ) JP = 0

. 314 Equation 2

- 9

7) Combine the terms in Equations 2

- 6 and 2

- 9, and solve for total US facilities reporting for 1

- BP.

F 1BP

, US = 418 facilities × 0

. 314 Equation 2

- 10

F 1BP

, US = 131 facilities Equation 2

- 11

Therefore, an estimated 131 US facilities would report to TRI for 1

- BP.

Assuming the number of TRI reports by sector is proportional to the number of facil ities reporting to the Japanese PRTR for the corresponding sectors, t he distribution of US reporters by NAICS code is shown
in Table 2

- 6 . As Japanese industry codes do not crosswalk perfectly to US 6

- digit NAICS codes, facilities
at the 3

- or 4

- digit NAICS are distributed to appropriate 6

- digit NAICS codes when possible (see Table
2

- 2 ). The distribution is proportional to the 2012 US Economic Census value of ‘sales, shipments, receipts, revenue, and business done’ 10 for each sector. For example, The Japanese PRTR reported 29
facilities in 3100: Manufacture of Transportation Equipment. When adjusted for differences in production and reporting thresholds, 15 US facilities are expected to report in NAICS 336: Transportation Equipment Manufacturing. These facilities are then distributed among t he three 6

- digit NAICS codes listed in Table
2

- 2 according to each sector’s percentage contribution to total value of the three sectors. Thus, in NAICS 336, reporting of 1

- BP in the following six

- digit NAICS codes is expected :

 336411: Aircraft Manufacturing;

 336412: Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing; and

 336413 Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing.

Table 2

- 6 : Count of US Facilities Estimated to Report 1

- BP by US NAICS Codes
NAICS Code Industry Facility Count

321 Wood Product Manufacturing 0

323111 Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books) 2

325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 5

325220 Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments

Manufacturing 1

10 http://www.census.gov/econ/census/

### ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 2

- 9 Table 2

- 6 : Count of US Facilities Estimated to Report 1

- BP by US NAICS Codes
NAICS Code Industry Facility Count

325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing 1

325520 Adhesive Manufacturing 1

326140 Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing 3

326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene)

Manufacturing 4

3262 Rubber Product Manufacturing 4

327110 Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing 1

331110 Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing 3

3314 Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Production and

Processing 7

332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 31

332721 Precision Turned Product Manufacturing 15

333 Machinery Manufacturing 10

334418 Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly)

Manufacturing 15

334419 Other Electronic Component Manufacturing 9

336411 Aircraft Manufacturing 9

336412 Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing 3

336413 Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment

Manufacturing 3

339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing 3

562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal 1

8113 Commercial and Industrial Machinery and Equipment

Repair and Maintenance 0

Total 131

Proxy C hemical Scaling Method Reporting from NAICS 424690 : Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers is estimated using TRI reporting from the proxy chemical and scaling to account for production volumes. Specifically, the 21 facilities reporting N,N

- dimethylformamide for RY2012 in NAICS 424690 are scaled by the ratio

### ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 2

- 10 of the 2012 production volumes of 1

- B P and N,N

- dimethylformamide 11 to estimate the number of 1

- BP facilities expected to report under the proposed rule.

F 1BP = F Proxy PV 1BP

PV Proxy Equation 2

- 12

F 1BP = 21 facilities 15

. 3 million lb

49

. 6 million lb Equation 2

- 13

F 1BP = 6 facilities Equation 2

- 14

Therefore, an estimated 6 facilities from NAICS 424690 : Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant
Wholesalers will report for 1

- BP.

2.2.3 Form As
Some facilities manufacturing, processing or otherwise using 1

- BP were expected to meet the Alternate
Threshold and thus be eligible to file a Form A for 1

- BP . For example, it is likely that some facilities process relatively low amounts of 1

- BP in processes where releases and waste management are limited (e.g., warehou sing) . Activity, release and waste management data necessary to evaluate Form A applicability could not be estimated due to limited available information. Therefore, other methods using proxy chemical data were used to estimate the number of Forms A.

To es timate the number of Form s A potentially expected from all facilities, the percentage of the proxy chemical (N,N

- dimethylformamide) 12 forms filed as Forms A in RY2012 was calculated ( 9

. 7 %). This percentage was then multiplied by the number of 1

- BP forms exp ected from all facilities to estimate the
number of Form s A expected (i.e., 14 Form s A are expected from 140 facilities)

.

2.2.4 Existing Filers and First Time Filers
Facilities were classified as either existing filers or first time filers. Existing filers are defined as facilities that reported to TRI at least once during the period RY2008

– 2012. First time filers are defined as facilities that have never reported to TRI or have not reported to TRI since RY2007.

A facility was identified as an existing filer i f a TRI Facility ID was identified and that facility reported to TRI at least once during the period RY2008

– 2012. No ne of the actual facilities are expected to be first
time filers.

In order to estimate existing versus first time filers for facilities modeled by the proxy PRTR or proxy
chemical scaling methods, the average annual percentage of new filers for RY2008 to RY2012 across all chemicals (3. 8 %) 13 was multiplied by the number of facilities expected to report 1

- BP to calculate the expected number of first time filers.

11 2012 Chemical Data Reporting: http://www.epa.gov/cdr/

12 N,N

- dimethylformamide , the proxy chemical identified for 1

- BP , was applied since it was identified to best reflect the general use of 1

- BP

. 13 First time filers: RY200 8

- 4

. 6 %, RY200 9

- 3

. 6 %, RY20 10

- 3. 9 %, RY20 11

- 3. 0 %, RY20 12

– 3. 8 %

### ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 2

- 11 

### 2.3 Summary

Total 1

- BP reporting is estimated by summing across the three methods outlined above. It was necessary to adjust the total count to correct for double counting of 1

- BP manufacturers or importers identified as
actual facilities in the US and also estimated using the proxy PRTR method in NAICS 325199: All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing . As a result, five facilities are subtracted from the total (see Table
2

- 7 ) . From the potentially affected universe of facilities, a total of 1 26 Forms R and 14 Forms A from 140
facilities across 23 NAICS codes are expected.

### ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 2

- 12 Table 2

- 7 : Count of US Facilities Estimated to Report 1

- BP by US NAICS Codes

NAICS Code Industry Facility Count Form R

Count Form A

Count

323111 Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books) 2 2 0

325188 All Other Basic Ino rganic Chemical Manufacturing 3 3 0

325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 5 4 1

325220 Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments

Manufacturing 1 1 0

325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing 1 1 0

325520 Adhesive Manufacturing 1 1 0

326140 Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing 3 3 0

326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene)

Manufacturing 4 4 0

3262 Rubber Product Manufacturing 4 4 0

327110 Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing 1 1 0

331110 Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing 3 3 0

3314 Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Production and

Processing 7 6 1

332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 31 27 4

332721 Precision Turned Product Manufacturing 15 13 2

333 Machinery Manufacturing 10 9 1

334418 Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly)

Manufacturing 15 13 2

334419 Other Electronic Component Manufacturing 9 8 1

336411 Aircraft Manufacturing 9 8 1

336412 Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing 3 3 0

336413 Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment

Manufacturing 3 3 0

339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing 3 3 0

424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant

Wholesalers 6 5 1

562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal 1 1 0

Total 140 126 14

### COST ESTIMATES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 3

- 1 

## 3. Cost Estimates

This chapter presents the estimated industry and EPA costs associated with the proposed rule to add 1

- B romopropane (1

- BP) to the list of chemicals subject to TRI reporting. Sectio n 3.1 describes the methodology used to estimate industry reporting burden and cost and presents the resulting estimates.
Section 3.2 details the estimated cost to EPA. Section 3.3 summarizes the total cost of the proposed rule.



### 3.1 Indu stry Burden and Cost Estimates

Industry burden and costs associated with the proposed rule are estimated using ratio

- based burden methodology (RBBM). RBBM is a simplification of the previous methodology for estimating reporting
burden and cost ( U.S. EPA, 2011b )

. Section 3.1.1 describes the estimation of industry burden using
RBBM. Section 3.1.2 describes the estimation of industry cost using RBBM. Sections 3.1.3 and 3.1.4

p resent the resul ting industry burden and cost estimates. Section 3.1.5 presents annualized industry costs.

3.1.1 Estimation of Burden
Reporting activities can be divided into two distinc t groups: Form Activities, consisting of rule familiarization, reporter compliance determination, calculations and form completion, and recordkeeping and submission; and Non

- Form Activities, consisting of supplier notifications and non

- reporter compliance determination. Specifically, the following activities may be undertaken under the proposed
rule.

Form Activities

Rule Familiarization : Staff at a facility that is reporting under EPCRA §313 for the first time must read the reporting package and become familiar with the reporting requirements. This activity includes the time needed to review instructions as well as the time needed to train personnel to respond to an information collection request.

Reporter Compliance Determination : Staff at reporting fac ilities must make the determination that the facility meets the criteria for EPCRA §313 reporting. This activity includes the time required to become familiar with the definitions, exemptions, and threshold requirements under the TRI Program,
to review the list of TRI chemicals, and to conduct preliminary threshold determinations to determine if the facility is required to report.

Calculations and Form Completion : Staff at reporting facilities must gather data and perform calculations to provide the information required on the form. This activity includes the time required to search data sources and to complete and review the information.

Recordkeeping and Submission : Staff at reporting facilities must maintain recordkeeping systems and submit the rep ort to EPA and the state in which the facility is located. This activity includes the time required to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

### COST ESTIMATES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 3

- 2 Non

- Form Activities 14

Supplier Notification : Certain suppliers of mixtures or trade name products containi ng reportable substances must annually notify their customers of the product's composition if the customer is subject to EPCRA §313 reporting. This activity includes the required staff time at reporting facilities to inform customers either by letter or th rough the materials safety data sheet (MSDS) for the product. Under the proposed rule, EPA assumes that the number of facilities that might be required to provide supplier notifications would only be a small fraction of potential supplier notifications in connection with the TRI program overall. Therefore, no additional supplier notification burden is estimated in connection with the proposed rule.

Non

- Reporter Compliance Determination : In any given reporting year, a group of eligible facilities will compl ete compliance determination but will not file a Form R or Form A. The activity is the same as is presented above under Form Activities; however, given that compliance determination applies to all other facilities in NAICS code

- eligible sectors (with ten o r more employees)

— including
those that ultimately do not report to TRI

— the latter category is accounted for in this separate activity. For this proposed rule, it is assumed that the addition of 1

- B P constitutes a modest change when compared to the total nu mber of chemicals subject to the program. Thus, it is assumed that the

non

- reporter compliance determination burden is already included in the existing compliance
determination burden estimates.

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

At a minimum, an understanding of the facility‘s chemical purchases and production processes are needed. Necessary skills may include the ability to evaluate and interpret records, understand material safety data sheets, and determine throughput or production volumes. Depending on the facility, estimates may be calculated using: (1) existing data collected under federal, state, or local regulations; (2) emissions factors; (3) design data supplied by the equipment manufacturer; (4) mass balance techniques; or (5) engineering calculations. Each technique requires varying skills and levels of sophist ication to complete. EPA industry

- and chemical

- specific guidance documents would assist reporters in making the necessary calculations to comply with the s ection 313 reporting requirements. In addition to technical labor, requirements for managerial and c lerical staff are also considered when estimating burden and costs.

Estimating reporting burden using RBBM produces a burden estimate that reflects overall “average” reporting conditions at reporting facilities. Burden calculations using RBBM involve the f ollowing key parameters:

14 Note that while petitions are considered in the overall burden/cost of the TRI program, they are not considered in this rulemaking as they are not related to the proposed addition of 1

- BP to the list of TRI

- reportable chemicals.

### COST ESTIMATES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 3

- 3 Nominal Form R Unit Burden , which reflects the burden incurred by reporters to undertake all activities necessary to file a single Form R (including both facility

- and form

- level activities). Nominal Form R
Unit Burden is set at 35 .70516 hours. 15

A/R is the ratio of Form A burden to Form R burden. A/R is calculated to be 0.615, reflecting the fact that filing a Form A results in a 38.5% (1.00

– 0.615 = 0.385, or 38.5%) reduction in burden per chemical compared to filing a Form R. Nominal Form R Unit Burden is multiplied by A/R to estimate burden
associ ated with reporting a Form A chemical

.

RBBM uses the estimated number of Form R and Form A chemicals

, Nominal Form R Unit Burden

, A/R

, and Non

- Form Burden to calculate Steady State Total Burden as shown in Equation 3

- 1

.

Equation 3

- 1 : Steady State Total Burden Calculation
Steady State Total Burden = Form R Burden + Form A Burden + N on

– Form Burden

Where: Form R Burden = (Number of Form Rs)×(Nominal Form R Unit Burden) Form A Burden = (Number of Form As)×(A/R)×(Nominal Form R Unit Burden)
Non

- Form Burden = Supplier Notifications + Non

- Reporter Compliance Determination

Steady State Total Burden does not incorporate the greater burden incurred by facilities subject to TRI for the first time. RBBM accounts for the higher reporting burden in the first year through the use of the
First

- Time Filer Factor ( FTF f ). FTF f is calc ulated to be 2.1, indicating that burden in the first year of a rule is estimated to be roughly twice the ongoing burden. First Year Total Burden is calculated by multiplying the Steady State Burden by FTF f , as shown in Equation 3

- 2

. Equation 3

- 2 : First Year Total Burden Calculation

First Year Total Burden = Steady State Total Burd e n × FTF f

3.1.2 Estimation of Cost
To estimate total reporting cost, RBBM uses the Weighted Average Wage Rate ( WAWR ), which is the average loaded cost for a combination of Managerial, Technical and Clerical labor per hour of TRI reporting burden. WAWR is base d on the total cost to employ an individual and includes the cost of salaries, fringe benefits ( e.g. , paid leave), health insurance, retirement savings, legally required benefits, and other overhead costs, such as office space, furniture, equipment and com puters, suppli es and other business expenses.

According to feedback from existing TRI filers, the role of each labor category in the TRI reporting process at the facility level is as follows:

 Managerial staff are responsible for reviewing and certifying th e accuracy of all TRI submissions and supporting documentation, including calculations, data sources, and assumptions. Managerial

15 The burden of 35.70516 includes the addition of 0.00516 hours of burden associated with the Dioxin Reporting Requirements promulgated in May of 2007 and accounted for in the 2011 ICR ICR (Docket# EPA

- HQ

- O EI

- 2010

- 0835 ).

### COST ESTIMATES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 3

- 4 staff are briefed by technical staff once annually regarding TRI submissions and any changes to TRI reporting requirements. Al l sections of the Form are reviewed by managerial staff at this
time.

 Technical staff possess the facility knowledge and familiarity with the TRI program required to understand which processes and activities at the facility should be considered in making t hreshold determinations for TRI chemicals. Technical staff gather the required data, make threshold determinations, calculate release and waste management quantities, and enter the required data on the TRI form, either by hand or electronically using TRI r eporting software. Technical staff are also responsible for briefing managerial staff once annually regarding TRI submissions and any changes to TRI reporting requirements.

 Clerical staff are responsible for organizing, photocopying, and cataloging all TRI submissions and supporting documentation in accordance with TRI recordkeeping requirements. Note that as reporting facilities move toward filing TRI reports electronically, clerical time is minimized.

WAWR is calculated using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on “Wages and Salaries” and “Total Benefits” for three labor categories: Managerial (the “Management, Business, and Financial” occupational category), Technical (the “Professional and Related” occupational category), and Clerical (the “Office and Administrative Support” occupational category) ( U.S. BLS, 2014c ) . Total Compensation is equal to the sum of Wages and Salaries and Tota l Benefits. Based on information provided by the chemical industry and chemical industry trade associations, a loading factor of 17 percent is applied to Wages and Salaries to calculate Overhead ( Heiden Associates, 1989 )

. The sum of Total Compensation and Overhead is equal to the Total Loaded Ho urly Wage Rate. The Total Loaded Hourly Wage Rates for these labor categories are weighted by the relative contribution of each labor category to TRI reporting activities derived from Engineering Studies conducted by Abt Associates ( Abt Associates, 2004 )

. The
calculation of WAWR is shown Equation 3

- 3

.

Equation 3

- 3 : Weighted Average Wage Rate Calculation

WAWR = ( w Managerial × p Managerial ) + ( w Tec h nical × p Tec h nical ) + ( w Clerical × p Clerical )

Where:

w i = Total Loaded Hourly Wage Rate for labor category i, given by the formula: Total Loaded Hourly Wage Rate = Wages and Salaries + Total Benefits + (17% × Wages and Salaries)
p i = Proportion of overall reporting burden borne by labor category i

As sh own in Table 3

- 1

, WAWR is equal to $ 52.61 (in 2014 dollars)

.

### COST ESTIMATES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 3

- 5 Table 3

- 1 : Derivation of Weighted Average Wage Rate (201 4 Dollars )

Wage Type Managerial Technical Clerical Wages and Salaries $4 3

. 4 5 $3 3.96 $16.54

Total benefits $19.54 $1 4.57 $7. 49

Overhead $7.39 $ 5. 77 $2. 81

Total Loaded Hourly Wage Rate $70.38 $54.30 $2 6. 84
Labor Burden Weights 1 0.03 0.89 0.08 Weighted Average Wage Rate (WAWR) $ 52.61

1 Labor burden weights have been rounded for ease of presentation. Source: ( U.S. BLS, 2014c )

.

Steady State Total Cost and First Year Total Cost are calculated by multiplying the relevant total burden by WAWR , as shown in Equation 3

- 4 and Equation 3

- 5

. Equation 3

- 4 : Steady State Cost Calculation
Steady State Total Cost = Steady State Total Burden × WAWR

Equation 3

- 5 : First Year Cost Calculation

First Year Total Cost = First Year T otal Burden × WAWR

3.1.3 Total Industry Burden Estimates

Table 3

- 2 presents the number of Form Rs estimated to be filed by facilities potentially affected by th e proposed rule, the steady state total burden (calculated using Equation 3

- 1 and Equation 3

- 2 ) , and the first year total burden (calculated using Equation 3

- 1 )

. Non

- form burden is assumed to be ze ro. 16

Table 3

- 2 : Estimated Number of Facilities Expected to Incur Reporting Burden
, Total First

Year Burden, and Total Steady State Burden under the Proposed Rule

NAICS Fa cil i ties Form Rs Form As First

Year For m R Burden First

Year Form A Burden First

Year Total Burden Steady

State Form R Burden Steady

State Form A Burden Steady

State Total Burden

Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books) (NAICS 323111) 2 2 0 150 0 150 71 0 71

All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS 325188) 3 3 0 225 0 225 107 0 107

16 Under the proposed rule, EPA assumes that the number of facilities that might be required to provide supplier notifications would only be a small fraction of potential supplier notifications in connection with the TRI program
overall. Ther efore, no additional supplier notification burden is estimated in connection with the proposed rule.

### COST ESTIMATES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 3

- 6 NAICS Fa cil i ties Form Rs Form As First

Year For m R Burden First

Year Form A Burden First

Year Total Burden Steady

State Form R Burden Steady

State Form A Burden Steady

State Total Burden

All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS 325199) 5 4 1 300 46 346 143 22 165

Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing (NAICS 32522) 1 1 0 75 0 75 36 0 36

Paint and Coating Manufacturing (NAICS 325510) 1 1 0 75 0 75 36 0 36

Adhesive Manufacturing (NAICS 325520) 1 1 0 75 0 75 36 0 36

Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing (NAICS 326140) 3 3 0 225 0 225 107 0 107

Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing (NAICS 326150) 4 4 0 300 0 300 143 0 143

Rubber Product Manufacturing (NAICS 3262) 4 4 0 300 0 300 143 0 143

Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing (NAICS 32711) 1 1 0 75 0 75 36 0 36

Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing (NAICS 33111) 3 3 0 225 0 225 107 0 107

Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Production and Processing (NAICS 3314) 7 6 1 450 46 496 214 22 236

Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing (NAICS 332) 31 27 4 2,024 184 2,208 964 88 1,052

Precision Turned Product Manufacturing (NAICS 332721) 15 13 2 975 92 1,067 464 44 508

Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS 333) 10 9 1 675 46 721 321 22 343

Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly) Manufacturing (NAICS 334418) 15 13 2 975 92 1,067 464 44 508

Other Electronic Component 9 8 1 600 46 646 286 22 308

### COST ESTIMATES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 3

- 7 NAICS Fa cil i ties Form Rs Form As First

Year For m R Burden First

Year Form A Burden First

Year Total Burden Steady

State Form R Burden Steady

State Form A Burden Steady

State Total Burden
Manufacturing (NAICS 334419)
Aircraft Manufacturing (NAICS 336411) 9 8 1 600 46 646 286 22 308

Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing (NAICS 336412) 3 3 0 225 0 225 107 0 107

Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 336413) 3 3 0 225 0 225 107 0 107

Miscellaneous Manufacturing (NAICS 339) 3 3 0 225 0 225 107 0 107

Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 424690) 6 5 1 375 46 421 179 22 201

Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal (NAICS 562211) 1 1 0 75 0 75 36 0 36

Total 140 126 14 9,449 644 10,093 4,500 308 4,808

Under the proposed rule, industry is estimated to incur approximately 10,000 burden hours in the first year and approximately 4,800 burden hours in the steady state.

3.1.4 Total Industry Cost Estimates
To estimate the cost of the proposed rule, total first year and total steady state industry reporting burden is multiplied by the Weighted Average Wage Rate (see Equation 3

- 4 and Equation 3

- 5 ); the first year and steady state costs are presented in Table 3

- 3

.
Table 3

- 3 : Total First Year and Steady State Industr y Cost under the Proposed Rule

Industry Sector Facil i ties Form Rs Form

As First

Year Form R Cost First

Year Form A Cost First

Year Total Cost Steady

State Form R Cost Steady

State Form A Cost Steady

State Total Cost Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books) (NAICS 323111) 2 2 0 $7,889 $0 $7,889 $3,757 $0 $3,757

All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS 325188) 3 3 0 $11,834 $0 $11,834 $5,635 $0 $5,635

All Other Basic Organic Chemical 5 4 1 $15,779 $2,426 $18,205 $7,514 $1,155 $8,669

### COST ESTIMATES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 3

- 8 Industry Sector Facil i ties Form Rs Form

As First

Year Form R Cost First

Year Form A Cost First

Year Total Cost Steady

State Form R Cost Steady

State Form A Cost Steady

State Total Cost Manufacturing (NAICS 325199)
Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing (NAICS 32522) 1 1 0 $3,945 $0 $3,945 $1,878 $0 $1,878

Paint and Coating Manufacturing (NAICS 325510) 1 1 0 $3,945 $0 $3,945 $1,878 $0 $1,878

Adhesive Manufacturing (NAICS 325520) 1 1 0 $3,945 $0 $3,945 $1,878 $0 $1,878

Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing (NAICS 326140) 3 3 0 $11,834 $0 $11,834 $5,635 $0 $5,635

Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing (NAICS 326150) 4 4 0 $15,779 $0 $15,779 $7,514 $0 $7,514

Rubber Product Manufacturing (NAICS 3262) 4 4 0 $15,779 $0 $15,779 $7,514 $0 $7,514

Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing (NAICS 32711) 1 1 0 $3,945 $0 $3,945 $1,878 $0 $1,878

Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing (NAICS 33111) 3 3 0 $11,834 $0 $11,834 $5,635 $0 $5,635

Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Production and Processing (NAICS 3314) 7 6 1 $23,668 $2,426 $26,094 $11,271 $1,155 $12,426

Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing (NAICS 332) 31 27 4 $106,508 $9,704 $116,212 $50,718 $4,621 $55,339

Precision Turned Product Manufacturing (NAICS 332721) 15 13 2 $51,282 $4,852 $56,134 $24,420 $2,310 $26,730

Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS 333) 10 9 1 $35,503 $2,426 $37,929 $16,906 $1,155 $18,061

Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly) Manufacturing (NAICS 334418) 15 13 2 $51,282 $4,852 $56,134 $24,420 $2,310 $26,730

### COST ESTIMATES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 3

- 9 Industry Sector Facil i ties Form Rs Form

As First

Year Form R Cost First

Year Form A Cost First

Year Total Cost Steady

State Form R Cost Steady

State Form A Cost Steady

State Total Cost

Other Electronic Component Manufacturing (NAICS 334419) 9 8 1 $31,558 $2,426 $33,984 $15,028 $1,155 $16,183

Aircraft Manufacturing (NAICS 336411) 9 8 1 $31,558 $2,426 $33,984 $15,028 $1,155 $16,183

Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing (NAICS 336412) 3 3 0 $11,834 $0 $11,834 $5,635 $0 $5,635

Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 336413) 3 3 0 $11,834 $0 $11,834 $5,635 $0 $5,635

Miscellaneous Manufacturing (NAICS 339) 3 3 0 $11,834 $0 $11,834 $5,635 $0 $5,635

Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 424690) 6 5 1 $19,724 $2,426 $22,150 $9,392 $1,155 $10,547

Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal (NAICS 562211) 1 1 0 $3,945 $0 $3,945 $1,878 $0 $1,878

Total 140 126 14 $497,038 $33,964 $531,002 $236,682 $16,171 $252,853

Under the proposed rule, industry is estimated to incur approximately $ 531 ,000 in the first year and approximately $ 253 ,000 in the steady state.

3.1.5 Annualized Cost Estimates
The total cost to industry associated with the proposed rule is annualized over a ten

- year period using Equation 3

- 6 b elow.

Equation 3

- 6 : Cost Annualization

Annualized Cost = Present Value of Costs × r × ( 1 + r ) 10 ( 1 + r ) 10

− 1

Wher e:
Present Value of Costs = ∑ Cos t t × 1 ( 1 + r ) t t = 10 t = 1

a nd r = 3% or 7%

Ten years is assumed to be a reasonable timeframe for annualization, as greater than forty percent of TRI facilities reported every year from reporting year 200 4 to reporting year 201 3 . The annualized cost
reflects both the first

- year costs and steady

- state costs presented in Section 3.1.4 . Industry costs are

### COST ESTIMATES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 3

- 10 annualized both at a 3% discount rate and a 7% discount rate, 17 resulting in total annualized per

- Form R
costs of $ 2 66

, 317 (3%) and $ 2 71 ,3 28 (7%)

, and total annualized per

- Form A costs of $1 8

, 198 (3%) and $1 8

, 541 (7%) . Total annualized industry costs are presented in Table 3

- 4

. 18

Table 3

- 4 : Total Annualized Industry Cost u nder the Proposed Rule

Industry Sector Facil

ities Form

Rs Form As Annual

ized Form R Cost (3%) Annual

ized Form A Cost (3%) Total

Annual

ized Cost (3%) Annual

ized Form R Cost (7%) Annual

ized Form A Cost (7%) Total

Annual

ized Cost (7%) Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books) (NAICS 323111) 2 2 0 $4,227 $0 $4,227 $4,307 $0 $4,307

All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS 325188) 3 3 0 $6,341 $0 $6,341 $6,460 $0 $6,460

All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS 325199) 5 4 1 $8,455 $1,300 $9,755 $8,614 $1,324 $9,938

Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing (NAICS 32522) 1 1 0 $2,114 $0 $2,114 $2,153 $0 $2,153

Paint and Coating Manufacturing (NAICS 325510) 1 1 0 $2,114 $0 $2,114 $2,153 $0 $2,153

Adhesive Manufacturing (NAICS 325520) 1 1 0 $2,114 $0 $2,114 $2,153 $0 $2,153

Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing (NAICS 326140) 3 3 0 $6,341 $0 $6,341 $6,460 $0 $6,460

Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing (NAICS 326150) 4 4 0 $8,455 $0 $8,455 $8,614 $0 $8,614

Rubber Product Manufacturing (NAICS 3262) 4 4 0 $8,455 $0 $8,455 $8,614 $0 $8,614

Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing (NAICS 32711) 1 1 0 $2,114 $0 $2,114 $2,153 $0 $2,153

17 Pursuant to guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), federal agencies should take into
account when costs and benefits will actuall y occur. Thus, costs and benefits that will accrue in the future must be discounted to present day dollars. Further, OMB’s guidance recommends federal agencies use discount rates of three and seven percent to estimate a range of average potential returns o n investments. More information is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a

- 4.pdf.

18 The annualization method used assumes that first

- year costs are incurred at the end of the first year, and are thus
disco unted. No initial (undiscounted) costs are expected under the proposed rule.

### COST ESTIMATES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 3

- 11 Industry Sector Facil

ities Form

Rs Form As Annual

ized Form R Cost (3%) Annual

ized Form A Cost (3%) Total

Annual

ized Cost (3%) Annual

ized Form R Cost (7%) Annual

ized Form A Cost (7%) Total

Annual

ized Cost (7%)

Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing (NAICS 33111) 3 3 0 $6,341 $0 $6,341 $6,460 $0 $6,460

Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Production and Processing (NAICS 3314) 7 6 1 $12,682 $1,300 $13,982 $12,920 $1,324 $14,244

Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing (NAICS 332) 31 27 4 $57,068 $5,200 $62,268 $58,142 $5,297 $63,439

Precision Turned Product Manufacturing (NAICS 332721) 15 13 2 $27,477 $2,600 $30,077 $27,994 $2,649 $30,643

Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS 333) 10 9 1 $19,023 $1,300 $20,323 $19,381 $1,324 $20,705

Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly) Manufacturing (NAICS 334418) 15 13 2 $27,477 $2,600 $30,077 $27,994 $2,649 $30,643

Other Electronic Component Manufacturing (NAICS 334419) 9 8 1 $16,909 $1,300 $18,209 $17,227 $1,324 $18,551

Aircraft Manufacturing (NAICS 336411) 9 8 1 $16,909 $1,300 $18,209 $17,227 $1,324 $18,551

Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing (NAICS 336412) 3 3 0 $6,341 $0 $6,341 $6,460 $0 $6,460

Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 336413) 3 3 0 $6,341 $0 $6,341 $6,460 $0 $6,460

Miscellaneous Manufacturing (NAICS 339) 3 3 0 $6,341 $0 $6,341 $6,460 $0 $6,460

Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 424690) 6 5 1 $10,568 $1,300 $11,868 $10,767 $1,324 $12,091

Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal (NAICS 562211) 1 1 0 $2,114 $0 $2,114 $2,153 $0 $2,153

Total 140 126 14 $266,321 $18,200 $284,521 $271,326 $18,539 $289,865



### 3.2 EPA Cost Estimates

For the TRI program in general, EPA incurs burden and cost to process TRI forms in five categories of activities: data processing, outreach and training, information dissemination, policy and petitions, and compliance and enforcement. The estimate of EPA b urden and costs is separated into a fixed component and a variable component. Activities and expenses that are not greatly affected by marginal changes in report quantities are considered fixed costs. These activities and expenses include rent for the EPCR A Reporting Center, development costs for data access tools, compliance assistance measures, and other

### COST ESTIMATES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 3

- 12 activities and expenses listed above. There are no additional fixed costs to the Agency associated with the proposed rule. Activities and expenses that v ary with marginal changes in the number of reports
submitted are considered variable costs. T he primary variable cost analyzed in this analysis is the cost of processing forms

. As of January 21, 2014, all non

- trade secret forms must be submitted electroni cally. EPA estimates that the processing cost for TRI

- MEweb submissions is $ 6.05 per form. 19 Th erefore, the total form processing burden for EPA associated with Form R and Form A chemical submissions under the proposed rule is estimated at $ 847

.



### 3.3 Total Costs

As shown in Table 3

- 5 , the estimated total cost of the proposed rule

— the sum of annualized industry

c osts and a gency costs

— is approximately $ 285 ,000 with a 3% discount rate and approximately $ 2 91 ,000 with a 7% discount rate.

Table 3

- 5 : Summary of Total Costs of the Proposed Rule

Cost Category Total Cost (3% Discount Rate, 201 3 Dollars) Total Cost (7% Discount Rate, 201 3 Dollars)

Industry Costs $284,5 21 $289,865

EPA Processing Costs $847 $847

Total Costs $285,36 8 $290,7 12

1 The annual and annualized EPA processing costs are the same as they are assumed constant across the ten year time frame.

19 Source: E

- mail c ommunication with TRI Data Processing Center, January 10, 2014

.

### SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 4

- 1 

## 4. Small Entity Analysis

This chapter addresses the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. Section 4.1 discusses the regulatory requirement for this analysis. Section 4.2 provides the definitions of small entities for the industry groups affected by the proposed rule. Section 4.3 describes the methodology used to determine if the proposed rule results in a significant economic impact to a substantial number of small entities.
Section 4.4 summarizes the results of the small entity analysis

.



### 4.1 Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. § 601 et. seq. ) requires federal agencies to assess the effects of regulations on smal l entities, including businesses, nonprofit organizations, and governments, and, in some instances, to examine alternatives to the regulations that may reduce adverse economic effects on significantly impacted small entities. Section 604 of the RFA, as ame nded by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires an agency to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule unless the agency certifies under section 605(b) that the regulatory action would not have a signifi cant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA does not specifically define “a significant economic impact on a substan tial number” of small
entities.



### 4.2 Definitions of Small Entities

The RFA uses the definition of “small business” fo und in the Small Business Act, which authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA) to define “small business” by regulation. This analysis uses the SBA’s definition of a small business for each industry affected by the proposed rule ( U.S. SBA, 2014 )

. S BA's small business size definitions vary by industry. In establishing size standards, SBA considers a number of economic and market characteristics that may allow a business of concern to exercise dominance in an industry. Size standards are based on crit eria

— such as annual receipts or number of employees

— that represent a measure of these characteristics. These standards represent the largest size
that a for

- profit enterprise (together with its affiliates) may be and sti ll qualify as a small business.

The SBA small business size standards are expansive, classifying most businesses as “small” ( U.S. SBA,
2014 )

. For example, the smallest SBA size standard for manufacturing industries (NAICS 31

- 33) is 500 employees. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Statistics of U.S. Businesses

, 25 2

, 7 3 7 of 25 6 ,3 63 manufacturing firms have fewer than 500 employees (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015)

. Therefore, at least 98.6% of manufacturing firms are classified as small businesses according to the SBA definition. In fact, this percentage is actually higher, since for certain industrial classification codes within the broader manufacturing sector, the SBA size standards are greater (750, 1,000, or 1,500 employees). Table 4

- 1 l ists
the small business size standards for the industries affected by the proposed rule.

### SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 4

- 2 Table 4

- 1 : Small Business Size Standards for Industry Sectors

Affected by the Proposed Rule

Industry Sector Small Business Threshold Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books) (NAICS323111) 500 Employees All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS325188) 500 Employees All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS325199) 1

, 000 Employees Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing (NAICS32522) 1

, 000 Employees Paint and Coating Manufacturing (NAICS325510) 500 Employees Adhesive Manufacturing (NAICS325520) 500 Employees Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing (NAICS326140) 500 Employees
Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing (NAICS326150) 500 Employees

Rubber Product Manufacturing (NAICS3262) 500 Employees Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing (NAICS32711) 750 Employees Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing (NAICS33111) 750 Employees
Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Production and Processing (NAICS33 14) 750 Employees

Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing (NAICS332) 500 Employees Precision Turned Product Manufacturing (NAICS332721) 500 Employees Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS333) 500 Employees
Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly) Manufacturing (NAICS334418) 500 Employees

Other Electronic Component Manufacturing (NAICS334419) 500 Employees Aircraft Manufacturing (NAICS336411) 1

, 500 Employees Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing (NAICS336412) 1

, 000 Employees

Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS336413) 1

, 000 Employees Miscellaneous Manufacturing (NAICS339) 500 Employees
Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS424690) 100 Employees

Hazardous Waste Treatment and Dis posal (NAICS562211) 35

, 500

, 000 Dollars

The RFA defines a “small governmental jurisdiction” as the governments of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a populat ion of less than 50,000 people. The RFA defines a “small organization” as any “not

- for

- profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”



### 4.3 Methodology Overview

This analysis uses annualized cost impact percentages to measure potential impacts on small parent
entities th at own facilities affected by the proposed rule. The annualized cost impact percentage is defined

### SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 4

- 3 as annualized compliance costs resulting from the proposed rule as a percentage of annual revenues or sales, a commonly available and objective measure of a c ompany’s busin ess volume.

Annualized compliance costs are estimated using ratio

- based burden methodology (RBBM)

. 20 RBBM yields a per

- form cost estimate that reflects average conditions at reporti ng facilities in the first year of a rule and in the steady state. Pursuant to guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), these costs are then annualized at a seven percent discount rate, 21 resulting in an annualized per

Form R cost of $2 ,153.40. (For more information on cost annualization, see S ection 3.1.5 .) Although EPA expects that both Forms R and Forms A will be submitted due to the proposed rule, it is not possible
to determine the distribution of Forms R and Fo rms A across affected small entities . Therefore, as a conservative estimate, only Forms R are considered in the small entity analysis.

As small entity impacts are assessed at the parent entity level, annualized per

- form costs are multiplied by the number of forms per facility and the number of facilities per parent entity to estimate total annuali zed parent entity compliance costs. Cost impact percentages are calculated for the incremental compliance costs incurred as a result of the proposed rule, as shown in Equation 4

- 1 . Where regulatory costs represent a small fraction of a typical entity’s revenue, the impacts of the regulation are likely to be minimal.

Equation 4

- 1 : Calculation of Cost Impact Percentages

Annualized Cost Impact Percentage = Annualized Parent Entity Compliance Cost
Annual Parent Entity Revenue

Where Annualized Parent Entity Comp liance Cost = Annualized Cost Per Form × Number of Forms

Per Facility ×

Number of Facilities
Per Parent Entity

The general methodology used to estimate impacts on small entit ies consists of the following steps:

Step 1: Identify the universe of facilities expected to incur compliance costs due to the proposed rule.

Step 2: Characterize the relationships between these facilities and their ultimate parent entities. 22

20 See Chapter 3 and Revising TRI Burden to Ratio

- Based Methodology (U.S. EPA, 2011b).

21 OMB’s guidance recommends federal agencies use discount rates of three and seven percent to estimate a range of average potential returns on investments (m ore information is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a

- 4.pdf. ). As using a 7% discount rate results in higher annualized costs and therefore a more conservative estimate of small entity impacts, only t he 7% discount rate is used for the small entity analysis. If no impacts are experienced at the 7% level, the same is true for impacts at the 3% level.

22 The ultimate parent entity is the uppermost parent or headquarters that encompasses all directly relat ed branches, subsidiaries, or parents of a specific business at a specific location. For the purposes of this analysis, “parent entity” is synonymous with “ultimate parent entity,” and denotes a ultimate parent company (including parent entities based
in f oreign countries) owning a facility expected to report under the proposed rule; “small parent entity” denotes a
small ultimate parent entity (as defined by the Small Business Administration or RFA threshold) owning a facility expected to report under the p roposed rule.

### SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 4

- 4 Step 3: Esti mate annual revenues of parent entities. 23

Step 4: Identify small parent entities based on SBA or RFA definitions.

Step 5: Develop annualized compliance cost estimates for small parent entities using the per

- facility reporting cost and the number of facilit ies per parent entity that will report to TRI.

Step 6: Calculate the entity

- level impact percentages, defined as annualized compliance costs as a percentage of annual revenues , to measure regulatory burden.

Step 7: Estimate the number and percentage of sma ll parent entities with entity

- level impact percentages in each of three categories: (1) less than one percent of annual revenues; (2) between one and three percent of annual revenues; and (3) greater than or equal to three percent of annual

revenues.

The specific methodology applied to facilities whose identities are known and facilities whose identities
are not known differs slightly from the general methodology above depending on the data availabl e (for more information, see Chapter 2 ). Eight of the facilities expected to report under the proposed rule are known, and there are sufficient data available to conduct the small entity analysis as described above using actual firm data. The remaining facilities are not known; Census data are therefore used to model small entity impacts using a slightly different methodology

.

4.3.1 Small Entity Impacts for Known Facilities
Eight of the facilities ex pected to report under the proposed rule are known. For these facilities, cost impact percentages are calculated using estimated compliance costs per facility (based on the number of reports the facility is expected to submit), the number of affected facilities per parent entity, and the annual revenue of each parent entity. Parent entities are classified as large or small, and impacts to small parent entities are summarized.

Identification of Small Parent Entities and Generation of Revenue Data Each facility’s ultimate parent company was identified using data obtained from Hoover’s, Inc.’s business
informa tion database ( Hoover's Inc, 2014 )

. 24 Hoover ’ s provides a range of business data including number of employees , annual revenue, NAICS code, and the identity of a facility’s parent entity. When Hoover’s data were incomplete or outdated, alternative resources such as company websites and annual reports were used to obtain missing data. With this information, it is p ossible to classify parent entities as small using the thresholds for the parent entity’s NAICS code. 25

Of the eight known facilities, four are owned by small parent entities. No parent entity owns more than one known facility.

Compliance costs are calculat ed at the parent entity level by multiplying the per

- Form R cost by the estimated number of Form Rs submitted by all facilities expected to report that are owned by that parent

23 R evenues are converted to 201 4 dollars us ing the GDP inflation index (U.S. BEA, 2014).

24 This analysis assumes that a facility, as defined under TRI, is equivalent to a location as defined by Hoover’s

. 25 The small entity determination is made using the NAICS code of the ultimate parent entity rather than the NAICS code of the facility subject to TRI. In some cases, the NAICS code of the parent entity is different from the facility’s
NAICS code.

### SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 4

- 5 entity. As all four small parent entities own only one affected facility, the annualized parent entity compliance costs are $2,153.40 per parent entity at the 7% discount level.

Estimation of Cost Impact Percentages Cost impact percentages for small parent entities are calculated by dividing annualized parent entity compliance costs by the parent entity’s annual revenue. The estimated impacts on small parent entities are presented in Table 4

- 2 below. Of the small parent entities identified, all h ave annualized cost impacts of less than 1%.

Table 4

- 2 : Small Entity Impacts for Known Facilities

Known Facilities Parent

Entities Small Parent

Entities Small Parent Entities Incurring Annualized (7%) Cost Impacts of...
<1% 1% to 3% >3%

8 8 4 4 0 0

4.3.2 Small Entity Impacts Analyzed using Census Data
As only a small number of facilities are expected to report in many of the affected industry sectors, an analysis that distributes affected facilities across size categories in the Census data results in fractional facilities for many or all size categories, which makes analyzing impacts to affected facilities difficult

. Evaluating the average revenue for all small parent entities in each sector may overlook im pacts to the
smallest affected facilities in a sector. This analysis therefore uses Census data to screen for small entity impacts under a “worst

- case scenario” for facilities whose identity is not known.

Census’ Statistics of U.S. Businesses ( SUSB ) provides annual data for U.S. business enterprises, including counts of establishments, firms, employees, and payroll. Data on total receipts (revenues) are also provided by SUSB every five years. These data are available for each NAICS code and are tabul ated by enterprise employment or enterprise revenue ( U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 )

. SUSB data tabulated by enterprise revenue are used to estimate the proportion of small parent entities incurring cost impacts greater than 1 % or 3%.

SUSB defines an enterprise as “a business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments that were specified under common ownership or control,” a firm as “a business organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments i n the same industry that were specified under common ownership or control,” and an establishment as “a single physical location where business is conducted or where services or industrial operations are performed” (equivalent to TRI’s definition of a facil ity ). For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the SUSB concept of an enterprise is equivalent to the concept of ultimate parent company used in this small entity analyses.

As facilities are only required to report to TRI if the employment thr eshold of 10 full

- time employees is met, the SUSB employment size category for 10 to 14 employees can be used to calculate average
revenue for the smallest SUSB category of potentially affected parent entities.

If annualized cost impacts can be demonstrate d to be less than 1% for a n average parent entit y with 10 to 14 employees , it follows that larger firms will also not experience adverse economic impacts as a result of the proposed rule.

### SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 4

- 6 This analysis consists of the following steps:

Step 1: Select indus try sectors expected to incur compliance costs due to the proposed rule for analysis.

Step 2: Estimate annualized compliance cost.

Step 3: Calculate the revenue at which a small parent entity incurs an impact of 1% or 3% (“impact thresholds”) for each sect or.

Step 4: Calculate average parent entity revenue for parent entities with 10 to 14 employees (the smallest employment size category subject to TRI reporting requirements).

Step 5 : Determine if impacts 1% or greater and/or 3% or greater are incurred by t he average parent entity.

Impact thresholds are calculated by dividing the annualized compliance cost by 1% and 3%; Table 4

- 3 displays the 1% and 3% impact thresholds. Note that due to the low annualized compliance costs associated with the proposed rule, a parent entity would need to have extremely small annual rev enues to incur impacts of 1% or greater. Additionally, f or all industry sectors, there is a maximum ratio of 1.08 establishments to firms for parent entities with 10 to 14 employees. Th is ratio indicate s that for the purposes of this analysis, the facility is equivalent to the parent entity ; aggregating compliance costs is therefore unnecessary.

Table 4

- 3 : Impact Thresholds

Impact Level Revenue Threshold

1% $ 215,340

3% $71,780

SUSB data are used to calculate average parent entity

- level revenues for small parent entities in each sector. These average revenues represent the revenues of the “average parent entity” in the smallest size category subject to TRI reporting requirements ( i.e. , parent entities with 10 to 14 employees)

, and are compared to the impact thresholds to determine if small parent entities in the industry sector are expected to incur impacts of 1% or greater and/or 3% or greater. The results of this screening analysis are presented
in Table 4

- 4

.
Table 4

- 4 : Small Entity Screening Analysis

Industry Sector Average Revenue for Firms with 10

- 14 Employees 10

- 14

Employees: 1% Impact 10

- 14

Employees: 3% Impact

Commercial Printing (except Screen and Books) (NAICS 323111) $1,821,393 No No

All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS 325188) $4,751,084 No No

### SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 4

- 7 Industry Sector Average Revenue for Firms with 10

- 14 Employees 10

- 14

Employees: 1% Impact 10

- 14

Employees: 3% Impact

All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS 325199) $6,898,515 No No

Artificial and Synthetic Fibers and Filaments Manufacturing (NAICS 32522) $4,826,422 No No

Paint and Coating Manufacturing (NAICS 325510) $3,380,561 No No
Adhesive Manufacturing (NAICS 325520) $4,340,082 No No
Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing (NAICS 326140) $3,233,813 No No

Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing (NAICS 326150) $1,698,415 No No

Rubber Product Manufacturing (NAICS 3262) $1,939,871 No No
Pottery, Ceramics, and Plumbing Fixture Manufacturing (NAICS 32711) $1,327,550 No No

Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing (NAICS 33111) $3,379,168 No No

Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Production and Processing (NAICS 3314) $5,873,570 No No

Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing (NAICS 332) $1,856,902 No No
Precision Turned Product Manufacturing (NAICS 332721) $1,715,492 No No

Machinery Manufacturing (NAICS 333) $2,232,924 No No
Printed Circuit Assembly (Electronic Assembly) Manufacturing (NAICS 334418) $2,511,505 No No

Other Electronic Component Manufacturing (NAICS 334419) $1,711,600 No No

Aircraft Manufacturing (NAICS 336411) $2,049,247 No No
Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing (NAICS 336412) $2,404,672 No No

Other Aircraft Parts and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing (NAICS 336413) $2,241,999 No No

Miscellaneous Manufacturing (NAICS 339) $1,725,146 No No

Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 424690) $8,634,977 No No

Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal (NAICS 562211) $2,056,548 No No

T he average revenue for parent entities with 10 to 1 4 employees is greater than the 1% or 3% impact
threshold

. For all industry sectors, there is a maximum ratio of 1.08 establishments to firms for parent
entities with 10

- 14 employees. Th is ratio indicate s that for the purposes of this analysis the facility is

### SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 4

- 8 equivalent to the parent entity ; aggregating compliance costs is therefore unnecessary. N o small parent entities are expected to incur annualized cost impacts greater than 1%.

Sensitivity Analysis: Impacts to the Smallest Parent Entities To model impact s to the smallest parent entities subject to TRI reporting requirements, an alternate small parent entity revenue for the small est parent in each affected NAICS code is estimated by calculating the minimum cost of employing ten full

- time employees (termed MCOE10 ). The assumption that parent
entit y revenues are equal to MCOE10 implies that the firm has no non

- labor costs and earns zero business profits, instead only recouping the costs of labor. As such, this assumption is likely to underestimate

revenues an d overstate potential impacts.

MCOE10 is calculated for each relevant 3

- or 4

- digit NAICS code 26 associated with the industry sectors
identified in Table 4

- 4 using the average hourly wage rate for all occupational categories in each industry (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014a)

. 27 Note that t his wage rate reflects w ages for all workers in the industry, whereas WAWR reflects wages for the specific occupations involved in compl ying with TRI reporting requirements. The average hourly rate is loaded to include benefits (calculated as 43.15% of wages for all workers in p r ivate goods

- producing and service

- providing industries (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2014c) ) and overhead (assumed to be 17% of hourly wages, as in the calculation of WAWR ).

As in the screening analysis, p arent entities are assumed to be equivalent to facilities given the low
establishment

- to

- firm ratio in the SUSB data (a maximum of 1.08 for parent entities with 10

- 14 employees in the affected NAICS codes). Each parent entity is therefore expected to submit only one
Form R. As shown in Table 4

- 5 , even the smallest possible parent entity in each pot entially affected NAICS code is not expected to incur impacts above 1% of revenues. In order for a parent entity to incur impacts of 1% under these assumptions, the loaded hourly wage paid to employees would need to be $10.35; for a 3% impact, the loaded h ourly wage would need to be only $3.45. 28

Table 4

- 5 : Small Entity Screening Analysis: Sensitivity Analysis

NAICS Code Loaded Hourly Wage MCOE10 MCOE10: 1% Impact MCOE10: 3% Impact

3231 $33.08 $687,974 No No

3251 $49.63 $1,032,380 No No

3252 $45.87 $954,163 No No

3255 $40.63 $845,037 No No

3261 $31.47 $654,541 No No

3262 $32.69 $679,982 No No

3271 $31.43 $653,698 No No

3311 $39.37 $818,964 No No

26 BLS provides wage data for all 3

- and 4

- dig it NAICS codes and selected 5

- and 6

- digit NAICS codes. None of the NAICS codes affected by the proposed rule have data at the 5

- or 6

- digit level, so the 3

- or 4

- digit NAICS code level
is used.

27 Wages are converted to 201 4 dollars us ing the GDP inflation index (U.S. BEA, 2014).

28 For a 1% impact: $215,340 ÷ (2,080×10) = $10.35. For a 3% impact: $71,780 ÷ (2,080×10) = $3.45.

### SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 4

- 9 3314 $37.87 $787,637 No No

332 $34.50 $717,619 No No

3327 $34.39 $715,305 No No

333 $39.79 $827,587 No No

3344 $51.76 $1,076,534 No No

3364 $56.46 $1,174,307 No No

339 $37.09 $771,446 No No

4246 $45.50 $946,383 No No

5622 $40.04 $832,842 No No



### 4.4 Summary of Impacts to Small Parent Entities

The 140 facilities expected to report were linked to a maximum of 136 small parent entities (four of the eight known facilities were determined to be large parent entities). All of the small parent entities affected by the proposed rule are estimated to incur annu alized cost impacts of less than 1%. Table 4

- 6 summarizes the results of the small entity analysis.

Table 4

- 6 : Summary of Small Entity Analysis

Facilities Potential

Parent Entities Potential Small

Parent Entities Small Parent Entities Incurring Annualized (7%) Cost Impacts of...

<1% 1% to 3% >3%

140 140 136 136 (100%) 0

(0%) 0

(0%)

As all small entities are estimated to incur impacts of less than 1%, the proposed rule is not expected to significantly impact a substantial number of small entities.

### BENEFITS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 5

- 1 

## 5. Benefits

In enacting the Emergency Planning and Community Right

- to

- Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990, Congress recognized the significant benefits of providing information on the presence, releases and waste management of toxic chemicals. The Toxics Release
Inve ntory (TRI) has proven to be one of the most powerful forces in empowering the federal government, state and local governments, industry, environmental groups, and the general public to fully participate in an informed dialogue about the environmental impa cts of toxic chemicals in the United States. The TRI database provides several types of information, including quantitative information on toxic chemical releases and other waste management practices. Starting in 1987, the collection of this information

en hanced the ability for the public, government, and the regulated community to understand the breadth and magnitude of chemical releases in the United States, and to assess the need to reduce the releases and
transfers of toxic chemicals. TRI data enable al l interested parties to establish credible baselines, to set realistic goals for environmental progress, and to measure progress in meeting these goals over time. As such, the TRI Program has become a yardstick by which progress can be measured by all inte rested or
affected stakeholders.

The information reported to TRI increases community knowledge and awareness of quantities of toxic chemicals released to the environment, and potential pathways of exposure to those chemicals. This knowledge:

 Improves scie ntific understanding of the health and environmental risks of toxic chemicals;

 Allows the public to make informed decisions on where to work and live;

 Enhances the ability of corporate leaders and purchasers to more accurately gauge a facility’s potentia l environmental liabilities;

 Provides reporting facilities with information that can be used to save money as well as reduce emissions; and,

 Assists federal, state, and local authorities in making better decisions on acceptable levels of toxic
chemicals i n the environment.

The benefits of the proposed rule include improved understanding, awareness, and decision making related to the provision and distribution of information on releases and waste management of 1

- BP . This provision of information can lead to follow

- on activities that create additional costs and benefits. In particular, voluntary initiatives by industry to review production processes, set goals for reductions in emissions, and institute “good neighbor” policies may result from information prov ision. If an individual facility owner or operator perceives that the additional information generated to comply with the section 313 reporting requirements provides them with valuable information about their operations and how they might be modified, then changes may be implemented to reduce releases of TRI chemicals.

Making TRI information available to the public may provide incentives for facilities to reduce TRI chemical releases. For example, the public availability of release information may induce f acilities to reduce releases when such changes would not be in the facility’s interest if release information were not in the public domain. Potential social benefits derived from voluntary follow

- on activities include
decreased costs of waste treatment an d disposal, lower probability of accidental releases and lower clean

-

### BENEFITS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 5

- 2 up costs in the event of such releases, reduced contamination of natural resources, improved air and water quality, and reduced risks to human health. Such social benefits are partially o ffset by the social costs to implement the changes, such as installing scrubbers and substituting materials that are less toxic but more expensive. The net social benefits of the information provided by the proposed rule and the possible
follow

- on activiti es equal the difference between the total benefits and the total costs of the activities leading to reduced releases.

The potential benefits of additional TRI reporting can be understood by examining the ways in which different groups of affected stakehold ers

— consumers, industry, governments and the general public

—use TRI data. Consumers may use the data to make more informed decisions about the products they buy and to enter into constructive dialogue with firms in their communities that release 1

- BP . Faci lities may find opportunities for waste reduction and cost savings through the process of obtaining reporting data. Non

federal governments may use the data in lieu of, or in support of, their own environmental protection
activities. Non

- users of the TRI d ata benefit from its public provision whenever others’ use of the data results in improvements in environmental quality.

Some examples of the ways in which various stakeholders have utilized TRI data include:

 Use of the Data by Community and Public Interest Groups: Communities use TRI data to begin dialogues with local facilities and to encourage them to reduce their emissions, develop pollution prevention plans, and improve safety measures. Public interest groups use the data to educate the public a bout toxic chemical emissions and potential risk, and in environmental justice activities.

 Use of the Data by Education and Research Institutions: TRI data are being used in many environmental education programs, particularly at the high school and univers ity levels. Students learn about toxic chemical releases, the potential health and environmental effects of those releases, pollution prevention activities and opportunities, and the social and political aspects of environmental protection. Some organizati ons also are conducting educational outreach programs using TRI data.

 Use of the Data by the Financial and Business Communities: Investment analysts use TRI data to provide recommendations to clients seeking to make environmentally sound investments.
Insu rance companies look to TRI data as one indication of potential environmental liabilities. Consultants and others use the data to identify business opportunities, such as marketing pollution prevention and control technologies to TRI reporting facilities. Demand for environmental performance information by investors, insurance companies, and the public has led many companies to develop environmental annual reports similar to annual reports on financial performance traditionally prepared for investors.

 Indus try Use of TRI Data: TRI data have been used by industry for activities such as developing waste reduction strategies and improving companies’ understanding of their own production processes. Industry also uses TRI submission information to show environmen tal progress and as a starting point for engaging with communities.

 Government Use of TRI Data: Government organizations such as the media

- specific and core offices at EPA, EPA Regional offices, and other national, state, and local government agencies

rou tinely use TRI data. TRI data have been used to: develop inspection targeting and enforcement tools; analyze and prioritize long

- term trends in waste minimization; identify candidates for the

### BENEFITS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 5

- 3 National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; coordinate environm ental data internationally through agreements and organizations such as the Commission for Environmental Cooperation; and set priorities and allocate increasingly scarce environmental protection resources to the most pressing problems.

EPA has not attempte d to monetize the benefits of the proposed rule due to the lack of quantitative information characterizing the range of users and non

- users of TRI data and the substantial analytical challenges associated with accurately predicting behavioral responses to the provision of information ( Palm, 1981 ; Moody et al., 1999 )

. The analysis was not able to consider variations in quality or other attributes of TRI data access methods. The potentially large numbers of beneficiaries who are not users or who are otherwise unaware of the data ( e.g. , the general public) further limits EPA’s ability to quantify potential benefits.

The experience since the first forms were submitted to TRI in 1987 suggests that reporting under EPCRA section 313 has produced real gains in understanding communities’ exposure t o toxic chemicals. In its report The Toxics Release Inventory in Action: Media, Government, Business, Community and Academic Uses of TRI

, EPA has documented numerous examples of how multiple stakeholders have used TRI data ( U.S. EPA, 2013b )

. Moreov er, a cursory search on GoogleScholarTM reveals thousands of academic articles referencing the Toxics Release Inventory. Listing 1

- BP

, and the subsequent use of the reported information, should provide similar gains in understanding of this particular chemi cal. EPA believes that
1

- BP meets the statutory toxicity criteria of section 313, and is at least as toxic as some of the chemicals for which Congress initially believed there were net benefits due to reporting (i.e., the initial list of section
313 chemic als)

.

### REFERENCES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 6

- 1 

## 6. References

Abt Associates. (July 16, 2004). Abt Associates Engineering Study (TRI Reporting Burden Estimates). Memo from Hilary Eustace, David Cooper, and Susan Day, Abt Associates to Paul Borst, EPA.

Abt Associates. (November 8, 2013). Memorandum: Percent 1

- Bromopropane in Formulation by Uage.

Albatross USA. (2004). Material Safety Data Sheet VDS

- 3000

- Stabilize d N

- Propyl Bromide. Retrieved November 6, 2013, from http://albatross

usa.com/pdf/elecchemmsds/AlbatrossVDS3000MSDS.pdf

Albatross USA. (n.d.). Material Safety Data Sheet Everblum Gold Cleaning Fluid. Retrieved November 6, 2013, from http://albatross

- usa.co m/MSDS/1810.pdf

Albemarle. (2012). ABZOL® VG Cleaner Material Safety Data Sheet.

American Polywater Corporation. (2013). Material Safety Data Sheet Type TRTM Cleaner/Degreaser Aerosol (TR

- 16). Retrieved September 17, 2013, from http://www.polywater.com/MSD S/TRAerosolMSDS.pdf

Amity International. (2012). Safety Data Sheet (SDS) LEKSOL®. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from http://objects.eanixter.com/PD364732.PDF

Blair Rubber Company. (2011). Material Safety Data Sheet Normac 900R

- NPB. Retrieved October 30,
2013 , from http://www.blairrubber.com/msds/Normac%20N

- PrBr.pdf

Choice Brand Adhesives. (2010). 751G Material Safety Data Sheet. Retrieved November 1, 2013, from http://www.formica.com/~/media/us/all/Files/Product%20Information/Adhesives/Technical%20B rief%20

- %2 0Data%20Sheet/F

- 751G%20canister.ashx

CRC Industries. (2013). Material Safety Data Sheet Super DegreaserTM Cleaner/Degreaser (aerosol). Retrieved November 6, 2013, from http://www.formica.com/~/media/us/all/Files/Product%20Information/Adhesives/Technical%20B rief%20

- %20Data%20Sheet/F

- 751%20canister.ashx

EcoLink. (2012). Material Safety Data Sheet HYPERSOLVETM Metal Cleaner, Degreaser & Flux
Remover. Retrieved November 6, 2013, from http://www.ecolink.com/wp

content/uploads/hypersolve_msds.pdf

Email communicatio n with TRI Data Processing Center. (2014, January 10).

EnviroTech International. (2005). EnSolv® Material Safety Data Sheet. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from http://www.cleanersolutions.org/downloads/msds/592/Ensolv%20MSDS.pdf

EnviroTech International. (2013a). DrySolv® Material Safety Data Sheet. Retrieved November 6, 2013,
from http://nebula.wsimg.com/f2cf705b3c635b42bd080983f4b328ea?AccessKeyId=F58D237F0A46D AC5AF87&disposition=0

### REFERENCES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 6

- 2 EnviroTech International. (2013b). Material Saf ety Data Sheet DrySolv Spray Testing & Spotter. Retrieved November 1, 2013, from http://nebula.wsimg.com/b5b721780e4046dae73c7753945cd994?AccessKeyId=F58D237F0A46 DAC5AF87&disposition=0

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

Hoover's, Inc. (2015). Hoover's . Retrieved February 19, 2014, from www.hoovers.com

Incorporated Administrative Agency, Nati onal Institue of Technology Evaluation. (2010). About J

CHECK . Retrieved from http://www.safe.nite.go.jp/jcheck/top.action

ITW TACC. (2012). Safety Data Sheet STA’

- PUT SP4H Canister Adhesive. Retrieved November 1, 2013, from http://www.itwtacc.com/prodfile s/pdfs/fam_msds2_543.pdf

Japan Ministry of the Environment. (2014). PRTR information plaza Japan . Retrieved from http://www.env.go.jp/en/chemi/prtr/prtr.html

LPS Laboratories. (2011). U.S. Material Safety Data Sheet LPS Instant Super Degreaser. Retrieved
N ovember 6, 2013, from http://www.lpslabs.com/site_files/tech_downloads/10720.pdf

Maple Leaf Sales II. (2013). Material Safety Data Sheet K

- Grip 503 Premium Adhesive. Retrieved October 30, 2013, from http://www.k

- gripadhesives.com/pdfs/K

- GRIP%20503%20MSDS.p df

Moody, D., & Walsh, P. (1999). Measuring the Value of Information: An Asset Valuation Approach. European Conference on Information Systems.

National Institute of Health and Safety, OSHA. (2014, October). Hazard Alert 1

- Bromopropane. Retrieved from osha .gov: https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA_3676.pdf

Palm, R. (1981). Public Response to Earthquake Hazard Information. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 71 (3), 398

- 399.

Petroferm, Inc. (2004a). Material Safety Data Sheet Lenium® ES. Retrieved November 6, 2013, from http://www.cleanersolutions.org/downloads/msds/609/Lenium%20ES%20MSDS.pdf

Petroferm, Inc. (2004b). Material Safety Data Sheet Lenium® GS. Retrieved November 6, 2013, from http://www.cleanersolutions.org/downloads/msds/610/ Lenium%20GS%20MSDS.pdf

PettyJohn’s Solutions. (2012). Material Safety Data Sheet Homerun Cleaning Fluid. Retrieved November 6, 2013, from http://www.pettyjohnsolutions.com/pdf/MSDS%20Homerun%20Cleaning%20Fluid%20

- %20July%202012.pdf

Poly Systems USA. (2007)

. Material Safety Data Sheet Fabrisolv® XL. Retrieved November 1, 2013, from http://fabrisolv.com/msds/MSDS_Fabrisolv_XL_V01.pdf

Poly Systems USA. (2012). Material Safety Data Sheet Solvon® PB.

### REFERENCES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 6

- 3 Selig Industries. (2011). Material Safety Data Sheet. NU TRI CLEAN.

The Sherwin Williams Company. (2012). Material Safety Data Sheet SPRAYON LIQUI

- SOL® Food
Grade Ultra

- ForceTM Safety Solvent & Degreaser.

TRI Regulatory Development Branch. (April 28, 2011). Revising TRI Burden to Ratio

- Based Methodology. TRI Progra m Division, Office of Information Analysis and Access, Office of Environmental Information. Retrieved from http://www2.epa.gov/toxics

- release

- inventory

- tri

program/revising

- tri

- burden

- ratio

- based

- methodology

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. (2014, Decembe r 23). Table 1.1.9. Implicit Price Deflators for Gross
Domestic Product. Retrieved January 15, 2015, from www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHtml.cfm?reqid=6&step=3&isuri=1&600=1

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014a, October 10). May 2013 National Industry

- Specif ic Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates . Retrieved February 10, 2015, from http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrci.htm

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2014c, December 10). Table 9: Private industry, goods

- producing and
service

- providing industries, by occupational group. Retrieved January 15, 2015, from Employer Costs for Employee Compensation: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.toc.htm

U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). Statistics of U.S. Businesses: Historical Data Tabulations by Enterprise Size: 2007

. Retrieved January 19, 2015, from http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/data/susb2007.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2015, January 23). Number of Firms, Number of Establishments, Employment, and Annual Payroll by Enterprise Employment Size for the United States, All I ndustries: 2011

. Retrieved February 4, 2015, from http://www2.census.gov/econ/susb/data/2011/us_6digitnaics_2011.xls

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2014, October 6). Report on Carcinogens, Thirteenth Edition, 79 FR 60169. Retrieved from htt ps://federalregister.gov/a/2014

- 23748

U.S. Environmental Projection Agency. (2012). Chemical Data Reporting . Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/cdr/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Non

- confidential 2006 IUR Database . Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/cdr/tools/previouslycollected.html

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2011a). Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collections; Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Request for Comments on Proposed Renewal of
Form R and Fo rm A, Including Minor Form Revisions and the Ratio

- Based Burden Methodology.
Docket # EPA

- HQ

- OEI

- 2010

- 0835.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). The Toxics Release Inventory in Action: Media, Government, Business, Community and Academic Uses of TR I. Retrieved March 27, 2014, from http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/tri_in_action_final_report_july_2013.pdf

### REFERENCES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of 1

- Bromopropane ▌ pg. 6

- 4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013a, August 27). Electronic Reporting of Toxics Release Inventory Data (EPA

– HQ

– TRI

– 2011

– 0174; FRL

– 9835

– 5). Federal Register, 78 (166), 52860

- 52868.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013b). 2012 Non

- confidential Chemical Data Reporting
Database.

U.S. Small Business Administration. (January 22, 2014). Table of Small Business Size Standar ds Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes. Retrieved February 3, 2014, from http://www.sba.gov/content/small

- business

- size

- standards

United Laboratories. (2011). Material Safety Data Sheet United C174 Contact Cleaner. Retrieved
Octo ber 30, 2013, from http://www.unitedlabsinc.com/canada/content/pdf/msds/C174msds.pdf

West Penetone. (n.d.). Material Safety Data Sheet PENSOLV PB 2000. Retrieved November 6, 2013, from http://www.west

- penetone.com/literature/4681.msd.pdf

Zep, Inc. (2012). Safety Data Sheet ZEP POWERSOLV 5000. Retrieved November 6, 2013, from http://webfiles.acuitysp.com/msds/0555_1_EN1_USA.PDF