Cross-Media Electronic

Reporting Rule

(CROMERR)

Cost Benefit Analysis

Final

November 17, 2004
ii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background of the Rule

On August 31, 2001, the proposed Cross-Media Electronic Reporting and Records Rule was 

published in the Federal Register. As proposed, the rule was intended to provide a uniform legal 

framework for paperless electronic reporting and record-keeping, including electronic 

signature/certification, across the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) environmental 

programs. Based on public comment, however, EPA is now finalizing only the electronic 

reporting (ER) components of the proposed rule and deferring further action on the ER-keeping 

components until a later time. As currently drafted, the final ER rule will: 

■ Modify the current Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) requirements to remove any 

obstacles to electronic reporting 

■ Provide general, performance-based criteria for acceptable electronic reporting systems 

■ Specify that acceptable electronic reports must by submitted using EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX), or comparable systems certified to satisfy the performance-based criteria 

■ Establish the process for EPA oversight of electronic reporting under authorized state, tribal, 

or local government programs, including special streamlined procedures for EPA approval of 

modifications or revisions to authorized programs to allow for electronic reporting. 

The final ER rule is intended to make electronic reporting as simple, efficient, and cost-effective 

as possible for regulated companies, while ensuring that a transition from paper to electronic 

reporting does not compromise EPA’s compliance and enforcement programs. Consequently, 

the regulatory strategy is to impose as few specific requirements as possible and to keep those 

requirements neutral with respect to technology, so the rule will pose no obstacles to adopting 

new technologies as they emerge. Electronic document submission will be totally voluntary; 

EPA will not require the submission of electronic documents in lieu of paper documents. EPA 

will only begin to accept direct submission of an electronic document once EPA has provided 

public notice that its electronic document receiving system is prepared to receive the document 

in electronic form. 

For regulated entities that choose to submit electronic documents directly to EPA, the rule would 

require that these documents be submitted to a centralized Agency-wide electronic documentreceiving system, called the CDX, or to alternative systems designated by the Administrator. 

Regulated entities that wish to submit electronic documents directly to EPA will satisfy the 

requirements in the rule by successfully submitting their reports to the CDX. 

The rule also establishes provisions for regulated entities to comply with identity-proofing 

procedures, as applicable. 

Methodology

In preparing this analysis, EPA developed a computer model that estimates the annual costs to 

EPA, State/Locals, and facilities under the final Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule 

(CROMERR) and CDX, as well as under an alternative scenario. The model then compares the 

annual costs under both scenarios to assess the cost impact of CROMERR and CDX. 

The two scenarios modeled were: 

■ A “Baseline” scenario, in which EPA would enable electronic reporting through an approach 

other than CROMERR and CDX. 

■ A “To Be” scenario, in which EPA enables electronic reporting under CROMERR and CDX. 
iii 

Table ES-1 summarizes the scope of activities examined in the model. 

Table ES-1. Activities Examined in the Model under “Baseline” and “To Be” 

“Baseline” “To Be” 

EPA 

Establish program portals and rules enabling 

automation 

Establish the CDX and CROMERR 

Automate individual information collections 

according to the time frames in Appendix II for 

“Baseline” 

Automate individual collections according to the 

time frames in Appendix II for “To Be” and 

issue Federal Register notice for each 

collection 

Maintain Help Desk* 

 Process paperwork under electronic signature 

Review/approve State/Locals Program modification requests* 

Process electronic and paper submittals from direct reporters* 

State/Locals 

Upgrade receiving systems and prepare/submit 

program modification application to EPA 

program areas 

Upgrade receiving systems and prepare/submit 

consolidated modification application to EPA 

 Process paperwork under electronic signature 

agreement 

Direct Reporters (facilities that report directly to EPA) 

Register with each program’s gateway, call the 

program’s Help Desk, and obtain digital 

signature certificate, as applicable 

Register with CDX, call the CDX Help Desk, 

and obtain digital signature certificate, as 

applicable 

 Process paperwork under electronic signature 

agreement 

Perform extensible markup language (XML) or flat file mapping, if applicable* 

Report to EPA by paper or electronic method* 

Indirect Reporters (i.e., facilities that report to the States/Locals) 

Report to EPA by paper or electronic signature 

agreement 

Process paperwork under electronic signature 

agreement 

* Same under “Baseline” and “To Be”

In developing the model, EPA identified the primary activities that EPA, State/Locals, and 

facilities would take under the “Baseline” and “To Be” scenarios as summarized above. For 

each activity, EPA estimated four basic parameters that govern the total annual costs to them, 

respectively: 

■ Unit costs 

■ Labor hour burden 
iv 

■ Time frame of activity 

■ Number of entities performing the activity 

EPA entered these parameters into the model’s spreadsheets for all activities taken by EPA, 

State/Locals, and facilities. The spreadsheets then applied equations to these parameters to 

estimate the annual costs to these entities, respectively, across all activities in each year of the 

modeling period. Finally, the model discounted these costs to 2003 levels based on both a 7 

percent discount rate and a 3 percent discount rate, as recommended by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines. 

Refer to Table III-1 in Appendix III of this document for a summary of the data and assumptions 

used in estimating the cost impacts to government and facilities in the model.

Conclusion/Findings 

In this analysis, the "To Be" scenario represents the costs actually incurred to date under the 

rulemaking and CDX, as well as the expected costs going forward. As shown in Table ES-2, 

EPA estimates that the total cumulative costs incurred by EPA, State/Locals, and facilities under 

"To Be" from 2003 to 2012 would be higher than their costs incurred under "Baseline" over the 

same period. The estimated total incremental costs under "To Be" range from $34.4 million to 

$41.7 million, depending on the discount rate used. Throughout this analysis, in the Tables and 

discussion, the dollars referred to are 2003 dollars. 

Table ES-2. A Comparison of Total Cumulative Costs under "To Be" Relative to 

"Baseline" Between 2003 and 2012* (in millions of dollars) 

Entity 

Cumulative Costs** 

Baseline To Be 

Difference in 

Cumulative Costs 

To Be Relative to 

Baseline 

Difference in 

Cumulative Costs 

To Be Relative to 

Baseline 

Discounted at 7% 

Rate

Difference in 

Cumulative Costs 

To Be Relative to 

Baseline

Discounted at 3% 

Rate

EPA $ 703.78 $ 618.02 ($85.76) ($64.44) ($75.41) 

State/Locals $ 76.29 $ 149.04 $72.75 $57.19 $65.20 

Facilities $7039.34 $7101.31 $61.97 $41.61 $51.93 

Total $7819.41 $7868.37 $48.96 $34.36 $41.72 

*Cost savings shown in parentheses. 

**Not discounted. 

Limitations of the Analysis 

The following paragraphs describe the model’s primary limitations. 

■ Annual Implementation Rate. The costs presented in Table ES-2 reflect an annual 

implementation rate for electronic reporting of 30 percent of facilities during the first year of 

an information collection’s automation start date. The annual implementation rate is 

assumed to be 10 percent per annum for the rest of the modeling years. EPA notes that 

these rates are a simplifying assumption, since they likely will vary depending on many 

factors. Because of this, EPA has performed sensitivity runs based on different 

implementation rates. Refer to Section 4.0 for the results of these sensitivity runs. 

■ “Baseline” Automation Start Dates. EPA believes that, under “Baseline”, EPA would 

generally be less expedient in promulgating rules that would allow for automation. The 

model assumes that, in comparison to the automation start dates under “To Be”, information 
v 

collections under “Baseline” would be delayed by 2 years. EPA notes, however, that its 

assumption of a 2-year delay is speculative. 

■ Scaling Factors. The model examines the cost impacts associated with direct reporters in 

submitting paper and electronic reports to EPA under “Baseline” and “To Be” (i.e., facilities 

that report directly to EPA). As explained in Appendix VII, EPA reviewed each information 

collection, extracted the hour burden, and attempted to determine the percent of hours 

associated only with direct reporters. To do so, EPA developed scaling factors based on 

state authorization assumptions. The scaling factors were then applied to the hour burden of 

each collection, as described in Appendix VII. 

■ EPA notes, however, that these scaling factors are based on the highly simplified 

assumption that authorized states collect all the information under their programs. This is 

not necessarily the case (e.g., where states are authorized for only portions of an EPA 

program, or where EPA shares program administration with states). 

■ Upgrade Costs. In estimating upgrade costs to State/Locals, EPA examined the state 

summary table in Appendix V. EPA attempted to identify State/Locals receiving systems that 

would not satisfy CROMERR standards (e.g., copy of record requirements). Although EPA 

believes its estimates are reasonable, the Agency notes that they are highly speculative, 

since State/Locals-specific factors (e.g., enforcement priorities, state resources, etc.) will 

determine each State/Locals’ need for upgrading its systems. 
vi 

Table of Contents

List of Exhibits.............................................................................................................vii

List of Tables ...............................................................................................................vii

1.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................1

1.1 Background .................................................................................................................1 

1.1.1 Summary of the Rule ...........................................................................................1 

1.2 Problem Statement ......................................................................................................2 

1.3 Consideration of Alternatives ...........................................................................................3 

1.4 Other CROMERR Goals .............................................................................................5 

1.5 Document Organization...............................................................................................6 

2.0 Methodology and Assumptions.........................................................................7

2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................7 

2.1.1 Summary of “Baseline” and “To Be” Scenarios ...................................................7 

2.2 Development/Operation of the Model........................................................................10 

2.3 Model Data and Assumptions ....................................................................................15 

2.3.1 EPA...................................................................................................................15 

2.3.2 State and Local Environmental Programs...........................................................22 

2.3.3 Facilities ............................................................................................................26 

2.3.4 Electronic Signature Agreement.........................................................................28 

3.0 Conclusions and Findings ...............................................................................34

3.1 Total Costs ................................................................................................................34 

3.2 EPA...........................................................................................................................34 

3.3 State/Locals...............................................................................................................34 

3.4 Facilities....................................................................................................................35 

4.0 Sensitivity Analysis ..........................................................................................37

5.0 Qualitative Benefits of CROMERR and CDX...................................................39

5.1 Summary of Other Impacts........................................................................................39 

6.0 Limitations of the Analysis ..............................................................................41

Appendix I. Information Collections To Be Automated by EPA ...............................................43 

Appendix II. Information Collections Under Which Direct Reporting Will Occur .....................51 

Appendix III. Summary of the Model Data and Assumptions....................................................56 

Appendix IV. Labor Rates Used in the Analysis.......................................................................64 

Appendix V. State Survey Data.................................................................................................66 

Appendix VI. State Contacts .................................................................................................73 

Appendix VII. Burden Hours and Costs to Direct Reporters......................................................74 

Appendix VIII. Multi-Media Reporting Scaling Factor .............................................................81 

Appendix IX. Number of Direct Reporters...............................................................................82 
vii 

Appendix X. XML and Flat File Usage.....................................................................................84 

Appendix XI. Industry Consultations ........................................................................................86 

Appendix XV. Acronyms and Terms ........................................................................................91 

Appendix XV. Acronyms and Terms ........................................................................................91 

List of Exhibits 

Exhibit 2-1. Activities Examined in the Model under “Baseline” and “To Be” .............................10 

Exhibit 2-2. Inputs and Outputs of the Model ............................................................................11 

Exhibit 2-3. Hourly Labor Costs ................................................................................................12 

Exhibit 2-4. Example of Timeframe of Activities for OSWER Under “Baseline”..........................14 

Exhibit 2-5. Other Model Operating Parameters........................................................................15 

List of Tables 

Table ES-1. Activities Examined in the Model under “Baseline” and “To Be” ...........................iii 

Table ES-2. A Comparison of Total Cumulative Costs under "To Be" Relative to "Baseline" 

Between 2003 and 2012* (in millions of dollars)................................................................iv 

Table 2-1. Model Inputs: Portal and Rule Development ............................................................16 

Table 2-2. Model Inputs: Developing Automated Collections ...................................................16 

Table 2-3. Model Inputs: EPA Help Desk Costs........................................................................17 

Table 2-4. Model Inputs: Program Modification Applications...................................................17 

Table 2-5. Model Inputs: CDX Development and Maintenance Costs (in millions of dollars)...18 

Table 2-6. Model Input: CROMERR Development Costs .........................................................18 

Table 2-7. Model Input: Developing Automated Collections.....................................................19 

Table 2-8. Model Inputs: Help Desk .........................................................................................19 

Table 2-9. Implementation of Electronic Signature Agreement Provisions ................................19 

Table 2-10. Model Inputs: Program Modification Applications .................................................22 

Table 2-11. Authorized State EPAs and State/Locals Jurisdictions............................................22 

Table 2-12. Model Inputs: State/Locals Receiving Systems Upgrades and Modification 

Application under “Baseline” ............................................................................................23 

Table 2-13. Model Inputs: State/Locals Receiving Systems Upgrades and Modification 

Applications under “To Be” ..............................................................................................24 

Table 2-14. State/Locals Implementation of Electronic Signature Agreement Provisions for 

Submissions by Indirect Reporters ....................................................................................25 

Table 2-15. Number of Facility and Employee Registrants under “Baseline”* ..........................27 

Table 2-16. Number of Facility and Employee Registrants under “To Be”* ..............................27 

Table 2-17. Model Input: Registration and Help Desk...............................................................28 

Table 2-18. Digital Signature Certification Costs ......................................................................28 

Table 2-19. Model Input: Electronic Signature Agreement Costs ..............................................28 

Table 2-20. Annual Number of Facility and Employee Registrants that Become Subject to 

Identity Proofing Requirements, by Firm Size ...................................................................30 

Table 2-21. Direct/Indirect Reporters Implementation of Electronic Signature Agreement 

Provisions with Burden Assumptions ................................................................................31 

Table 3-1. Total Cost Impacts under o Be”* (in millions of dollars) .......................................34 
viii 

A Comparison of Total Cumulative Costs under "To Be" Relative to "Baseline" Between 2003 

and 2012* (in millions of dollars)......................................................................................34 

Table 4-1. A Comparison of Total Cumulative Costs under “To Be” Relative to “Baseline” 

Between 2003 and 2013* at Different Annual Automation Rates (in millions of dollars)...38 

Table I-1. Information Collections To Be Automated*..............................................................43 

Table II-1. Information Collections Under Which Direct Reporting Will Occur* ......................52 

Table III-1. Summary of the Model Data and Assumptions* .....................................................56 

Table IV-1. Labor Rates and Weight for EPA Employees .........................................................64 

Table IV-2. Labor Rates and Weight for State/Locals Employees .............................................65 

Table IV-3. Labor Rates and Weight for Facility Employees.....................................................65 

Table V-1. State Overview........................................................................................................68 

Table V-2. Existing State Receiving Systems............................................................................68 

Table V-3. Planned State Receiving Systems ............................................................................69 

Table V-4. Summary of State/Locals System Upgrade Costs Per Receiving System..................71 

Table V-5. Annual Number of State/Locals Receiving System Employee Registratants Under 

“Baseline”.........................................................................................................................71 

Table V-6. Annual Number of State/Locals Receiving System Employee Registrants under “To 

Be”*..................................................................................................................................72 

Table V-7. Upgrade Costs Per State/Locals Receiving System under Electronic Signature 

Agreement Provisions .......................................................................................................72 

Table VI-1. State Survey Contacts ............................................................................................73

Table VII-1. Scaling Factors .....................................................................................................74 

Table VII-2. Annual Burden Hours to Direct Reporters*...........................................................74 

Table VIII-1. Facility Count......................................................................................................81 

Table IX-1. Scaling Factors.......................................................................................................82 

Table IX-2. Direct Reporters and Registrants* ..........................................................................83 

Table X-1. Number of Companies Implementing XML/Flat File under “Baseline” ...................84 

Table X-2. Number of Companies Implementing XML/Flat File under “To Be”.......................84 
1 

1.0 Introduction 

1.1 Background 

1.1.1 Summary of the Rule 

EPA is finalizing a rule, referred to as the Cross-Media Electronic Reporting and Records Rule 

(CROMERR), to allow electronic reporting to EPA by permitting the use of electronic documentreceiving systems to receive electronic documents in satisfaction of certain document 

submission requirements in EPA’s regulations. In addition, states, tribes, and local jurisdictions 

will be able to seek EPA approval to accept electronic documents to satisfy reporting 

requirements under authorized or delegated environmental programs that they administer. In 

this analysis, EPA refers to these regulators collectively as State/Locals. This rule includes 

criteria against which a State/Locals electronic document-receiving system will be evaluated 

before EPA can approve changes to the authorized program that allows electronic reporting. 

Electronic document submission will be totally voluntary. EPA will not require the submission of 

electronic documents in lieu of paper documents. EPA will only begin to accept direct 

submission of an electronic document once EPA has provided public notice that its electronic 

document receiving system is prepared to receive the document in electronic form. 

For regulated entities that choose to submit electronic documents directly to EPA, the rule would 

require that these documents be submitted to a centralized Agency-wide electronic document 

receiving system, Central Data Exchange (CDX), or to alternative systems designated by the 

Administrator. Regulated entities that wish to submit electronic documents directly to EPA will 

satisfy the requirements in the rule by successfully submitting their reports to the CDX. 

Many facilities submit documents directly to State/Locals that are approved, authorized, or 

delegated to administer a federal environmental program on EPA’s behalf or to administer an 

environmental program in lieu of the federal regulatory program. The rule provides for EPA 

approval of changes to authorized State/Locals programs to provide for electronic reporting, and 

EPA approval will be based largely on an assessment of the State/Locals’ electronic documentreceiving system that will be used to implement the electronic reporting provisions. For this 

purpose, this rule includes performance-based criteria that EPA will use to determine that an 

electronic document-receiving system is acceptable. To implement electronic reporting under 

authorized State/Locals programs, EPA is creating an optional streamlined procedure that 

State/Locals may use to revise their programs to incorporate electronic reporting. The rule also 

includes special provisions for existing state electronic reporting systems in place at the time of 

publication of this rule. 

In addition, regulated entities reporting electronically to EPA or State/Locals must comply with 

the identity-proofing provisions of the rule, as applicable. An electronic document must bear the 

valid electronic signature of a signatory if that signatory would be required under the EPA or 

State/Locals environmental program to sign the paper document for which the electronic 

document substitutes unless the program makes special provisions to accept a handwritten 

signature on a separate paper submission, as specified. In the case of an electronic document 

that must bear electronic signatures of individuals, each signatory must sign either an electronic 

signature agreement or a subscriber agreement with respect to the electronic signature device 

used to create their electronic signature on the electronic document. The rule further requires 

that, for each electronic signature device used to create an electronic signature on the 

document, the identity of the individual uniquely entitled to use the device and their relation to 

any entity for which they will sign electronic documents must be determined with legal certainty 

by EPA or State/Locals, as applicable. In the case of priority reports, this determination must be 

made before the electronic document is received, by means of: 
2 

■ Identifiers or attributes that are verified by attestation of disinterested individuals to be 

uniquely true of the individual in whose name the application is submitted, based on 

information or objects of independent origin, at least one item of which is not subject to 

change without governmental action or authorization. 

■ A method of determining identity no less stringent than the one above. 

■ Completion and submittal of a subscriber agreement directly to the receiving agency. A 

subscriber agreement is an electronic signature agreement signed by an individual in ink on 

paper. The agreement is signed by the individual with respect to an electronic signature 

device that the individual will use to create their electronic signatures requiring such 

individual to protect the electronic signature device from compromise; to promptly report to 

the agency or agencies relying on the electronic signatures created any evidence 

discovered that the device has been compromised; and to be held as legally bound, 

obligated, and responsible by the electronic signatures created as by a handwritten 

signature. 

■ Designation of a local registration authority (LRA). The LRA is an individual who is 

authorized by EPA or the state to issue an agreement collection certification. An agreement 

collection certification is a signed statement by which an LRA certifies that a subscriber 

agreement has been received from a registrant; the agreement has been stored in a manner 

that prevents authorized or unauthorized access to these agreements by anyone other that 

the local registration authority; and that the local registration authority has no basis to 

believe that any of the collected agreements have been tampered with or prematurely 

destroyed. 

1.2 Problem Statement 

The primary purpose of CROMERR is to set standards for electronic 

reporting as it is implemented by State, Tribal or local governments 

administer environmental programs under EPA authorization or 

delegation. EPA has been motivated to set such standards primarily 

by considering: 

■ The roles that many electronically submitted documents would likely play 

in environmental program management, including compliance monitoring 

and enforcement; 

■ EPA’s statutory obligation to ensure that authorized or delegated 

programs maintain the enforceability of environmental law and 

regulations; and 

■ The consequent need to ensure that enforceability is not compromised 

as authorized or delegated program make the transition from paper to 

electronic submission of compliance- or enforcement-related documents. 

Concerning this last point, in many respects electronic submission enhances 

a document’s utility for environmental programs: it significantly reduces the 

resources and time involved in making the content available to its users, and 

can greatly facilitate data quality assurance and analysis. Nonetheless, the 

federal government’s experience with prosecuting computer-related crimes 

has shown us that electronic submissions may also be open to challenge, 

primarily with respect to their authenticity – and particularly where they are 

used to establish the actions and intentions of the submitters. We have to 

consider such uses in the case of environmental reporting, especially where 
3 

electronic submissions are made to report on an entity’s compliance status 

and where the submission includes a responsible individual’s certification to 

the truth of what is reported. For such cases, EPA has identified a 

programmatic need to be able to authenticate the submission content and 

the certification – for example, to be able to address issues of fraud or false 

reporting where they arise – and it is primarily to address this problem of 

authentication that EPA is setting standards for electronic reporting through 

CROMERR. 

 

The point of these standards is to assure the authenticity of electronic 

documents submitted in lieu of paper reports, so that they are able to play 

the same role as their paper counterparts in providing evidence of what was 

reported and of what an identified individual certified to with respect to the 

report. For example, in the case of paper submissions, the evidence 

surrounding a handwritten signature is normally sufficient to demonstrate 

that the signature is authentic and rebut any attempt by the signatory to 

repudiate it – and EPA intends the CROMERR standards ensure that 

electronic signatures have a corresponding level of non-repudiation. Since 

these evidentiary issues typically arise in the context of judicial or other legal 

proceedings, electronic documents need to have the same “legal 

dependability” as their paper counterparts. The over-arching standard here 

is that any electronic document used as evidence to prosecute an 

environmental crime or to enforce against a civil violation must have no less 

evidentiary value than its paper equivalent. For example, where there is a 

question of deliberate falsification of compliance data, whether the 

submission was electronic or paper, it must be possible to establish the 

signatory’s identity beyond a reasonable doubt. Hence, in general, the goal 

of the CROMERR standards is to ensure that a system used to receive 

electronic documents is capable of reliably generating evidence for use in 

private litigation, in civil enforcement proceedings, and in criminal 

proceedings in which the standard for conviction is proof beyond a 

reasonable doubt that the electronic document was actually signed by the 

individual identified as the signatory and that the data it contains was not 

submitted in error. 

1.3 Consideration of Alternatives 

EPA considered both a more stringent and a less stringent alternative to the 

regulatory approach taken in final CROMERR. The more stringent 

alternative is reflected in the electronic provisions published, August 31, 

2001, in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for CROMERR. The proposed 

version of CROMERR is more stringent by virtue of setting much more 

prescriptive, detailed requirements that acceptable electronic document 

receiving systems would have to satisfy. For example, proposed §3.2000(d) 

set very specific requirements for submitter identity management that a 

system would have to satisfy, including detailed requirements for renewal of 

registration and revocation of registration under specified circumstances. 

Again, §3.2000(e) set very detailed requirements for the 

signature/certification scenario that a system would have to provide for, 

specifying the exact sequence of steps to be followed in electronically 

signing a submission, and requiring such features as on-screen, scroll-
4 

through presentation of the data to be submitted for review of the signatory 

prior to signing (§3.2000(e)(1)(i)). EPA received significant public comment 

on this approach, both from States and from regulated companies, and there 

were at least three closely related themes. The first was that such 

prescriptive requirements would greatly limit the flexibility of States to 

implement electronic reporting in cost-effective way. Many of the comments 

pointed that such requirements would render the investments that States had 

already made in electronic reporting infrastructure virtually worthless, would 

prohibit their use of COTS products, and would require, instead, the 

development of very costly customized systems that might be both difficult 

and expensive to operate and maintain. The second theme was that many 

of the requirements – especially those specifying the signature/certification 

scenario – were simply not appropriate to many cases where electronic 

reporting would occur. Some commenters cited examples where very large 

data files would be transferred, rendering on-screen review impractical; 

others pointed out that company business processes involved in internal 

review, approval and certification of regulatory submissions was simply not 

compatible with the specified scenario. Third and finally, many of these 

commenters expressed skepticism that these very detailed requirements 

represented the only possible approach to ensuring the legal dependability of 

electronic submissions and signatures. In considering such comments, EPA 

has concluded that, given our inexperience with electronic reporting, we 

simply lack a basis for certainty that any particular set of function-based 

requirements at the level of specificity reflected in proposed CROMERR is 

(or is not) necessary for legally dependable electronic submissions. Given 

the evidently high cost – to both States and regulated entities – that such 

requirements would impose, we decided it would be better to focus on 

criteria that directly articulate these basic issues, that is, the underlying goal 

of assuring legal dependability, including the authenticity of electronic 

documents and the nonrepudiation of electronic signatures. Accordingly, we 

are setting standards in terms of general system performance goals that are 

less stringent by virtue of allowing much greater flexibility in how such goals 

are met in specific implementations. 

In writing these general performance goals, EPA also considered a less 

stringent alternative that would have refrained from specifying performance 

in terms of establishing the identity of an individual to whom a signature 

device or credential (e.g. a PIN, password, or PKI certificate) is issued. With 

reference to the final CROMERR provisions, this less stringent alternative 

would have omitted §3.2000(b)(5)(vii) identity-proofing provisions. In terms 

of regulatory impact, this would be a significant reduction in stringency, 

insofar as most of CROMERR’s burden on regulated entities is associated 

with have to register to obtain a signature device or credential, and any 

identity-proofing requirement raises at least the aggregate burden 

substantially. EPA rejected this alternative, because we believe that it 

would seriously – perhaps fatally – undermine the rule’s ability to assure the 

legal dependability of electronic submissions. It is a basic principle of 

electronic authentication (E-authentication) – whether in the context of 

validating an individual’s signature, or for other purposes – that our 

confidence that the individual being authenticated is who we believe him or 

her to be depends critically on the degree of trust we can place in the 
5 

credential the individual presents. Trust is largely a function of the identityproofing process conducted when the individual registered for the credential 

in the first place – the process must have been sufficiently stringent and 

credible. If we did not establish with sufficient certainty who this individual 

was when we issued the credential, then we cannot be certain who is using 

the credential in a specific instance where it is presented. Where the 

credential is used to create an electronic signature, then, inadequate identityproofing would mean that we cannot be certain who the signatory is – that is, 

no specific individual would be bound with any certainty by the signature – 

and this would render the signature virtually worthless for any legal purpose. 

In view of this, EPA felt that, notwithstanding the cost, it was necessary to 

specify that identity proofing be conducted. Additionally, for electronic 

documents of particular legal importance to environmental programs – 

identified as the “priority reports” – we felt that is was necessary to specify, at 

least to a degree, how the identity proofing had to be performed. We believe 

we need this additional specification for cases where signatory identity may 

be a legal issue, so that we are assured that electronic reporting 

implementations give us clear and predictable methods to establish this 

identity that conform to the standard practices of electronic commerce. 

1.4 Other CROMERR Goals 

EPA also envisions that the goals of the CROMERR and CDX will: 

■ Reduce the cost and burden of data transfer and maintenance for all parties to the data 

exchanges; 

■ Improve the data and the various business processes associated with its use in ways that 

may not be reflected directly in cost reduction (e.g., through improvements in data quality), 

and the speed and convenience with which data may be transferred and used. 

■ Maintain the level of corporate and individual responsibility and accountability for electronic 

reports and records that currently exists in the paper environment. 

The intended effect of this regulation is to permit use of electronic technologies in a manner that 

is consistent with EPA’s overall mission and that preserves the integrity of the Agency’s 

compliance and enforcement activities. Concerning the third goal, the Agency continues to 

believe that it is essential that EPA continue to ensure sufficient personal and corporate 

responsibility and accountability in the submission of electronic reports and the maintenance of 

electronic records; otherwise, EPA places at risk the continuing viability of self-monitoring and 

self-reporting that provides the framework for compliance under most of our environmental 

programs. 

In recent years, electronic reporting and record-keeping have had strong mandate in federal 

policy and law. The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) of 1998, Public Law 105-

277, requires that agencies be prepared to allow electronic reporting and record-keeping under 

their regulatory programs by October 21, 2003. Given the enormous strides in data transfer and 

management technologies since 1990, particularly in connection with the Internet, replacing 

paper with electronic data transfer now promises increased productivity across almost all facets 

of business and government. 

In short, the purpose of the rule is to permit the use of a technology that was not contemplated 

when most existing EPA regulations were written, without undermining in any way the integrity 

of environmental compliance documents or the ability of EPA to carry out its statutory 
6 

environmental and health protection mandate. The rule will permit regulated industry, EPA, and 

State/Locals to operate with greater flexibility in ways that improve both efficiency and the speed 

of regulatory processes. At the same time, it ensures that individuals will assign the same level 

of importance to affixing their electronic signatures (and to the documents to which the signature 

attests) as they currently do to a handwritten signature. 

1.5 Document Organization 

The remainder of this document is organized as follows: 

■ Section 2.0 - Methodology and Assumptions 

■ Section 3.0 - Conclusions and Findings 

■ Section 4.0 - Sensitivity Analysis 

■ Section 5.0 - Qualitative Benefits of CROMERR and CDX 

■ Section 6.0 - Limitations of the Analysis 
7 

2.0 Methodology and Assumptions 

2.1 Introduction 

2.1.1 Summary of “Baseline” and “To Be” Scenarios 

In preparing this analysis, EPA developed a computer model that estimates the annual costs to 

EPA, State/Locals, and facilities under the final CROMERR and CDX, as well as under an 

alternative scenario. The model then compares the annual costs under both scenarios to assess 

the cost impact of CROMERR and CDX. As described earlier, the CROMERR and CDX would 

have the primary effect of allowing facilities to report electronically to EPA under its information 

collections, as provided by GPEA. The rule would also require State/Locals to upgrade their 

receiving systems to meet the CROMERR standards, if needed, and apply for EPA program 

modification approval. EPA chose a 10-year period for the regulatory impact analysis, because 

we believe that this is roughly the time frame for EPA and our authorized or delegated State, 

Tribal and local government programs to achieve full implementation of electronic reporting 

under CROMERR. Accordingly, looking at the out-years beyond the 10-year time frame would 

not provide any additional analytic information about CROMERR’s impacts. 

As a first step in developing the model, EPA surveyed its program offices to identify the specific 

information collections they intend to automate under GPEA, as well as the anticipated year 

each collection will be automated (i.e., the automation start date). In total, the programs 

identified 137 information collections to be automated. These collections are identified in 

Appendix I, along with their expected automation start date.1

 Note that each collection in 

Appendix I is identified by the title of its corresponding Information Collection Request (ICR). 

That is, under the 1995 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), EPA is required to prepare ICRs for all 

of its information collections. The ICRs in Appendix I estimate the annual hour burden to EPA 

and facilities under the collections and were, therefore, used as a basis for developing the 

model. 

In addition, during the Summer of 2002, EPA spoke with regulators in 15 states to learn about 

their progress in automating their collections. EPA found that each of these states has at least 

one existing or planned receiving system for collecting electronic information from facilities. 

EPA, therefore, believes that State/Locals are developing electronic receiving systems 

irrespective of CROMERR. CROMERR would have little cost impact on them, except to require 

(1) upgrades to their receiving systems, if necessary, to meet the rule’s standards at 40 CFR 

3.2000; (2) EPA program modification approval of their receiving systems in accordance with 40 

CFR 3.10002 ; (3) and development/implementation of the identity-proofing provisions. From 

this, EPA concluded that the model should examine cost impacts to State/Locals only in 

upgrading their systems, applying to EPA for program modification approval, and carrying out 

electronic signature agreement provisions. The model should not examine their costs for 

originally developing the systems or receiving/processing submittals from facilities using these 

systems. They would have incurred these costs irrespective of EPA’s actions. 

In regard to facilities, the final rule and CDX would affect those facilities that report directly to 

EPA (also referred to as direct reporters in this document) in that electronic reporting would now 

be available. The final rule and CDX would not impact facilities in reporting under State/Locals 

collections (also referred to as indirect reporters), except to require them to comply with its 

identity-proofing requirements. Therefore, EPA has concluded that the model should examine 

 

1

 Note that EPA removed some of these collections from this analysis (e.g., collections administered completely at the State/Locals 

level). 

2

 It should also be noted that CROMERR does not require State/Locals to provide for electronic reporting. Therefore, any 

automation taking place at the State/Locals level would be completely voluntary. 
8 

the costs to direct reporters for all activities associated with paper and electronic reporting (e.g., 

registering with the CDX, complying with identity-proofing provisions, and submitting electronic 

documents to the CDX under EPA’s information collections). The model should examine cost 

impacts to indirect reporters only for the identity-proofing provisions. 

Note that the rule provides considerable flexibility for regulatory agencies to decide on the most 

appropriate identity-proofing approach for their receiving systems and electronic signature 

devices. EPA expects that many State/Locals will require regulated entities to submit subscriber 

agreements or designate an LRA. Other State/Locals (e.g., those implementing Public Key 

Infrastructure) may, at their own initiative, implement other approaches, e.g., approaches that 

involve the use of identifiers or attributes. In this Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), EPA makes the 

simplifying assumption that all regulatory agencies will require submittal of subscriber 

agreements or use of an LRA. In this regard, the CBA estimates costs to all direct and indirect 

reporters for carrying out the rule’s provisions for subscriber agreements and LRAs. 

Based on the above research and assumptions, EPA-developed and estimated cost impacts 

under two scenarios: 

■ An “Baseline” scenario, in which EPA would enable electronic reporting through an 

approach other than CROMERR and CDX3

. 

■ A “To Be” scenario, in which EPA enables electronic reporting under CROMERR and CDX. 

2.1.1.1 “Baseline” 

In developing the “Baseline” scenario, EPA envisions that it would have pursued electronic 

reporting through an alternate approach were it not for CROMERR and CDX. The GPEA of 

1998 requires the Agency to allow electronic reporting by 2003. In addition, EPA is firmly 

committed to reducing burden under its information collections, not only as part of its own 

internal agenda, but also in response to Congressional mandates (e.g., the 1995 PRA) and 

stakeholder requests. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that EPA would have pursued 

automation even in the absence of CROMERR and the CDX and that a “no-action” alternative 

(i.e., where EPA takes no action to automate its collections) is not realistic. 

In the absence of an Agency-wide rule and portal, EPA envisions that it would have enabled 

automation on a piecemeal basis across, and even within, program areas. Individual programs 

would be responsible for developing their own portals for receiving electronic information and 

publishing rules amending their regulations (e.g., to allow for the use of electronic signatures in 

lieu of handwritten signatures). EPA estimates that nine Agency program areas would have 

developed portals and rules.4

 

 

3

 As mentioned above, the “Baseline” scenario does not involve reporting to the CDX. It is important to note that EPA views the CDX 

and CROMERR as the outcomes of the Agency’s longstanding effort to enable uniform electronic reporting across the Agency. 

Their development has been inextricably intertwined, in that the CDX’s reporting process and technology standards have 

influenced EPA’s research and analysis performed on behalf of the rule. CROMERR codifies standards for electronic documentsreceiving systems operated by authorized state and local governmental entities. These standards, as a practical (but not legal)

matter, have defined the requirements of CDX. In this regard, EPA views the historical development of the CDX and CROMERR 

as inextricably related and, therefore, does not include the CDX as part of the “Baseline” scenario. 

4

 In general, EPA expects that the standards established under EPA’s rules under the “Baseline” scenario would be comparable in 

scope and stringency to CROMERR and the CDX. The CROMERR and CDX reflect EPA’s programmatic goals, the existing 

capabilities of electronic systems, as well as EPA’s deliberations with its stakeholders. Under “Baseline”, EPA would have 

encountered these same issues in establishing its portals and rules. Therefore, the model assumes that, under “Baseline”, EPA’s

gateways and rulemakings would be comparable in scope and stringency to the CDX and CROMERR. Note, however, that the 

model differs in its examination of electronic signature agreement costs under “Baseline” and “To Be”. Under “Baseline”, the model 

assumes registrants would follow relatively simple procedures for preparing and keeping records of an agreement. Under “To Be”,

the model examines in significantly greater detail all of the activities that EPA, State/Locals, and facilities would take in preparing, 

keeping records of, and submitting/processing subscriber agreements and other paperwork. 
9 

In addition, EPA envisions that it would have automated the same collections under “Baseline” 

and “To Be”. As described earlier, EPA polled the programs to identify the information 

collections they intend to automate in compliance with GPEA. In total, 137 collections were 

identified, as listed in Appendix I. Note that, for purposes of this analysis, EPA subsequently 

reviewed and modified this list by removing certain collections that are outside the scope of this 

analysis. Based on this review, EPA produced a revised list of information collections, as shown 

in Appendix II. The appendix also describes EPA’s rationale for eliminating them. In total, the 

model examines 68 information collections under “Baseline” and “To Be”. 

The model also assumes the Agency will convert its collections to an electronic format (e.g., 

preparation of Web forms, schemas, etc.) by the automation start dates in Appendix II for 

“Baseline”. 

The model assumes that, after EPA publishes its rules enabling automation under “Baseline”, 

authorized State/Locals would upgrade their receiving systems to satisfy the rule’s standards, 

as necessary. They would also prepare and submit modification requests to the EPA programs, 

as applicable. 

In addition, direct reporters would register with a program’s receiving system, obtain an 

electronic signature certificate, if required, and begin to report electronically by Web form, XML, 

or flat file. The model examines paper and electronic reporting to the CDX throughout the 

modeling period under the 68 collections. 

Facilities reporting to State/Locals (i.e., indirect reporters) would be required to prepare and 

keep a handwritten electronic signature agreement on site for each employee who reports to the 

State/Locals receiving system. 

2.1.1.2 “To Be” 

Under “To Be”, CROMERR would provide for uniform receiving system standards for the CDX 

and other approved EPA systems. The model assumes EPA began development of the CDX 

and CROMERR in 2000 and publishes the final CROMERR in 2003. The model also assumes 

the Agency will convert its collections to an electronic format (e.g., preparation of Web forms, 

schemas, etc.) by the automation start dates in Appendix II for “To Be”. The model assumes 

that EPA would issue a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of electronic 

reporting for each collection. 

The model assumes that authorized State/Locals would begin to upgrade their receiving 

systems to satisfy CROMERR, as necessary, and prepare their program modification requests 

to EPA, once CROMERR is published. Note that CROMERR gives State/Locals the option of 

either submitting a consolidated application to EPA or separate applications to each EPA 

program, as applicable. The model assumes that State/Locals would submit a consolidated 

application, because it would streamline the application-preparation process. State/Locals also 

will implement the rule’s electronic signature agreement provision (e.g., receiving, processing, 

and keeping records of submittals from indirect reporters). 

In addition, direct reporters would register with the CDX, obtain an electronic signature 

certificate, if required, and begin to report electronically by Web form, XML, or flat file. 

Finally, the model assumes that all direct and indirect reporters would comply with the rule’s 

electronic signature agreement requirements. Refer to Appendix III for a full description of these 

activities. Exhibit 2-1 summarizes the broad activities examined in the model for “Baseline” and 

“To Be”. 

“Baseline” “To Be” 
10 

“Baseline” “To Be” 

EPA 

Establish program portals and rules enabling 

automation 

Establish the CDX and CROMERR 

Automate individual information collections 

according to the time frames in Appendix II for 

“Baseline” 

Automate individual collections according to the 

time frames in Appendix II for “To Be” and 

issue Federal Register notice for each 

collection 

Maintain Help Desk* 

 Process paperwork under electronic signature 

Review/approve State/Locals Program modification requests* 

Process electronic and paper submittals from direct reporters* 

State/Locals

Upgrade receiving systems and prepare/submit 

program modification application to EPA 

program areas 

Upgrade receiving systems and prepare/submit 

consolidated modification application to EPA 

 Process paperwork under electronic signature 

agreement 

Direct Reporters (facilities that report directly to EPA) 

Register with each program’s gateway, call the 

program’s Help Desk, and obtain digital 

signature certificate, as applicable 

Register with CDX, call the CDX Help Desk, 

and obtain digital signature certificate, as 

applicable 

 Process paperwork under electronic signature 

agreement 

Perform XML or flat file mapping, if applicable* 

Report to EPA by paper or electronic method* 

Indirect Reporters (i.e., facilities that report to the States/Locals) 

Report to EPA by paper or electronic signature 

agreement 

Process paperwork under electronic signature 

agreement 

*Same under “Baseline” and “To Be” 

Exhibit 2-1. Activities Examined in the Model under “Baseline” and “To Be” 

2.2 Development/Operation of the Model 

In developing the model, EPA identified the primary activities that EPA, State/Locals, and 

facilities would take under the “Baseline” and “To Be” scenarios as summarized above. For 
11 

each activity, EPA estimated four basic parameters that govern the total annual costs to them, 

respectively: 

■ Unit costs 

■ Labor hour burden 

■ Time frame of activity 

■ Number of entities conducting activity 

EPA entered these parameters into the model’s spreadsheets for all activities taken by EPA, 

State/Locals, and facilities. The spreadsheets were then used to apply equations to these 

parameters to estimate the annual costs to these entities, respectively, across all activities in 

each year of the modeling period. In general, the model used straightforward calculations to 

estimate the cost impacts to these entities (e.g., annual number of entities performing an activity 

multiplied by its unit cost equals the total annual cost for activity). In certain cases, the equations 

were more complex. In these cases, the equations are presented in Appendix XII to this 

analysis. Exhibit 2-2 illustrates the basic inputs of the model. 

Exhibit 2-2. Inputs and Outputs of the Model 

Unit Costs. Unit costs include labor, capital, and maintenance costs associated with activities 

examined in the model. In regard to labor costs, the model drew from two sources of labor costs 

for the calculations. 

■ Average hourly labor costs associated with facility reporting under EPA’s information 

collections. These costs were obtained from the specific ICRs associated with each 

collection and include overhead and fringe as applicable, as described in the ICRs. 

■ Average hourly labor costs associated with all other activities in the model. EPA developed 

standard hourly labor rates for EPA, State/Locals, and facility employees. These costs 

include overhead and fringe. Refer to Appendix IV for information on how EPA derived these 

hourly rates. 
12 

Type of Personnel Hourly Labor Rate 

EPA $41.68/hr 

State/Local $30.42/hr 

Facility $39.23/hr 

Exhibit 2-3. Hourly Labor Costs 

The model also examines the capital (i.e., start-up) and maintenance costs associated with 

each activity. These costs vary by activity and are presented in Section 2.3 as specific to the 

activity and in the appendices, as applicable. 

Labor Hour Burden. For each activity, EPA estimated the labor hour burden and entered it 

into the model as a basic input assumption. 

■ In regard to EPA, the model includes labor hours for providing Help Desk support, reviewing 

State/Locals program modification applications, and implementing electronic signature 

agreement provisions. EPA used its best judgment in estimating the time associated with 

these activities. 

The model also includes labor hours for EPA to receive and process both paper and 

electronic submittals from direct reporters. These hours were obtained from the 68 

information collections in Appendix II. Note that the appendix does not show hours for EPA 

labor.5

 

■ State/Locals labor hours are primarily associated with preparation/submittal of program 

modification applications to EPA and implementing electronic signature agreement 

provisions. EPA consulted regulators in 15 states in estimating the hour burden for many of 

these activities. Refer to Appendix V for additional information on EPA’s analysis of these 

data and Appendix VI for the names of EPA’s contacts. 

The labor hours for direct reporters are drawn primarily from the 68 information collections in 

Appendix II, which estimate the total annual hour burden to facilities under the information 

collections being automated. EPA reviewed each ICR and extracted the hours associated 

with document preparation and submittal and entered them into the model, as appropriate. 

Appendix VII describes in more detail how EPA derived these labor hours. 

■ In addition, EPA used its best judgment to estimate the hour burden for direct and indirect 

reporters to carry out the electronic signature agreement provisions under the CDX and rule. 

Time Frame of Activities. The model examines costs to EPA, State/Locals, and facilities from 

2000 to 2012. Note, however, that the model results presented in Section 3.0 of this document 

address the period 2003 through 2012 only. That is, this document examines those cost impacts 

incurred in, and subsequent to, 2003. Throughout this analysis, in the Tables and discussion, 

the dollars referred to are 2003 dollars. The model accounts for the time value of money 

expended during the period by discounting the annual costs to 2003 levels using both a 7 

percent discount rate and a 3 percent discount rate, as recommended by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) guidelines. 

 

5

 The hours for EPA labor are not shown in the appendix due to space constraints. The CROMERR model, as well as the cost 

estimates in this CBA, include EPA labor hours. 
13 

In comparison with “To Be”, EPA expects that the rollout of automation under “Baseline” would 

be generally less expedient. The offices would have resolved issues on a piecemeal fashion. 

Lessons learned in one office might not be shared across initiatives, resulting in reinventing the 

wheel. In this regard, the model assumes that the automation start dates of information 

collections under “Baseline” would be delayed by 2 years in comparison with “To Be”. 

Exhibit 2-4 provides an example of how the model examines EPA, State/Locals, and facility 

activities over the modeling period under “Baseline”. The exhibit illustrates Office of Solid Waste 

and Emergency Response’s (OSWER’s) collections as the example.6

 . The model assumes 

that OSWER portal and rule development would last 3 years, until 2005. It also assumes 

OSWER would convert its information collections to electronic format over 2 years, from 2003 to 

2005. In 2005, OSWER’s information collections would be available for electronic reporting. 

In addition, State/Locals would begin upgrading and preparing/submitting their program 

modification requests to EPA upon finalization of OSWER’s rule in 2005. 

Direct reporters would submit reports to OSWER by paper until its information collections are 

automated. Direct reporters would then gradually implement electronic reporting, beginning in 

2005, based on the model’s annual implementation rate. Indirect reporters would not be affected 

by the EPA actions, except that they would be required to comply with the rule’s electronic 

signature agreement provisions once their State/Locals submits the program modification 

application to EPA, (i.e., in 2007.) 

The sequence of activities for EPA, State/Locals, and facilities shown in Exhibit 2-4 pertains to 

OSWER’s regulatory programs under “Baseline”. However, the model follows a comparable 

sequencing approach in estimating the timeframe for all EPA, State/Locals, and facility activities 

under all EPA programs under “Baseline” and “To Be”. For example, the model assumes that 

each information collection under “Baseline” and “To Be” will take 2 years to be automated and 

that electronic reporting under the collection will commence at the end of the 2-year period and 

increase incrementally based on the model’s annual implementation rate. It also assumes that 

State/Locals under “Baseline” and “To Be” will take 2 years to develop their program 

modification applications. The model assumes that some State/Locals will submit their 

applications 2 years after promulgation of the electronic reporting rule (e.g., CROMERR). The 

remaining State/Locals will submit their applications in later years, based on the assumptions 

laid out in Section 2.3. 

 

6

 Note that the same approach was taken for all programs and collections. 
14 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2005

OSWER develops portals and 

rulemakings

OSWER develops 

web forms, XML 

schemas, etc.

Direct reporters report to OSWER by paper only

States/locals upgrade their 

receiving systems and 

apply for program 

modification approval

Indirect reporters comply 

with electronic signature 

agreement

Direct reporters gradually transition 

from paper to electronic reporting

OSWER Automation 

Start Date = 2005

Exhibit 2-4. Example of Timeframe of Activities for OSWER Under “Baseline” 

Number of Entities Performing the Activity. In developing the model, EPA estimated the 

number of entities performing each activity. The numbers of entities per activity vary by activity 

in the model and are discussed in Section 2.3. Refer to Table 2-10 for the universe of 

State/Locals jurisdictions, Table 2-12 for facility registrants to EPA’s gateways under “Baseline”, 

and Table 2-13 for facility registrants to the CDX under “To Be”. 

Exhibit 2-5 summarizes other key model operating parameters. 

Parameter Description

Annual Implementation Rate 

for Electronic Reporting 

The annual implementation rate is the rate at which direct 

reporters would adopt electronic reporting each year under each 

information collection. The costs reflect a 30-percent first-year 

implementation rate and a 10-percent rate per annum thereafter. 

The model applies this rate to derive the total annual costs 

associated with both paper and electronic submittals, as well as 

the number of registrants each year. The implementation rate was 

applied on a collection-by-collection basis, based on the 

collection’s automation start date under “Baseline” and “To Be”. 

An information collection’s automation start date determines the 

percentage of facilities and submittals that will be automated by 

the end of the modeling period. As an example, information 

collections with an automation start date of 2003 would be 

automated in the 2003 to 2005 timeframe under “Baseline” and “To 

Be”. 
15 

Parameter Description

Electronic Reporting 

Savings Rate 

The model assumes that electronic reporters would save time and 

costs in relation to submittal of paper documents. The model 

assumes that facilities that report by Web form would save 10 

percent of the hours and costs per document preparation and 

submittal and that facilities that report by XML or flat file would 

save 25 percent. 

Web Form Usage Rate The model assumes that 94 percent of direct reporters reporting 

electronically would use a Web form. The model assumes no 

hardware or software costs in reporting by Web form. 

XML or Flat File Usage Rate The model assumes that the remaining 6 percent of electronic 

reporters would use XML or flat file reporting. Refer to Appendix X 

for additional information on the XML and flat file usage and cost 

assumptions. 

Aggregate Annual Change 

in Total Hour Burden 

The model assumes that, each year, the total aggregate hour 

burden under all 68 information collections decreases by 1 percent 

per year. This rate is based on EPA’s review of the historical 

growth trends of the 68 collections. 

Exhibit 2-5. Other Model Operating Parameters 

2.3 Model Data and Assumptions 

This section describes the activities EPA, State/Locals, and facilities are expected to take under 

the “Baseline” and “To Be” scenarios. It also describes the unit costs, hour labor burden, and 

timeframe of activities, as applicable. All costs presented in this chapter are undiscounted. Refer 

to Table III-1 of Appendix III of this document for a summary of the data and assumptions used 

in estimating the cost impacts to government and facilities in the model. 

2.3.1 EPA 

2.3.1.1 “Baseline” 

Development of Program Portals and Rules. Under the “Baseline” scenario, EPA assumes 

that nine program areas would each develop a portal for receiving electronic submissions and 

exchanging information with co-regulators. The programs also would incur annual maintenance 

costs for these portals following portal development. EPA also assumes each program would 

establish a rulemaking enabling electronic reporting. All model input assumptions for these 

activities are shown in Table 2-1. 
16 

Table 2-1. Model Inputs: Portal and Rule Development 

Program Areas Portal Development 

Development Period Total 

Cost/Portal 

Annual 

Portal 

Maintenance 

Costs* 

Total 

Cost/Rule* 

2000-2002 $6,200,000 $ 2,100,000 $ 1,500,000 

OAR-OAQPS 2000-2002 $6,200,000 $ 2,100,000 $ 1,500,000 

OPPTS-TSCA 1999-2001 $6,200,000 $ 2,100,000 $ 1,500,000 

OPPTS-FIFRA 1999-2001 $6,200,000 $ 2,100,000 $ 1,500,000 

OSWER-OSW 2003-2005 $6,200,000 $ 2,100,000 $ 1,500,000 

OSWER-CEPPO 2003-2005 $6,200,000 $ 2,100,000 $ 1,500,000 

OSWER-CERCLA 2003-2005 $6,200,000 $ 2,100,000 $ 1,500,000 

OW-NPDES 1998-2000 $6,200,000 $ 2,100,000 $ 1,500,000 

OW-SDW 2003-2005 $6,200,000 $ 2,100,000 $ 1,500,000 

* Annual maintenance costs are incurred following the portal development period. 

** The rulemaking costs for each program are incurred during the portal development period. 

Development of Automated Collections. The model assumes information collections would 

be automated according to the automation start dates presented in Appendix II for “Baseline”. 

EPA would incur costs for converting each collection to an electronic format (e.g., developing 

Web form, and XML schema, etc.). Table 2-2 presents the model’s input assumptions, which 

were used to cost out EPA’s development of the 68 collections. 

Table 2-2. Model Inputs: Developing Automated Collections 

 Number of 

Information 

Collections 

Cost per 

Collection 

Development 

Period 

Conversion of Collections 

to Electronic Format 

68 $ 200,000 2 years 

Help Desk. The model assumes that each registrant to a program’s gateway would need to 

contact the program for assistance. Further, EPA has determined that facilities are subject to 

1.3 EPA programs, on average.7

 EPA assumes that each program’s portal would be different in 

regard to registration and use. Therefore, the model assumes that, on average, each employee 

registrant would make 1.3 calls to EPA’s Help Desk. The model estimates the costs to EPA for 

handling these calls. Refer to Tables 2-15 and 2-16 for the number of employee registrants 

expected to contact EPA each year. 

 

7

 Refer to Appendix VIII for EPA’s calculation of this estimate. 
17 

Table 2-3 presents the model’s input assumptions, which were used in conjunction with the EPA 

labor costs in Exhibit 2-3 and number of employee registrants in Tables 2-15 and 2-16, in order 

to estimate EPA’s costs per year.

Table 2-3. Model Inputs: EPA Help Desk Costs 

Annual Number of Calls Time/Call 

Varies* 6 minutes 

* Based on the annual number of employee registrants in Table 2-13.

Review of State/Locals Program Modification Applications. The model estimates costs to 

EPA for reviewing State/Locals program modification requests. Based on the discussion in 

Appendix V, the model estimates that each authorized state environmental protection agency 

would submit three program modification applications to EPA, on average (i.e., one application 

for each receiving system). The other authorized State/Locals jurisdictions (e.g., county 

governments) would submit one application to EPA, on average. 

Table 2-4 presents the model’s input assumptions, which were used in conjunction with the EPA 

labor rates in Exhibit 2-3, to estimate the annual costs to EPA. 

Table 2-4. Model Inputs: Program Modification Applications 

Agencies 

EPA Hours per 

Application 

Review 

Number 

Applications 

Submitted per 

Agency 

Number of Applications Received 

and Time frame 

42 from state EPAs in 2007 

3 from state EPAs/yr in 2008 to 2011 

State EPAs 80 3 

2 from state EPAs in 2012 

111 from other State/Locals 

jurisdictions in 2007 

All Other 

State/Locals 

Jurisdictions* 

80 1 

27 from other State/Locals 

jurisdictions/yr in 2008 to 2012 

* Includes tribes, county air programs, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), state health departments, and state oil and gas

agencies. 

Processing of Paper/Electronic Submittals. The model assumes EPA would incur annual 

costs for processing paper and electronic submittals from direct reporters under all of the 

collections. Refer to Appendix VII for the model’s equation for deriving EPA’s annual costs.8 

2.3.1.2 “To Be” 

Development/Maintenance of the CDX. Table 2-5 presents the total annual estimated CDX 

development and maintenance costs. This includes, among other things, upgrading the CDX to 

implement the electronic signature agreement requirements (e.g., upgrading the CDX to control 

 

8 Note that Appendix VII discusses EPA’s approach for estimating costs to direct reporters in submitting information under the 

collections. However, EPA took an identical approach for estimating costs to EPA in processing the submittals under them. Refer to 

Figure VII-1 for the equation used in the model to estimate EPA costs in processing paper and electronic submittals under each of 

the collections. 
18 

registrants' access into their CDX accounts and data flows pending EPA receipt/approval of the 

agreement or notification of certification). The model assumes EPA would incur development 

and maintenance costs over the duration of the modeling period. Table 2-5 presents all of the 

model’s inputs. 

Table 2-5. Model Inputs: CDX Development and Maintenance Costs 

(in millions of dollars) 

 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Development $3.8 $4.4 $6.6 $10.9 $10.9 $11.2 $8.9 $6.6 $6.6 $6.6 $6.6 $6.6 $6.6 

Maintenance $0.4 $1.5 $1.3 $3.1 $3.1 $3.3 $3.6 $3.9 $3.9 $3.9 $3.9 $3.9 $3.9 

Total $4.2 $5.9 $7.9 $13.4 $14.0 $14.5 $12.5 $10.5 $10.5 $10.5 $10.5 $10.5 $10.5

Development of CROMERR. Table 2-6 presents all model inputs for estimating costs to EPA 

in developing CROMERR. 

The table also presents EPA’s costs for preparing for implementation of the electronic signature 

agreement provisions. The model assumes EPA would need to develop a process and 

procedures to implement the requirement for the electronic signature agreements, the 

agreement collection certifications, and related submittals. EPA will need to consider, among 

other things, appropriate routing, processing, and records management of the submittals when 

received by EPA; what the staff assignments and responsibilities will be; what policies and 

criteria will govern the review and approval process for the agreements; LRA applications; and 

certifications. 

Finally, the model assumes that EPA would prepare a brief guidance to assist registrants, local 

authorities, and EPA Help Desk staff in resolving questions or problems associated with the 

requirement. This could be in the form of a simple fact sheet or a question-and-answer 

document. EPA will need to purchase file cabinets for storing submittals under the electronic 

signature provision. 

Table 2-6. Model Input: CROMERR Development Costs 

 Development Period Total Development 

Costs 

Development of CROMERR 2000-2003 $1,547,502 

Planning/Development for Implementation of 

Electronic Signature Agreement Provisions 

2003-2004 $17,334 

Purchase of File Cabinets for Storing Electronic 

Signature Agreement and Certification 

Submittals 

2003-2012 $8,996 

Development of Automated Collections. The model assumes information collections would 

be automated according to the automation start dates presented in Appendix II for “To Be”. EPA 

would incur costs for converting their collections to an electronic format (e.g., developing Web 

form, and XML schema, etc.). EPA would also issue a Federal Register notice announcing the 

availability of electronic reporting of each collection. Table 2-7 presents the model’s input 

assumptions. 
19 

Table 2-7. Model Input: Developing Automated Collections 

Number of 

Information 

Collections 

Cost per 

Collection 

Development 

Period 

Conversion of Collections to 

Electronic Format 

68 $200,000 2 years 

Development of Federal 

Register Notice 

68 $300,000 1 year 

Help Desk. The model assumes that each registrant to the CDX would need to contact the 

program for assistance, and that EPA would incur costs for handling these calls. Refer to Tables 

2-15 and 2-16 for the number of employee registrants expected to contact EPA each year. 

Table 2-8 presents the model’s input assumptions, which were used in conjunction with the EPA 

labor rates in Exhibit 2-3 and the number of employee registrants in Tables 2-15 and 2-16, in 

order to estimate costs to EPA. 

Table 2-8. Model Inputs: Help Desk 

Annual Number of Calls Time/Call 

Varies* 8 minutes

 * Based on the annual number of employee registrants in Tables 2-15 and 2-16. 

Implementation of Electronic Signature Agreement Provisions. The model assumes that 

EPA will receive and process the subscriber agreements, certifications, and related documents 

submitted by small and medium-size/large direct reporters under the CDX’s electronic signature 

agreement provisions. These activities are described in Table 2-9, along with the burden 

assumptions for each submittal received by the Agency. Refer to Table 2-20 for the number of 

small and medium-size/large firms that will submit the paperwork each year. 

Table 2-9. Implementation of Electronic Signature Agreement Provisions 

Wet-Ink Signature 

Agreement

Burden 

Hrs/Submittal

O&M costs Annual Number of Submittals

Receive, process, 

review, approve, and 

file new subscriber 

agreements 

0.17 $0.00 Varies annually.* 

Receive, process, 

review, approve, and 

file new electronic 

agreements (employee 

turnover) 

0.17 $0.00 Varies annually.** Based on an 

assumption that registrants of small 

firms will submit new wet-ink 

agreements due to employee 

turnover. 

Receive, process, 

review, approve, and 

file wet-ink signature 

agreement renewals 

0.17 $0.00 Varies annually.** Model assumes 

small firms will renew their wet-ink 

agreements every 2 years by 

submitting a new wet-ink agreement. 

LRA Notification of Registered Users
20 

Wet-Ink Signature 

Agreement

Burden 

Hrs/Submittal

O&M costs Annual Number of Submittals

Receive application to 

designate first-time 

local authority 

0.5 $0.00 Varies annually.*** 

Receive, store, 

process, and review 

notification of 

registered users 

0.17 $0.00 Varies annually.*** 

Receive application to 

designate local 

authority (local 

authority 

turnover) 

0.5 $0.00 Varies annually.  The model 

assumes EPA will receive 

applications from some medium-size 

and large firms to designate a 

replacement local authority as a 

result of local authority turnover (e.g., 

if original local authority leaves the 

firm or transfer to another position). 

Receive, process, 

review, and approve 

updated notification of 

certificate (employee 

turnover) 

0.17 $0.00 Varies annually.** ** The model 

assumes each local authority will 

update their certifications as needed 

due to employee turnover. Updates 

will be made electronically via the 

CDX. EPA will need to review and 

validate these updates and reflect 

them in the appropriate CDX 

accounts. 

Receive notification of 

breach of storage 

security and take 

appropriate follow-up 

action 

1 $10.00 Varies annually.  A local authority 

is required to ensure the security of 

the wet-ink agreements in storage. If 

security is breached, the local 

authority will notify EPA. EPA will 

receive these notifications and take 

appropriate action. The model 

assumes 1 percent of medium-size 

and large firms experience a breach 

annually. 

Receive, process, 

review, and approve 

updated notification of 

certificate (breach of 

security) 

0.17 $0.00 Varies annually.** ** In response to a 

breach, each local authority will 

collect newly signed wet-ink 

agreements from employees and will 

store the signed agreements on-site. 

Local authorities will then send EPA 

the information required to update 

the CDX security profiles (list of 

employees, data flows for which 

each is authorized to represent the 

company, other pertinent 

information). 

Receive, process, 

review, approve, and 

0.5 $0.00 Varies annually.**** Each local 

authority is expected to renew their 
21 

Wet-Ink Signature 

Agreement

Burden 

Hrs/Submittal

O&M costs Annual Number of Submittals

file application 

renewals 

designation every 2 years. EPA will 

receive, review, and approve/deny 

the application and notify the local 

authority. 

Ongoing Management 

Identify and resolve 

problems 

1 $10.00 Varies annually based on the total 

number of direct facility and 

employee registrants to the CDX. 

The model assumes EPA will 

periodically encounter problems that 

require resolution. The model 

includes $10 per long-distance call to 

a facility to resolve the problem. The 

model assumes 3 percent of 

registrants will be involved in a 

problem that must be resolved 

annually. 

Respond to information 

requests 

1.5 $0.00 Varies annually based on the total 

number of direct facility and 

employee registrants to the CDX. 

The model assumes EPA will 

respond to FOIA requests, 

management inquiries, internal 

requests, and budget updates 

related to wet-ink-on-paper signature 

agreements to support the process. 

The model assumes that EPA will 

respond to information requests 

involving 3 percent of registrants’ 

accounts each year. 

* Based on the number of small direct reporter employees registering with the CDX each year. Refer to Table 2-20 for the annual

number of small direct reporter employee registrants. 

** Based on the number of small direct reporter facility employees that have registered with the CDX. Refer to Table 2-20 for the 

annual number of small direct reporter employee registrants. 

*** Based on the number of medium-size and large direct reporter employees registering with the CDX each year. Refer to Table 2-

20 for assumptions on the annual number of medium-size and large employee registrants. 

**** Based on the number of medium-size and large direct reporter employees that have registered with the CDX. Refer to Table 2-

20 for assumptions on the annual number of medium-size and large employee registrants. 

Review of State/Locals Program Modification Applications. The model estimates costs to 

EPA for reviewing program modifications from State/Locals. The model estimates that each 

authorized state EPA (i.e., state environmental protection agency) would submit one 

consolidated program modification application to EPA, on average. The other authorized 

State/Locals jurisdictions would submit one application to EPA, on average. 

Table 2-10 presents the model’s input assumptions, which were used in conjunction with the 

EPA labor rates in Exhibit 2-3, to estimate costs to EPA. 
22 

Table 2-10. Model Inputs: Program Modification Applications 

Agencies 

EPA Hours per 

Application 

Review 

Number 

Applications 

Submitted per 

Agency 

Number of Applications Received and Time 

frame 

42 from state EPAs in 2005 

3 from state EPAs/yr in 2006 to 2009 

State EPAs 160 1 

2 from state EPAs in 2010 

All Other 111 from other State/Locals jurisdictions in 2005 

State/Locals 

Jurisdictions* 

80 1 

27 from other State/Locals jurisdictions/yr in 2008 to 

2010 

 22 from other State/Locals jurisdictions in 2011 

 21 from other State/Locals jurisdictions in 2012 

* Includes tribes, county air programs, publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), state health departments, and state oil and gas

agencies. 

2.3.2 State and Local Environmental Programs 

Table 2-11 presents the total universe of authorized state environmental protection agencies 

and other authorized State/Locals jurisdictions. The model examines these State/Locals’ costs 

under “Baseline” and “To Be” for: 

■ Upgrading their receiving systems. 

■ Applying to EPA for program modification approval. 

Table 2-11. Authorized State EPAs and State/Locals Jurisdictions 

Entity Total Universe 

State EPA 56 

Tribes 20 

County Air Programs 40 

POTWs 412 

State Health Department 22 

State Oil and Gas Agencies 19 

Based on EPA’s best judgment, the model assumes that these agencies would upgrade their 

systems and apply for program modifications according to the following frequency: 

■ Seventy-five percent of state EPAs within the first 2 years of promulgation of EPA’s rules, 

and 5 percent annually thereafter. 

■ Forty-five percent of tribes within the first 2 years of EPA rule promulgation, and 10 percent 

annually thereafter. 
23 

■ Ten percent of POTWs within the first 2 years of EPA rule promulgation, and 5 percent 

annually thereafter. 

■ Seventy-five percent of all other State/Locals jurisdictions within the first 2 years of EPA rule 

promulgation, and 5 percent annually thereafter. 

2.3.2.1 “Baseline” 

Table 2-12 presents the model inputs for the number of State/Locals upgrading their receiving 

systems and developing/submitting their program modification applications under “Baseline”. 

Based on the discussion in Appendix V, the model assumes each state environmental 

protection agency would spend 180 hours in preparing/submitting each program application, 

and that each would submit three applications (i.e., one for each receiving system). The model 

assumes each of the other State/Locals jurisdictions would spend 180 hours in 

preparing/submitting one application. The model applies the data in Table 2-12 to these hourly 

estimates and the hourly State/Locals labor costs in Exhibit 2-3 in order to estimate annual 

costs to State/Locals in preparing/submitting their applications. In addition, the model estimates 

upgrade costs to State/Locals based on the data in Table 2-12 and the upgrade assumptions in 

Appendix V, Table V-4. 

Table 2-12. Model Inputs: State/Locals Receiving Systems Upgrades and 

Modification Application under “Baseline” 

Universe Timeframe* Number of Agencies Number of Receiving 

Systems 

2006 and 2007 42 126 

2007 and 2008 3 9 

2008 and 2009 3 9 

2009 and 2010 3 9 

2010 and 2011 3 9 

State EPA 

2011 and 2012 2 6 

2006 and 2007 111 111 

2007 and 2008 27 27 

2008 and 2009 27 27 

2009 and 2010 27 27 

2010 and 2011 27 27 

All other agencies 

2011 and 2012 27 27 

* Time frame pertains to agency’s development of their program modification requests and performance of startup upgrades to their 

receiving systems. It does not apply to their ongoing maintenance of their upgraded systems, because these costs would be 

incurred annually following the startup upgrade. 

2.3.2.2 “To Be” 

Table 2-13 presents the model inputs for State/Locals upgrades to their receiving system and 

development/submittal of their program modification applications under “To Be”. Based on the 

discussion in Appendix V, the model assumes each state environmental protection agency 

would spend 245 hours in preparing/submitting a consolidated modification application to EPA. 

In addition, EPA assumes that 10 percent of states adopting CROMERR annually will conduct a 
24 

rulemaking, incurring an additional 120 hours and $20,000 in contractor costs to support rule 

development. 

The model assumes each of the other State/Locals jurisdictions would spend 210 hours in 

preparing/submitting one application. The model applies the data in Table 2-13 to these hourly 

estimates and the hourly State/Locals labor costs in Exhibit 2-3 in order to estimate annual 

costs to State/Locals in preparing/submitting their applications. 

In addition, the model estimates upgrade costs to State/Locals based on the data in Table 2-13, 

in conjunction with the upgrade assumptions in Appendix V, Tables V-4 and V-7. 

Table 2-13. Model Inputs: State/Locals Receiving Systems Upgrades and 

Modification Applications under “To Be” 

Universe Timeframe* Number of 

Agencies** 

Number of Receiving 

Systems 

2004 and 2005 42 126 

2005 and 2006 3 9 

2006 and 2007 3 9 

2007 and 2008 3 9 

2008 and 2009 3 9 

2009 and 2010 2 6 

State EPA 

2010 and 2011 0 0 

2004 and 2005 111 111 

2005 and 2006 27 27 

2006 and 2007 27 27 

2007 and 2008 27 27 

2008 and 2009 27 27 

All other agencies 

2009 and 2010 27 27 

2010 and 2011 22 22 

2011 and 2012 21 21 

 *Time frame pertains to Agency’s development of their program modification requests and performance of startup upgrades to their 

receiving systems. It does not apply to their ongoing maintenance of their upgraded systems, because these costs would be 

incurred annually following the startup upgrade. 

**In both Tables 2-12 and 2-13, the “Number of Agencies” column refers to the number of agencies implementing electronic 

reporting. The total of agencies in this column is 43 less in Table 2-12 than in Table 2-13, because Table 2-12 reflects the Baseline 

(or “As Is” model) while 2-13 reflects CROMERR. Under the Baseline model, implementation begins two years later than under 

CROMERR, so – for the same 2004 - 2012 period – fewer systems (i.e. two years worth) implement under the Baseline than under 

CROMERR. That is, starting two years earlier, implementation under CROMERR reaches 43 more systems by 2012 than under 

the Baseline. 

In addition, the model assumes that State/Locals will receive and process the subscriber 

agreements, certifications and related documents submitted by indirect reporters under the 

rule’s electronic signature agreement provisions. These activities are described in Table 2-14, 
25 

along with the burden assumptions for each submittal received by the State/Locals. Refer to 

Table 2-20 for the number of small and medium-size/large firms that will submit the paperwork 

each year and a description of their activities. 

Table 2-14. State/Locals Implementation of Electronic Signature Agreement 

Provisions for Submissions by Indirect Reporters 

Wet-Ink Signature Agreement Burden 

Hrs/Submittal 

O&M Costs Annual Number of Submittals 

Receive, process, review, approve, 

and file new subscriber 

agreements 

0.17 $0.00 Varies annually.* 

Receive, process, review, approve, 

and file new electronic agreements 

(employee turnover) 

0.17 $0.00 Varies annually.** Based on an 

assumption that registrants of 

small firms will submit new wetink agreements due to employee 

turnover. 

Receive, process, review, approve, 

and file wet-ink signature 

agreement renewals 

0.17 $0.00 Varies annually.** Model 

assumes small firms will renew 

their wet-ink agreements every 2 

years by submitting a new wetink agreement. 

LRA Notification of Registered Users 

Receive application to designate 

first-time local authority 

0.50 $0.00 Varies annually.*** 

Receive, store, process and review 

notification of registered users 

0.17 $0.00 Varies annually.*** 

Receive application to designate 

local authority (local authority 

turnover) 

0.50 $0.00 Varies annually. The model 

assumes State/Locals will 

receive applications from some 

medium-size and large firms to 

designate a replacement local 

authority as a result of local 

authority turnover (e.g., if original 

local authority leaves the firm or 

transfer to another position). 

Receive, process, review, and 

approve updated notification of 

certificate (employee turnover) 

0.17 $0.00 Varies annually.** ** The model 

assumes each local authority will 

update their certifications as 

needed due to employee 

turnover. Updates will be made 

electronically via the 

State/Locals. The State/Locals 

will need to review and validate 

these updates and reflect them 

in the appropriate accounts. 

Receive notification of breach of 

storage security and take 

appropriate follow-up action 

1 $10.00 Varies annually.**** A local 

authority is required to ensure 

the security of the wet-ink 

agreements in storage. If 

security is breached, the local 

authority will notify the 

State/Locals. The State/Locals 

will receive these notifications 

and take appropriate action. The 

model assumes 1 percent of 

medium-size and large firms 

experience a breach annually. 

Ongoing Management 

Identify and resolve problems 1 $10.00 Varies annually based on the 
26 

Wet-Ink Signature Agreement Burden 

Hrs/Submittal 

O&M Costs Annual Number of Submittals 

total number of direct facility and 

employee registrants to the 

CDX. The model assumes the 

State/Locals will periodically 

encounter problems that require 

resolution. The model includes 

$10 per long-distance call to a 

facility to resolve the problem. 

The model assumes 3 percent of 

registrants will be involved in a 

problem that must be resolved 

annually. 

Respond to information requests 1.5 $0.00 Varies annually based on the 

total number of direct facility and 

employee registrants to the 

State/Locals system. The model 

assumes the State/Locals will 

respond to FOIA requests, 

management inquiries, internal 

requests, and budget updates 

related to wet-ink-on-paper 

signature agreements to support 

the process. The model 

assumes that EPA will respond 

to information requests involving 

3 percent of registrants’ 

accounts each year. 

* Based on the number of small direct reporter employees registering with the State/Locals systems each year. Refer to Table 2-20 

for the annual number of small direct reporter employee registrants. 

** Based on the number of small direct reporter facility employees that have registered with the State/Locals systems. Refer to Table 

2-20 for the annual number of small direct reporter employee registrants. 

*** Based on the number of medium-size and large direct reporter employees registering with the State/Locals systems each year.

Refer to Table 2-20 for assumptions on the annual number of medium-size and large employee registrants. 

**** Based on the number of medium-size and large direct reporter employees that have registered with the State/Locals systems.

Refer to Table 2-20 for assumptions on the annual number of medium-size and large employee registrants. 

2.3.3 Facilities 

As described in Appendix IX, EPA estimated the total number of facilities that will need to 

register with EPA's receiving systems under “Baseline” and “To Be”. EPA also estimated the 

number of employees within these facilities that will perform the registration process. EPA 

generally believes that the majority of facilities (89 percent) will be small (i.e., fewer than 20 

employees); the remainder (11 percent) are considered medium-size or large. EPA estimates 

that small facilities will designate three employees and medium-size and large facilities will 

designate six, on average. 

For both “Baseline” and “To Be”, the model applied the annual implementation rate, described in 

Exhibit 2-5, to the total number of registering employees (shown in Table IX-2 of Appendix IX) in 

order to estimate the annual number of employee registrants per year. The model took into 

account the automation start date of each collection under each scenario, as well as the number 

of direct reporters subject to these collections, in determining the number of registrants in each 

year. 

In general, EPA does not expect that registrants will incur any notable costs in registering or 

reporting electronically, except for the activities listed in Exhibit 2-1. In particular, EPA does not 

expect registrants to buy a personal computer or Internet access in order to report electronically. 

EPA assumes that facilities will pursue electronic reporting only if they already have, or plan to 
27 

purchase, computer capabilities as part of their normal business practices. Therefore, the model 

does not include costs to them for buying a computer or Internet access. 

Tables 2-15 and 2-16 present the annual number of facility and employee registrants to EPA 

under “Baseline” and “To Be” during 2003 through 2012. 

Table 2-15. Number of Facility and Employee Registrants under “Baseline”* 

 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Facilities 1,467 1,320 14,551 4,863 4,996 3,783 3,405 3,064 2,758 2,484 

Employee 

Registrants

4,885 4,396 48,455 16,194 16,637 12,597 11,339 10,203 9,184 8,265 

*Table includes rounding error. 

Table 2-16. Number of Facility and Employee Registrants under “To Be”* 

 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Facilities 14,830 8,302 5,221 3,986 3,588 3,229 2,906 2,615 2,354 2,118 

Employee 

Registrants

49,384 27,646 17,386 13,273 11,948 10,753 9,677 8,708 7,839 7,053 

* Table includes rounding error. 

2.3.3.1 “Baseline” and “To Be” 

Registration and Help Desk. The model assumes that, under “Baseline”, each employee 

registrant in Table 2-15 will register with 1.3 EPA receiving systems, on average.9

 The model 

assumes each employee registrant will need to call the EPA Help Desk each time they register. 

The model assumes that, under “To Be”, each employee registrant will register with the CDX 

once. It also assumes each employee registrant will call the Help Desk once. 

Table 2-17 presents model inputs for registration and Help Desk costs under “Baseline” and “To 

Be”. They were used in conjunction with the number of employee registrants in Table 2-15 and 

2-16, as well as the facility labor costs in Exhibit 2-3, to estimate registration and Help Desk 

costs to facilities under “Baseline” and “To Be”. EPA performed consultations with the industry 

representatives in Appendix XI in developing these estimates. 

 

9

 This 1.3-estimate is based on EPA’s analysis of facility data in its Envirofacts database, as described in Appendix VIII. 
28 

Table 2-17. Model Input: Registration and Help Desk 

Activity Annual Number of Employee 

Registrants 

Time/Registrant 

Registration Varies annually* 3 minutes under “Baseline” and “To 

Be” 

Help Desk Varies annually* 6 minutes under “Baseline”8 minutes 

under To Be 

* Based on the annual number of employee registrants in Table 2-15 for “Baseline” and 2-16 for “To Be”. 

Digital Signature Certification and Re-Certification. The model assumes that 20 percent of 

employee registrants would be required to submit enforcement-sensitive information to EPA. To 

preserve the integrity of the data submitted, the model assumes that these registrants would 

need to obtain and install a digital electronic signature certificate on their browser. EPA 

estimates that a registrant would need 30 minutes to obtain and install the certificate. The 

registrants would need to renew their registration with EPA every 2 years. 

Table 2-18 presents model inputs, which were used in conjunction with the facility labor rates in 

Exhibit 2-3 and the number of employee registrants in Table 2-15 or 2-16, in order to estimate 

costs for digital signature certifications. 

Table 2-18. Digital Signature Certification Costs 

Number of Registrants Requiring Digital Certificate Time/Certificate

Varies annually* 30 minutes 

* Based on 20 percent of the annual number of employee registrants in Table 2-15 or 2-16. 

2.3.4 Electronic Signature Agreement 

2.3.4.1 “Baseline” 

Under “Baseline”, facilities reporting to State/Locals receiving systems (i.e., indirect reporters) 

must ensure that their employees sign an electronic signature agreement. The annual number 

of facility employee registrants to State/Locals receiving systems is presented in Table V-5 of 

Appendix V. The model assumes that each employee would take 10 minutes to prepare, sign, 

and keep records of the signature agreement, on average. Refer to Appendix V for additional 

information on how EPA derived the number of employees registering with State/Locals 

systems. 

Table 2-19 presents the hour burden per employee registrant, which the model applied to the 

annual number of registrants in Table V-5 of Appendix V and the facility labor costs in Exhibit 2-

3, in order to estimate total costs to them. 

Table 2-19. Model Input: Electronic Signature Agreement Costs 

Number of Registrants Time/Registrant 

Varies* 10 minutes 

* Based on the annual number of employee registrants, as shown in Table V-5 of Appendix V. 
29 

2.3.4.2 “To Be” 

Under “To Be”, the model assumes that facilities that report to both EPA and State/Locals 

receiving systems must comply with the electronic signature agreement requirement for both 

EPA and the State/Locals systems. The model also assumes that facilities subject to multiple 

State/Locals receiving systems must comply with the requirement for each system. The model 

assumes that each indirect reporter reports to, on average, 2.5 State/Locals systems. 

Table 2-20 presents the annual number of direct and indirect reporting facilities and their 

employees that are expected to register with EPA or State/Locals receiving systems and 

become subject to the identity-proofing requirements. However, note that, in regard to 

compliance with the electronic signature agreement requirements, the model makes a number 

of additional assumptions to estimate the annual number of employees and facilities that will 

submit subscriber agreements, LRA certifications, and other paperwork to the CDX and 

State/Locals systems. 

The model assumes that small firms (i.e., 20 or fewer employees) would opt to have each of 

their employee registrants submit the wet-ink agreement directly to EPA or State/Locals. 

Specifically, the model assumes that a registrant would log onto the agency's receiving system, 

create an account, and generate a signature (e.g., PIN or password). They would then prepare 

and submit the subscriber agreement to the receiving agency and keep it on file. The agency 

would conduct a review of the agreement and, if accepted, open the system’s account so that 

the registrant can begin use. Employee registrants would renew their agreements every 2 years. 

The model assumes that small firms have, on average, three employee registrants each. In 

addition, the model assumes an annual employee turnover rate of 10 percent. 

The model assumes that medium- to large-sized firms would exercise the local authority option 

under EPA and State/Locals systems. The model assumes that the local authority would be an 

official designated by their entity to act in that capacity. To be designated as a local authority, 

the official must submit to EPA or State/Locals, a notarized affidavit of identity, as well as a 

written authorization from their entity that they are authorized to issue agreement collection 

certifications on its behalf. After being designated, the official would compile wet-ink signature 

agreements from their employee registrants, prepare an agreement collection certification, and 

store the documents in a secured location. The official would then electronically submit a 

notification to the receiving agency for review and approval. The agency would conduct a review 

of the notification and, if accepted, open the accounts so that the registrants can begin use. In 

addition, the model assumes an annual employees and local authority turnover rate of 10 

percent. 

The model assumes that medium- and large-sized firms own on average, three facilities, each 

of which has six employee registrants. Hence, medium- and large-sized firms are assumed to 

have, on average, 18 employee registrants each. 

Table 2-20 presents the annual number of direct and indirect facility and employee registrants, 

by firm size, that become subject to the electronic signature agreement requirements. 
30 

Table 2-20. Annual Number of Facility and Employee Registrants that Become 

Subject to Identity Proofing Requirements, by Firm Size 

 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Direct Reporters

Small Facilities 13,199 7,388 4,647 3,548 3,193 2,874 2,586 2,327 2,095 1,885 

Small Facility 

Employee 

Registrants 

39,597 22,164 13,941 10,644 9,579 8,622 7,758 6,981 6,285 5,655 

Medium/LargeSize Facilities 1,631 914 574 438 395 355 320 288 259 233 

Medium/LargeSize Facility 

Employee 

Registrants 

9,786 5,484 3,444 2,628 2,370 2,130 1,920 1,728 1,554 1,398 

Indirect Reporters 

Small Facilities - - 130.888 30,540 27,486 24,738 22,263 20,037 18,034 16,231 

Small Facility 

Employee 

Registrants 

- - 392,664 91,620 82,458 74,214 66,789 60,111 54,102 48,693 

Medium/LargeSize Facilities - - 16,177 3,775 3,397 3,058 2,752 2,477 2,229 2,006 

Medium/LargeSize Facility 

Employee 

Registrants 

- - 97,062 22,650 20,382 18,348 16,512 14,862 13,374 12,036 

XML and Flat File Mapping Costs. The model estimates XML and flat file mapping costs to the 

registrants shown in Table X-1 or X-2 of Appendix X for “Baseline” or “To Be”, respectively. 

Refer to the Appendix X for additional model assumptions. 

Reporting to EPA by Paper and Electronic Methods. The model estimates the total costs to 

direct reporters in preparing and submitting documents by paper and electronically. Refer to 

Appendix VII for the model’s equations in calculating these costs. 

Table 2-21 presents the activities and burden assumptions associated with direct and indirect 

reporter compliance with the electronic signature agreement requirements. These burden 

assumptions were multiplied by the facility employee labor rates shown in Exhibit 2-3 and the 

number of employee registrants in Table 2-20 in order to estimate costs to them. Note that all 

employee registrants in small firms are expected to submit a subscriber agreement when they 

register. Medium- and large-size firms are expected to designate a local registration authority 

that will collect and store subscriber agreements from the firm’s employees, prepare an 

agreement collection certification, and send a certification of receipt and secure storage to a 

receiving agency. 
31 

Table 2-21. Direct/Indirect Reporters Implementation of Electronic Signature 

Agreement Provisions with Burden Assumptions 

Facilities Hour 

Burden 

Capital/O&M 

Cost Number of Submittals 

Prepare, submit, and file 

wet-ink signature 

agreements 

0.25 $2.50 Varies annually.* Each small firm will 

submit wet-ink agreements for their 

employees using certified mail. This 

includes all new registrants in 2003 

through 2012 ($2.50/submittal). It also 

includes registrants that had registered 

with EPA or State/Locals system prior to 

publication of the final rule. The model 

assumes these registrants would have to 

submit their wet-ink agreements in 2004. 

Prepare, submit, and file 

new wet-ink signature 

agreements (employee 

turnover) 

0.25 $2.50 Varies annually.** Small firms must submit 

a new wet-ink signature agreement when 

it replaces an existing employee registrant 

(due to employee turnover). 

Renew wet-ink signature 

agreements 

0.25 $2.50 Varies annually.** Employee registrants at 

small firms must renew their signature 

agreements every 2 years. 

Develop a plan/process 

to collect and store wetink signature 

agreements, designate 

local authority, and 

submit application 

material 

12 $5.00 Varies annually.* Medium-size and large 

firms will develop a plan/process to 

comply with the requirement, identify who 

their local authority should be, and submit 

application materials to EPA or 

State/Locals to designate a local authority. 

The application must establish the identity 

of the individual by notarized affidavit and 

include written statement that the 

individual is authorized by the regulated 

entity to issue an agreement certificate on 

its behalf. This includes all new registrants 

in 2003 through 2012. It also includes 

registrants that had registered with EPA or 

State/Locals system prior to publication of 

the final rule. The model assumes these 

registrants would have to submit their 

applications in 2004. Model includes $2.50 

for notary public and $2.50 for certified 

mail delivery. 

Obtain legal counsel 1 $0.00 Varies annually.* Each medium-size and 

large firm will obtain legal counsel in 

establishing a process. 

Register local authority 

with CDX or State/Locals 

system 

0.183 $0.00 Varies annually.* Each local authority will 

establish an account at the CDX or 

State/Locals system so that they can 
32 

Facilities Hour 

Burden 

Capital/O&M 

Cost Number of Submittals 

transmit submittals electronically. The 

local authority will also ask questions of 

the identity-proofing requirement when 

they call the CDX or State/Locals Help 

Desk. 

Prepare/send wet-ink 

signature agreement to 

local authority 

0.25 $0.37 Varies annually.* All employee registrants 

within a medium-size or large firm must 

prepare and submit wet-ink agreements to 

the local authority. The model assumes 

the local authority is at an offsite local 

(e.g., headquarters office). 

Prepare local authority 

certification and submit 

notification of certificate 

1 $0.00 Varies annually.* Each local authority will 

store the signed agreements on-site. 

Local authorities will then send EPA the 

information required to update the CDX 

security profiles (list of employees, data 

flows for which each is authorized to 

represent the company, other pertinent 

information). EPA will receive/process the 

security information and review it for 

completeness and acceptability. 

Prepare/send new 

agreements to local 

authority (employee 

turnover) 

0.25 $0.37 Varies annually.** New wet-ink signature 

agreements will be prepared and sent by 

new employee registrants who replace an 

existing employee registrant who is 

leaving the company (employee turnover). 

The agreements will be sent to their local 

authority for record keeping. 

Submit updated 

notification of certificate 

(employee turnover) 

0.08 $0.00 Varies annually.** When the local 

authority receives the new wet-ink 

agreement from the replacement 

employee, they will file the agreement on 

site and electronically submit an updated 

notification of certificate to EPA or 

State/Locals system (employee turnover). 

Redesignate local 

authority and send 

application material (local 

authority turnover) 

1 $5.00 Varies annually.** Some local authorities 

will leave the firm (or current position/role) 

and have to be replaced. Their firm must 

identify a new local authority and submit a 

new application to EPA or State/Locals 

agency to designate him. 

Register new local 

authority 

0.183 $0.00 Varies annually.** The replacement local 

authority must register with the CDX in 

order to submit updates to the certification 

electronically. 
33 

Facilities Hour 

Burden 

Capital/O&M 

Cost Number of Submittals 

Report breach of storage 

security 

0.5 $0.00 Varies annually.** Some firms will 

experience a breach of security of their 

stored agreements. The local authority 

must report such breach. The model 

assumes 1 percent of medium-size and 

large firms will experience a breach 

annually. 

Prepare/send wet-ink 

signature agreement to 

local authority (breach of 

security) 

0.25 $0.37 Varies annually.** All employee registrants 

must prepare and submit a new wet-ink 

agreement to the local authority. 

Prepare and submit 

notification of certificate 

(breach of security) 

0.08 $0.00 Varies annually.** When the local 

authority receives the new wet-ink 

agreements from the employees, they will 

file the agreement on-site and 

electronically submit an updated 

notification of certificate to EPA or 

State/Locals system (employee turnover). 

Renew local authority 

designation 

1 $5.00 Varies annually.** The local authority must 

renew their designation every 2 years by 

resubmitting the application to EPA or 

State/Locals. Model includes $2.50 for 

notary public and $2.50 for certified mail 

delivery. 

Identify and resolve 

problems 

1 $0.00 Varies annually.** Some small, mediumsize, and large firms will have to work with 

EPA or State/Locals to resolve problems 

involving their agreements or 

certifications. The model assumes 3 

percent of registrants will be involved in a 

problem that must be resolved annually. 

*Based on the annual number of direct or indirect reporter employees registering with the CDX and/or State/Locals receiving system 

each year. 

**Based on the number of direct and indirect reporter employees that have already registered with the CDX and/or State/Locals 

receiving systems each year. 
34 

3.0 Conclusions and Findings 

3.1 Total Costs 

In this analysis, the "To Be" scenario represents the costs actually 

incurred to date under the rulemaking and CDX, as well as the expected 

costs going forward. As shown in Table 3-1, EPA estimates that the 

cumulative costs incurred by EPA, State/Locals, and facilities under "To 

Be" from 2003 to 2012 would be higher than their cumulative costs 

incurred under "Baseline" over the same period. The estimated total 

incremental costs under "To Be" range from $34.4 million to $41.7 

million, depending on the discount rate used. (Refer to Appendix XII for 

summary tables of the total annual costs to EPA, State/Locals, and 

facilities under "Baseline" and "To Be". The costs in Table 3-1 are based 

on the tables in the appendix. The tables in the appendix are not 

discounted, however.) 

Table 3-1. Total Cost Impacts under To Be”* (in millions of dollars) 

A Comparison of Total Cumulative Costs under "To Be" Relative to "Baseline" 

Between 2003 and 2012* (in millions of dollars) 

Entity 

**Cumulative Costs 

Baseline To Be 

Difference in 

Cumulative Costs 

To Be Relative to 

Baseline 

Difference in 

Cumulative Costs 

To Be Relative to 

Baseline 

Discounted at 7% 

Rate

Difference in 

Cumulative Costs 

To Be Relative to 

Baseline

Discounted at 3% 

Rate

EPA $ 703.78 $ 618.02 ($85.76) ($64.44) ($75.41) 

State/Locals $ 76.29 $ 149.04 $72.75 $57.19 $65.20 

Facilities $7039.34 $7101.31 $61.97 $41.61 $51.93 

Total $7819.41 $7868.37 $48.96 $34.36 $41.72 

*Cost savings shown in parentheses. 

**Not discounted. 

3.2 EPA 

EPA estimates an overall cost savings to EPA from 2003 to 2012 under "To Be" relative to 

"Baseline." As shown in Table 3-1, these estimated savings range from $64.4 million to $75.4 

million, depending on the discount rate used. Under both "Baseline" and "To Be," EPA must 

develop receiving systems and rules to allow for automated submittals. However, EPA would 

develop one gateway and rule under "To Be," instead of nine rules and gateways under 

"Baseline." In this regard, CROMERR/CDX would be more efficient than the approach under 

"Baseline," where nine programs would have to enable automation on a more piecemeal basis, 

which is less efficient. 

3.3 State/Locals 

EPA estimates that State/Locals will incur greater costs between 2003 and 2012 under "To Be" 

than "Baseline." As shown in Table 3-1, cumulative incremental costs to State/Locals under "To 

Be" are estimated to range from $57.2 million to $65.2 million, depending on the discount rate 

used. As an initial point, it is important to understand that the State/Locals’ costs estimated in 

the model for both "Baseline" and "To Be" are solely those costs that result from EPA's rules. 
35 

Specifically, the model examines State/Locals’ costs for complying with EPA rule requirements 

for upgrading their electronic receiving systems to meet EPA standards, applying to EPA for 

approval of their program changes, and administering electronic signature agreement provisions 

as applicable. The model does not consider the potential savings (e.g., efficiencies) to 

State/Locals in processing electronic submittals from indirect reporters, as these impacts are 

considered outside the scope of this analysis. 

One of the primary reasons for the greater costs under "To Be" is that State/Locals would be 

required to comply with more robust electronic signature agreement requirements than under 

"Baseline." Under "Baseline," it is assumed State/Locals would require indirect reporters to 

prepare and keep electronic signature agreements on site. Because State/Locals would not 

collect them, there is negligible cost to them under this requirement. Under "To Be," 

State/Locals need to perform significantly more activities. They must plan for implementation of 

the signature agreement provisions (e.g., develop systems for processing the paperwork) and 

carry out implementation activities (e.g., working with entities to designate an LRA, 

processing/filing agreements and other submittals received, and upgrading their receiving 

systems as appropriate). 

In addition, the model assumes that EPA would be more efficient in promulgating CROMERR 

under "To Be" than it would under "Baseline" in promulgating its program rules enabling 

automation. This greater efficiency leads to the earlier publication of CROMERR under "To Be" 

than publication of the program rules under "Baseline." Because of its earlier publication, 

CROMERR would prompt State/Locals to begin upgrading their systems and applying for EPA 

program modification approval sooner under "To Be" (i.e., beginning in 2004) than under 

"Baseline" (i.e., beginning in 2006). Once they finalize their initial system upgrades and submit 

their applications to EPA, they would begin to incur annual maintenance costs for their systems. 

In this regard, the model estimates State/Locals' upgrade and application costs under "To Be" 

for the period 2004 through 2012 (i.e., a 9-year period). The model estimates State/Locals' 

upgrade and application costs under "Baseline" for the period 2006 through 2012 (i.e., a 7-year 

period). As such, the cumulative costs to State/Locals under "To Be" involve a greater number 

of years than the cumulative costs for "Baseline." As a consequence, the cumulative costs 

under "To Be", including the cumulative discounted costs shown in Table 3-1, are greater. 

3.4 Facilities 

EPA estimates that facilities will incur greater costs between 2003 and 2012 under "To Be" than 

"Baseline." As shown in Table 3-1, incremental costs to facilities under "To Be" are estimated to 

range from $41.6 million to $51.9 million, depending on the discount rate used. 

The model examines cost impacts to both direct and indirect facility reporters. The model 

examines costs to direct and indirect reporters using different assumptions because they would 

be affected differently under EPA’s regulatory actions. 

With regard to direct reporters under “Baseline” and “To Be”, it is assumed the EPA’s 

rulemaking and other actions would enable them to report electronically to EPA under existing 

information collections, as an alternative to paper-based reporting. Direct reporters also would 

be subject to specific other requirements as applicable (e.g., registration with EPA receiving 

system). Therefore, the model estimates costs to direct reporters under “Baseline” and “To Be” 

for both (1) the ongoing reporting to EPA electronically and by paper and (2) compliance costs 

with specified other requirements. 

In this respect, the model assumes that direct reporters will incur some efficiencies and other 

benefits under "To Be" relative to “Baseline”. First, the model assumes they would have to 

register only once with the CDX under "To Be" because the gateway is Agency-wide. Under 
36 

"Baseline", they may need to register with multiple program gateways, because the programs 

would have separate gateways. Second, the model assumes that, by and large, direct reporters 

would begin reporting electronically to EPA sooner under “To Be” than “Baseline”. The model 

assumes that the Agency would be more efficient in establishing CROMERR and the CDX 

under “To Be” than in establishing program-specific rules and gateways under “Baseline”. 

Hence the model assumes the Agency would automate a number of its information collections 

sooner under “To Be”. This would allow direct reporters to begin experiencing the 

savings/efficiencies of electronic reporting sooner. However, the model assumes that direct 

reporters would not be required to comply with electronic signature agreement requirements 

under “Baseline”. By contrast, it assumes that direct reporters must comply with robust 

electronic signature agreement requirements under "To Be". They must conduct a number of 

activities under these requirements (e.g., prepare/submit agreement paperwork or implement an 

LRA approach). 

Despite the signature agreement costs under “To Be”, the model assumes that direct reporters 

would experience a net cumulative cost savings under “to Be” in comparison with “Baseline” 

during the period 2003 through 2012. (Note that Table 3-1 does not break out the respective 

cost impacts for direct-versus-indirect reporters. Rather, it shows only the combined cost of 

impacts during the period.) With regard to direct reporters under “Baseline” and “To Be”, it is 

assumed that EPA’s rulemaking actions would have no effect on indirect reporter costs, except 

to require State/Locals to impose electronic signature agreement provisions on them. It is 

assumed that the pace of State/Locals electronic reporting initiatives would not be affected by 

EPA’s regulatory actions and that indirect reporters would, therefore, implement electronic 

reporting on a schedule that is independent of EPA’s regulations. Hence, the model examines 

the costs to indirect reporters for complying with EPA electronic signature requirements. It does 

not examine their cost savings/efficiencies in reporting electronically tp State/Locals receiving 

systems on an ongoing basis because these impacts are considered outside the scope of this 

analysis. 

In this respect, the model assumes that the electronic signature provisions under "To Be" would 

be significantly more robust than under "Baseline." Under "Baseline," they would only prepare 

and keep records of an electronic signature agreement on site. Under "To Be," they must 

implement significantly more activities (e.g., prepare/submit electronic signature agreements or 

implement LRA approach, report to State/Locals as specified). The more robust electronic 

signature agreement provisions under "To Be" result in incremental costs to indirect reporters in 

comparison with "Baseline". Table 3-1 shows that the combined cumulative costs to direct and

indirect reporters under “To Be” are higher than their combined cumulative costs under 

“Baseline”. Specifically, the cost savings to direct reporters under “To Be” as described above 

are more than offset by the incremental costs to indirect reporters under the signature 

agreement requirements of “To Be”. 
37 

4.0 Sensitivity Analysis 

Based on past data on the CDX, the Agency estimates that 30 percent of facilities would 

implement electronic reporting during the first year of an information collection’s automation 

start date. The annual implementation rate is assumed to be 10 percent per annum during the 

rest of the modeling years. The model applies this rate to derive the total annual costs 

associated with both paper and electronic submittals, as well as the number of registrants each 

year. The implementation rate was applied on a collection-by-collection basis, based on the 

collection’s automation start date under “Baseline” or “To Be”. 

An information collection’s automation start date determines the percentage of facilities and 

submittals that will be automated by the end of the modeling period. As an example, information 

collections with an automation start date of 2003 would see 73 percent automation by the end of 

2012. The majority of collections would be automated in the 2003 to 2005 timeframe under 

“Baseline” and “To Be”. 

EPA notes, however, that these rates are speculative and subject to wide variation. Therefore, 

EPA performed sensitivity analyses to assess cost impacts using two different implementation 

rate scenarios: 

■ Scenario 1. An annual implementation rate of 25 percent for the first year in which an 

information collection is automated and 8.5 percent annually thereafter. As a basis of 

comparison to the annual implementation rate above (i.e., 30/10), an information collection 

with an automation start date of 2003 would see 66 percent automation by the end of 2012. 

■ Scenario 2. An annual implementation rate of 45 percent for the first year in which an 

information collection automates and 15 percent annually thereafter. As a basis of 

comparison to the annual implementation rate above (i.e., 30/10), an information collection 

with an automation start date of 2003 would see 87 percent automation by the end of 2012. 

Table 4-1 compares the overall cumulative costs to EPA, State/Locals, and facilities under “To 

Be” relative to “Baseline” under the three different implementation rate scenarios. The results 

suggest that the overall costs to these entities are sensitive to the annual implementation rate. 

For example, the annual implementation rates under Scenario 2 are 50 percent higher than the 

rates used in this analysis (i.e., 30/10). However, the costs under Scenario 2 are almost 70 

percent higher than that of the modeled scenario. 
38 

Table 4-1. A Comparison of Total Cumulative Costs under “To Be” Relative to 

“Baseline” Between 2003 and 2013* at Different Annual Automation Rates (in 

millions of dollars) 

Entity Difference in 

Cumulative Costs with 

Implementation Rates 

at 25% and 8.5% 

(Scenario 1) 

Difference in 

Cumulative Costs with 

Implementation Rates 

at 30% and 10% 

Difference in 

Cumulative Costs with 

Implementation Rates 

at 45% and 15% 

(Scenario 2) 

EPA ($64.55) ($64.44) ($64.25) 

States/Locals $53.36 $57.19 $67.31 

Facilities $36.48 $41.61 $55.11 

Total $25.30 $34.36 $58.17 

* Seven percent discount rate used. Cost savings shown in parentheses. 
39 

5.0 Qualitative Benefits of CROMERR and CDX 

5.1 Summary of Other Impacts 

The preceding analysis in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 of this memorandum examines the cost burden 

to EPA, State/Locals, and facilities solely with developing and implementing the identity-proofing 

requirement. The analysis does not consider other impacts, such as the following: 

■ The identity-proofing requirement will most likely discourage a number of facilities from 

choosing electronic reporting over paper reporting for certain information collections. Under 

the requirement, facilities would incur upfront and ongoing compliance costs (e.g., 

establishing a local authority, preparing the wet-ink-on-paper signature agreements, 

renewing the wet-ink-on-paper signature agreements). These compliance costs will partially 

or fully offset the cost savings that some facilities would expect from reporting electronically. 

This is particularly true for one-time and infrequent collections, as well as voluntary 

collections (e.g., surveys). As a result, a number of facilities will determine that electronic 

reporting under such collections is not cost effective or is simply inconvenient and opt for 

paper reporting. In the end, these facilities will not incur the burden savings/efficiencies 

associated with electronic reporting; rather, they will incur the higher burden associated with 

paper reporting. 

■ CSC has not performed any in-depth quantitative analysis to determine what the cost 

impacts would be. However, a review of the CROMERR CBA spreadsheets suggest that a 

1-percent decrease in facilities' annual automation rate with the CDX would translate into $2 

million or more in incremental costs to facilities annually. This suggests that costs under the 

CDX are highly influenced by minor changes in the automation rate and that the identityproofing requirement could have a significant cost impact beyond the cost estimates 

presented in Section 3.0 of this document. Impacts to facilities reporting to State/Locals 

receiving systems would likely be similar. 

■ Along these same lines, the identity-proofing requirement will likely discourage State/Locals 

from automating some of their information collections. This is partly because some 

State/Locals government offices will not want to incur the burden of planning for, and 

implementing the requirement, as it will require ongoing resources (e.g., receiving, 

processing, filing wet-ink-on-paper signature agreements). As described earlier in this 

analysis, some states may also need to conduct rulemakings to implement the requirement. 

Further, State/Locals will recognize that it would not be cost effective for facilities to report 

electronically under some collections (e.g., one-time collections, surveys), and therefore, the 

State/Locals will not automate them in the first place. 

Implementing electronic reporting under CROMERR and CDX will result in a number of 

important benefits that cannot readily be quantified. Some of the benefits are described below: 

■ More accurate data. Replacing paper forms with electronic forms will result in more 

accurate data. Electronic forms can perform real-time edit checks that will reduce the 

number of input errors. These checks can range from simple verification of valid date 

formats to complex validations of proper nomenclature and limits of chemicals emitted into 

the environment. Other aspects of data accuracy include: Duplication of data entry 

efforts. As they receive paper submissions, environmental agencies often key or scan in the 

data. That duplicative effort can result in data errors. These errors can cause confusion 

because the agency could act on information that is different from what the submitter 

believes was submitted. 
40 

– Time required for remediation. When data errors are detected by agencies, remedial 

action must be undertaken. These remedial actions require participation by both the 

submitter and the receiving agencies, and are extremely time-consuming. 

– Effect of inaccurate data. If the data that passes through agency systems is inaccurate 

and made publicly available, it creates additional costs and inefficiencies and could lead to 

more significant problems, such as enforcement actions. The effect of inaccurate data has 

reached a point that EPA has initiated a data-correction effort. This initiative uses Help 

Desk personnel to receive calls, take complaints, and oversee corrective action. 

■ Data becomes available more quickly. The process of creating, mailing, receiving, 

entering, verifying, and correcting paper reports consumes both resources and time. This 

delays the ability of EPA to analyze data and make it available to the public. 

■ More Enforcement Certainty . The purpose of CROMERR is primarily 

to ensure that as State, Tribal or local governments implement electronic 

reporting for the EPA-authorized or delegated programs they administer, 

the electronic documents that receive are as legally dependable as their 

paper counterparts, especially for purposes of providing evidence in the 

context of legal proceedings of who attested by signature to the truth and 

accuracy of what data. The requirements set by CROMERR are 

specifically designed to provide for this legal dependability, and they will 

do so by providing: 

– standards for valid electronic signatures and authentic electronic 

documents – to be admitted as evidence in a judicial proceeding, 

electronic signatures and documents may need to be shown to satisfy 

standards of validity and authenticity. Absent clearly identifiable 

standards, it may be difficult to environmental litigators to make such a 

showing. CROMERR will provide such standards. 

– assurance that electronic documents can be authenticated – to 

provide evidence of what an individual submitted and/or attested to, 

there must be clear and straightforward methods of showing that the 

electronic document an environmental agency received is in fact what 

the individual submitted. CROMERR requirements for electronic 

document receiving systems will ensure that these systems receive and 

maintain electronic documents so as to ensure that such authentication 

methods are available. 

– assurance that electronic signatures resist repudiation by the 

signatory – in at least some enforcement proceedings, a critical issue 

is whether a particular individual is responsible for the content of a 

submitted document, and the issue turns on whether that individual was 

the signatory of the certification statement. If the individual in question 

is able to repudiate his or her electronic signature – that is, successfully 

deny that it was his or hers -- then the enforcement case may collapse. 

CROMERR requirements for electronic signatures, and for the identity 

proofing needed to issue a signature device or credential, are designed 

to ensure that signatories are not able to repudiate signatures that they 

create, that is, that there is sufficient evidence to show when an 

individual has created a signature. 

By providing for these and other facets of an electronic document’s legal dependability, 

CROMERR provides certainty that EPA and its authorized or delegated programs can continue 
41 

to ensure compliance with environmental laws and statutes by being able to hold individuals 

responsible for being truthful when they report on their companies’ compliance status. By the 

same token, CROMERR also provides certainty that when EPA or its authorized or delegated 

programs discover actionable cases of false or fraudulent reporting that they will have the 

documentary evidence they need to bring such cases into court. 

6.0 Limitations of the Analysis 

The following paragraphs describe the model’s primary limitations. 

■ Information Collections under the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants (NESHAPS). The model examines only one information collection under 

NESHAPS, (i.e., the NESHAPS collection on radionuclides). EPA intends to use this 

collection as a model for incorporating additional NESHAPS collections into the CDX over 

the coming years. At present, however, the inclusion of these additional collections into the 

CDX is in a state of flux, and therefore, they have not been examined in the model. It is 

important to note, however, that insofar as additional NESHAPS collections are incorporated 

into the CDX during the modeling period, the model's results do not reflect their associated 

costs or benefits. 

■ Annual Implementation Rate. The costs presented in Sections 2.0 and 3.0 reflect an 

annual implementation rate for electronic reporting of 30 percent of facilities during the first 

year of an information collection’s automation start date. The annual implementation rate is 

assumed to be 10 percent per annum for the rest of the modeling years. EPA notes that 

these rates are a simplifying assumption, since they likely will vary greater depending on 

many factors. Because of this, EPA has performed sensitivity runs based on different 

implementation rates. 

■ “Baseline” Automation Start Dates. EPA believes that, under “Baseline”, 

EPA would generally be less expedient in promulgating rules that would allow 

for automation. The model assumes that, in comparison to the automation 

start dates under “To Be”, information collections under “Baseline” would be 

delayed by 2 years. For example, the model assumes that, under “To Be”, the 

OSWER's Notification Form would be automated in 2003. As such, the model 

assumes that it would be automated in 2005 under “Baseline”. EPA notes, 

however, that its assumption of a 2-year delay is speculative. In terms of the 

regulatory impact analysis, changes in our assumptions about the “Baseline” 

(or “As Is”) automation start date would affect the outcome as follows, based 

on Appendix XII Tables XII-5 and XII-8 and assuming that the period of 

analysis remained 2004 - 2012, . If we moved the assumed start date 

forward two years, to 2004, then the “Baseline” costs to facilities would 

decrease by approximately $56 million, while the Baseline costs to states 

would increase by approximately $16 million, yielding a net “Baseline” cost 

decrease of approximately $40 million. If we moved the assumed start date 

back two years, to 2008, then the “Baseline” costs for facilities would increase 

by approximately $30 million, while the “Baseline” costs to states would 

decrease by approximately $16 million, yielding a net “Baseline” cost increase 

of approximately $14 million. In general then, it appears that moving the 

assumed Baseline automation start date forward lowers the net Baseline 

costs to the benefit of facilities but not states, while moving the assumed date 

back raises the net Baseline costs to the detriment of facilities but not states. 

■ Scaling Factors. The model examines the cost impacts associated with direct reporters in 

submitting paper and electronic reports to EPA under “Baseline” and “To Be”. As explained 
42 

in Appendix IV, EPA reviewed each information collection, extracted the hour burden, and 

attempted to determine the percent of hours associated only with direct reporters. To do so, 

EPA developed "scaling factors" based on state authorization assumptions. The scaling 

factors were then applied to the hour burden of each collection, as described in Appendix 

VII. 

EPA notes, however, that these scaling factors are based on the highly simplified assumption 

that authorized states collect all the information under their programs. This is not necessarily the 

case, e.g., where states are authorized for only portions of an EPA program, or where EPA 

shares program administration with states. 

■ Upgrade Costs. In estimating upgrade costs to State/Locals, EPA examined the state 

summary table (Table V-7, State Overview) in Appendix V. EPA attempted to identify 

State/Locals receiving systems that would not satisfy CROMERR standards (e.g., copy of 

record requirements). Although EPA believes its estimates are reasonable, it notes that they 

are highly speculative, since State/Locals-specific factors (e.g., enforcement priorities, state 

resources, etc.) will determine the State/Locals’ need for upgrading its systems. 
43 

Appendix I. Information Collections To Be Automated by EPA 

Table I-1. Information Collections To Be Automated* 

Office 

Name ICR Title ICR 

Number 

Automation 

Date 

OAR EPA Indoor Environmental Quality, Occupant 

Questionnaire 

1619.03 9/30/99 

OARM General Administrative Requirements for Assistance 

Programs 

938.08 9/1/2000 

OEI Toxic Chemical Release Reporting, Recordkeeping, 

Supplier Notification and Petitions 

1363.11 9/1/2000 

OARM General Administrative Requirements for Assistance 

Programs 

938.08 9/30/2000 

OARM General Administrative Requirements for Assistance 

Programs 

938.08 9/30/2000 

OARM General Administrative Requirements for Assistance 

Programs 

938.08 9/30/2000 

OAR Acid Rain Program under Title IV of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990 

1633.12 10/30/2000 

OAR Acid Rain Program under Title IV of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990 

1633.12 10/30/2000 

OAR Acid Rain Program under Title IV of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990 

1633.12 10/30/2000 

OAR Acid Rain Program under Title IV of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990 

1633.12 10/30/2000 

OW Clean Water Needs Survey 318.09 12/31/2000 

OPPTS TSCA Section 12(b) Notification of Chemical Exports 795.10 9/30/2001 

OPPTS Partial Updating of TSCA Inventory Data Base; 

Production and Site Reports 

1011.05 9/30/2001 

OA Amendment to Regulatory Reinvention Pilot Projects 

(Project XL) ICR; New York State 

1755.06 10/30/2001 

OGC National Roster of Environmental Dispute Resolution and 

Consensus Building 

1888.01 10/30/2001 

OAR Acid Rain Program under Title IV of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990 

1633.12 5/1/2002 

OPPTS Voluntary Cover Sheet for TSCA Submissions 1780.02 9/1/2002 
44 

Office 

Name ICR Title ICR 

Number 

Automation 

Date 

OARM General Administrative Requirements for Assistance 

Programs 

938.08 9/30/2002 

OARM General Administrative Requirements for Assistance 

Programs 

938.08 9/30/2002 

OW Questionnaire for Operations and Maintenance, 

Biosolids Use, Combined Sewer Over 

1287.06 9/30/2002 

OW CWA State Revolving Fund Program 1391.06 9/30/2002 

OW National Water Quality Inventory Reports (TMDL Final 

Rule: Clean Water Act Section 

1560.06 9/30/2002 

OW Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program (DWSRF) 1803.03 9/30/2002 

OAR Acid Rain Program under Title IV of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990 

1633.12 10/30/2002 

OAR NESHAPS: Radionuclides 1100.11 12/31/2002 

OARM General Administrative Requirements for Assistance 

Programs 

938.08 9/30/2003 

OARM General Administrative Requirements for Assistance 

Programs 

938.08 9/30/2003 

OARM General Administrative Requirements for Assistance 

Programs 

938.08 9/30/2003 

OARM General Administrative Requirements for Assistance 

Programs 

938.08 9/30/2003 

OARM General Administrative Requirements for Assistance 

Programs 

938.08 9/30/2003 

OARM General Administrative Requirements for Assistance 

Programs 

938.08 9/30/2003 

OARM General Administrative Requirements for Assistance 

Programs 

938.08 9/30/2003 

OW Water Alliances for Voluntary Efficiency (WAVE) 

Program 

1654.03 9/30/2003 

OAR IAQ Practices in Large Buildings Survey 1917.01 9/30/2003 

OW National Program to Regulate Nondomestic Discharges 

to Municipal Sanitary Sewer 

2.09 10/31/2003 

OAR Importation Requirements for Importation of 10.09 10/31/2003 
45 

Office 

Name ICR Title ICR 

Number 

Automation 

Date 

Nonconforming Vehicles 

OAR Motor Vehicle and Non-Road Engine Exclusion 

Determination 

12.11 10/31/2003 

OW Modification of Secondary Treatment Requirements for 

Discharges into Marine Water 

138.06 10/31/2003 

OAR Investigations into Possible Noncompliance of Motor 

Vehicle with Federal Emission 

222.05 10/31/2003 

OW Applications for NPDES Discharge Permits and the 

Sewage Sludge Management Permit 

226.15 10/31/2003 

OW Applications for NPDES Discharge Permits and the 

Sewage Sludge Management Permit 

226.15 10/31/2003 

OW Applications for NPDES Discharge Permits and the 

Sewage Sludge 

226.15 10/31/2003 

OW Applications for NPDES Discharge Permits and the 

Sewage Sludge Management Permit 

226.15 10/31/2003 

OW Applications for NPDES Discharge Permits and the 

Sewage Sludge Management Permit 

226.15 10/31/2003 

OW Applications for NPDES Discharge Permits and the 

Sewage Sludge Management Permit 

226.15 10/31/2003 

OW Applications for NPDES Discharge Permits and the 

Sewage Sludge Management Permit 

226.15 10/31/2003 

OW Application for NPDES Discharge Permits and the 

Sewage Sludge Management Permits 

226.15 10/31/2003 

OW Application for NPDES Discharge Permits and the 

Sewage Sludge Management Permits 

226.15 10/31/2003 

OW Applications for NPDES Discharge Permits and the 

Sewage Sludge Management Permit 

226.15 10/31/2003 

OW NPDES DMR ICR 229.15 10/31/2003 

OSWER Notification of Regulated Waste Activity 261.13 10/31/2003 

OSWER RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit Application and 

Modification, Part A 

262.09 10/31/2003 

OW Revision to the Existing Variance and Exemptions Rule 

to Comply with the Safe Dr 

270.41 10/31/2003 
46 

Office 

Name ICR Title ICR 

Number 

Automation 

Date 

OAR Emission Defect Information and Voluntary Emission 

Recall Reports 

282.12 10/31/2003 

OAR Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives 309.10 10/31/2003 

OAR Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives 309.10 10/31/2003 

OAR Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives 309.10 10/31/2003 

OAR Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Requirements 

for Manufacturers 

309.10 10/31/2003 

OAR Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives 309.10 10/31/2003 

OAR Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives 309.10 10/31/2003 

OAR Registration of Fuels and Fuel Additives 309.10 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 
47 

Office 

Name ICR Title ICR 

Number 

Automation 

Date 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2003 

OSWER Requirements for Generators, Transporters and 

Disposers under the RCRA Hazardous 

801.14 10/31/2003 

OW Construction Grants Program 827.05 10/31/2003 

OARM General Administrative Requirements for Assistance 

Programs 

938.08 10/31/2003 

OW Water Quality Standards Regulation 988.08 10/31/2003 

OARM Oral and Written Purchase Orders 1037.06 10/31/2003 

OARM IFBs and RFPs 1038.10 10/31/2003 

OARM IFBs and RFPs 1038.10 10/31/2003 

OARM Monthly Progress Reports (EPA contracts office) 1039.09 10/31/2003 

OSWER Application for Reimbursement to Local Governments for 

Emergency Response toHaz 

1425.05 10/31/2003 

OSWER EPA Worker Protection Standard for Hazardous Waste 

Operations & Emergency Response 

1426.05 10/31/2003 

OAR Recordkeeping and Periodic Reporting of the Production, 

Import, of Ozone-Depletion 

1432.21 10/31/2003 

OAR Modifications to Standards and Requirements for 

Reformulated and Conventional Ga 

1591.14 10/31/2003 

OAR Modifications to Standards and Requirements for 

Reformulated and Conventional Ga 

1591.14 10/31/2003 
48 

Office 

Name ICR Title ICR 

Number 

Automation 

Date 

OAR Servicing of Motor Vehicle Air Conditioners 1617.03 10/31/2003 

OAR National Recycling and Emissions Reduction Program 1626.07 10/31/2003 

OAR Compression Ignition Non-Road Engine Certification 

Application 

1684.05 10/31/2003 

OAR Certification and Averaging, Banking, and Trading for 

Nonroad Spark Ignition Eng 

1695.07 10/31/2003 

OAR Fuels and Fuel Additives Registration Regulations: 

Health Effects Protocols (40C 

1696.03 10/31/2003 

OSWER Reporting and Recording Requirements under EPA’s 

Wastewise Program 

1698.04 10/31/2003 

OAR Retrofit/Rebuild Requirements for 1993 and Earlier 

Model Year Urban Buses 

1702.03 10/31/2003 

OAR Spark Ignition Marine Engine Application for Emission 

Certification and Participation 

1722.03 10/31/2003 

OAR Marine Engine Manufacturers Production Line Testing 

Reporting and Recordkeeping 

1725.03 10/31/2003 

OAR Marine Engine Manufacturer In-Use Emission Testing 

Program and Recordkeeping Req 

1726.03 10/31/2003 

OAR Information Requirements for Locomotives and 

Locomotive Engines 

1800.02 10/31/2003 

OW National Health Protection Survey of Beaches 1814.02 10/31/2003 

OW Phase II of the NPDES Stormwater Program (Final Rule 

ICR) 

1820.02 10/31/2003 

OW Consumer Confidence Reports 1832.02 10/31/2003 

OW Notice of Intent for Storm Water discharges Associated 

with Construction Activity 

1842.02 10/31/2003 

OW Revisions to UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells; 

Final Rule ICR 

1874.02 10/31/2003 

OW Unregulated Contaminants Monitoring Regulation 1882.02 10/31/2003 

OW Final National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; 

Interim Enhanced Surface Water 

1895.02 10/31/2003 

OW Final National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; 

Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfe 

1896.03 10/31/2003 
49 

Office 

Name ICR Title ICR 

Number 

Automation 

Date 

OW Public Water System Supervision Program Public 

Notification Requirements (Final 

1898.02 10/31/2003 

OARM Synopses of Proposed Contract Actions and Market 

Research Activity 

1910.01 10/31/2003 

OW National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead 

and Copper; Final Rule 

1912.01 10/31/2003 

OAR Alternate Threshold for Low Annual Reportable 

Amounts; Toxic Chemical Reporting 

1704.05 10/31/2003 

OAR Exclusion Determinations for New Non-road Sparkignited Engines at and Below 20 1852.02 11/1/2003 

OAR Acid Rain Program under Title IV of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990 

1633.12 12/1/2003 

OAR Acid Rain Program under Title IV of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990 

1633.12 12/31/2003 

OW Beach Closing Survey Report on the Great Lakes 994.05 10/30/2003 

OAR Transition Program for Equipment Manufacturers, 40 

CFR Part 89.101 

1862.02 10/31/2003 

OAR EPA's Natural Gas STAR Program 1763.03 10/31/2003 

OAR Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Economy Compliance; 

Light Duty Vehicles; Light Duty Trucks and Motorcycles 

783.42 2004 

OPPTS TSCA Section 402/404 Training, Certification, 

Accreditation and Standards for Lead-Based Paint 

Activities 

1715.03 2004 

OAR Acid Rain Program under Title IV of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990 

1633.12 12/1/2005 

OAR Acid Rain Program under Title IV of the CAA 

Amendments of 1990 

1633.12 12/31/2005 

OPPTS Request for Contractor Access to TSCA Confidential 

Business Information 

1250.06 2005 

OPPTS Correction of Misreported Chemical Substances on the 

Toxic Substances Control Act 

1741.03 2005 
50 

Office 

Name ICR Title ICR 

Number 

Automation 

Date 

OPPTS Pre-Manufacture Review Reporting and Exemption 

Requirements for New Chemical 

574.11 2005 

OPPTS PCBs: Consolidated Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

1446.07 2005 

OPPTS PCBs: Consolidated Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

1446.07 2005 

* This table lists all the ICRs to be automated by the CDX as identified by the EPA programs. Note that certain programs listed an 

ICR more than once if it contained multiple collections that will be automated through the CDX. For example, UIC ICR #370.18 is

listed multiple times for each collection in the ICR that will be automated. On the other hand, other EPA programs listed an ICR once 

regardless of the number of collections it contained. 
51 

Appendix II. Information Collections Under Which Direct Reporting Will Occur 

As described in Section 1, this CBA estimates costs to (1) EPA for developing and implementing 

electronic reporting under its programs (e.g., building portals, publishing rules, implementing 

identity proofing); (2) State/Locals for upgrading their receiving systems, applying for EPA 

program modification approval, and implementing identity proofing; (3) direct reporters for 

registering with the CDX and complying with identity-proofing requirements, as applicable, and 

reporting by paper or electronically under information collections to be automated by EPA (direct 

reporting); and (4) indirect reporters for complying with identity-proofing requirements under 

information collections automated by State/Locals. 

The EPA programs identified 137 information collections to be automated by EPA during the 

modeling period. These information collections are currently contained in 73 ICRs, which 

estimate the hour and cost burden to respondents and the Agency. 

In reviewing the 137 information collections, EPA noted two types of information collections that 

required particular consideration in estimating costs to direct reporters. One type included 

collections that would not be implemented by EPA under the CROMERR/CDX (the hazardous 

waste manifest system will be automated independently of CROMERR and the CDX). Any 

information collection that would not be implemented under CROMERR/CDX was excluded 

from analysis in this CBA. 

The other type included collections that are fully administered by State/Locals in lieu of EPA. 

For purposes of this analysis, EPA assumed that collections under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and 

the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) are fully administered by the states; and hence, only 

indirect reporters would have an opportunity to report electronically under them. 1 For this 

reason, the CBA does not estimate any costs to direct reporters under them. The CBA does, 

however, estimate costs to State/Locals in upgrading their receiving systems, applying for EPA 

program modification approval, and implementing identity proofing under them, as applicable. 

The CBA also estimates costs to indirect reporters for complying with identity-proofing 

requirements under them, as applicable. 

Based on the above assumptions, the CBA estimates the costs of direct reporting under 68 

information collections. These collections are listed in Table II-1, along with their automation 

start dates under “Baseline” and “To Be”. 

Table II-1 lists all the ICRs to be automated by the CDX as identified by the EPA programs. 

Note that certain programs listed an ICR more than once if it contained multiple collections that 

will be automated through the CDX. For example, UIC ICR #370.18 is listed multiple times for 

each collection in the ICR that will be automated. On the other hand, other EPA programs listed 

an ICR once regardless of the number of collections it contained. 

 

1

 The only CAA information collection in the model is the radionuclide emissions reports under NESHAPS (ICR #1100.11). This 

collection is administered primarily by EPA, not the states. EPA intends to use this collection as a model for incorporating additional 

NESHAPS collections into the CDX over the coming years. At present, however, the inclusion of these additional collections into the 

CDX is in a state of flux, and therefore, they have not been examined in the model. 
52 

Table II-1. Information Collections Under Which Direct Reporting Will Occur* 

Office 

Name ICR Title ICR Number Automation Date “Baseline”

Automation Date 

“To Be” 

OEI Toxic Chemical Release Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, Supplier 

Notification and Petitions 

1363.11 9/1/2000 9/1/2000 

OW Clean Water Needs Survey 318.09 12/31/2000 12/31/2000 

OPPTS TSCA Section 12(b) Notification of 

Chemical Exports 

795.1 9/30/2001 9/30/2001 

OPPTS Partial Updating of TSCA Inventory 

Data Base; Production and Site 

Reports 

1011.05 9/30/2001 9/30/2001 

OA Amendment to Regulatory 

Reinvention Pilot Projects (Project 

XL) ICR; New York State 

1755.06 10/30/2001 10/30/2001 

OGC National Roster of Environmental 

Dispute Resolution and Consensus 

Building 

1888.01 10/30/2001 10/30/2001 

OPPTS Voluntary Cover Sheet for TSCA 

Submissions 

1780.02 9/1/2002 9/1/2002 

OW Questionnaire for Operations and 

Maintenance, Biosolids Use, 

Combined Sewer Over 

1287.06 9/30/2002 9/30/2002 

OW CWA State Revolving Fund 

Program 

1391.06 9/30/2002 9/30/2002 

OW National Water Quality Inventory 

Reports (TMDL Final Rule: Clean 

Water Act Section 

1560.06 9/30/2002 9/30/2002 

OW Drinking Water State Revolving 

Fund Program (DWSRF) 

1803.03 9/30/2002 9/30/2002 

OAR NESHAPS: Radionuclides 1100.11 12/31/2002 12/31/2002 

OW Water Alliances for Voluntary 

Efficiency (WAVE) Program 

1654.03 9/30/2005 9/30/2003 

OAR IAQ Practices in Large Buildings 

Survey 

1917.01 9/30/2005 37893 

OW National Program to Regulate 

Nondomestic Discharges to 

Municipal Sanitary Sewer 

2.09 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW Modification of Secondary 

Treatment Requirements for 

Discharges into Marine Water 

138.06 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW Applications for NPDES Discharge 

Permits and the Sewage Sludge 

226.15 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 
53 

Office 

Name ICR Title ICR Number Automation Date “Baseline”

Automation Date 

“To Be” 

Management Permit 

OW Applications for NPDES Discharge 

Permits and the Sewage Sludge 

Management Permit 

226.15 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW Applications for NPDES Discharge 

Permits and the Sewage Sludge 

226.15 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW Applications for NPDES Discharge 

Permits and the Sewage Sludge 

Management Permit 

226.15 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW Applications for NPDES Discharge 

Permits and the Sewage Sludge 

Management Permit 

226.15 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW Applications for NPDES Discharge 

Permits and the Sewage Sludge 

Management Permit 

226.15 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW Applications for NPDES Discharge 

Permits and the Sewage Sludge 

Management Permit 

226.15 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW Application for NPDES Discharge 

Permits and the Sewage Sludge 

Management Permits 

226.15 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW Application for NPDES Discharge 

Permits and the Sewage Sludge 

Management Permits 

226.15 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW Applications for NPDES Discharge 

Permits and the Sewage Sludge 

Management Permit 

226.15 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW NPDES DMR ICR 229.15 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OSWER Notification of Regulated Waste 

Activity 

261.13 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OSWER RCRA Hazardous Waste Permit 

Application and Modification, Part A

262.09 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 
54 

Office 

Name ICR Title ICR Number Automation Date “Baseline”

Automation Date 

“To Be” 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW UIC Program 370.18 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW Construction Grants Program 827.05 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW Water Quality Standards Regulation 988.08 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OSWER Application for Reimbursement to 

Local Governments for Emergency 

Response to Hazardous Substance 

Releases 

1425.05 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OSWER Reporting and Recording 

Requirements under EPA's 

Wastewise Program 

1698.04 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW National Health Protection Survey 

of Beaches 

1814.02 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW Phase II of the NPDES Stormwater 

Program (Final Rule ICR) 

1820.02 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OW Notice of Intent for Storm Water 

discharges Associated with 

Construction Activity 

1842.02 10/31/2005 10/31/2003 

OAR Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel 783.42 2006 2004 
55 

Office 

Name ICR Title ICR Number Automation Date “Baseline”

Automation Date 

“To Be” 

Economy Compliance; Light Duty 

Vehicles; Light Duty Trucks and 

Motorcycles 

OPPTS TSCA Section 402/404 Training, 

Certification, Accreditation and 

Standards for Lead-Based Paint 

Activities 

1715.03 2006 2004 

OPPTS Request for Contractor Access to 

TSCA Confidential Business 

Information 

1250.06 2007 2005 

OPPTS Correction of Misreported Chemical 

Substances on the Toxic 

Substances Control Act 

1741.03 2007 2005 

OPPTS Pre-Manufacture Review Reporting 

and Exemption Requirements for 

New Chemical 

574.11 2007 2005 

OPPTS PCBs: Consolidated Reporting and 

Recordkeeping Requirements 

1446.07 2007 2005 

OPPTS PCBs: Consolidated Reporting and 

Recordkeeping Requirements 

1446.07 2007 2005 

* In developing automation start dates for “Baseline”, EPA assumed that an information collection would be delayed by 2 years in 

relation to “To Be”. Hence, each information collection under “Baseline” begins 2 years after its automation start date under “To Be 

”.
56 

Appendix III. Summary of the Model Data and Assumptions 

Table III-1 summarizes the primary model data and assumptions used in estimating costs to 

EPA, State/Locals, and facilities. Table III-1 summarizes the primary data and assumptions for 

all activities taken by these entities under “Baseline” and “To Be”. 

Table III-1. Summary of the Model Data and Assumptions* 

Estimate of Parameter 

Parameters “Baseline” 

Scenario 

“To Be” 

Scenario 

Scope of the Rule 

The model estimates the annual cost impact to EPA, State/Locals, and facilities under two 

scenarios: 

 An “Baseline” scenario, in which EPA would enable electronic reporting through an approach 

other than CROMERR and CDX; and 

 A “To Be” scenario, in which EPA enables electronic reporting under CROMERR and CDX. 

In both scenarios, the model includes activities and costs most likely to be incurred by these 

entities in complying with EPA’s rules and receiving systems. 

In developing the model, EPA surveyed all of its programs and identified all information collections 

that they expect to automate over the coming years, as well as the expected date of automation 

(i.e., "automation start date").** EPA reviewed their feedback and determined that a number of 

collections were outside the scope of the model’s analysis. Hence they are not included in the 

model: 

 Information collections being implemented, or planned to be implemented, under a separate, 

non-CDX receiving system. These include information collections under the Reformulated 

Gas, RCRA Manifest System, and Acid Rain Programs. 

 Information collections implemented under non-EPA programs, e.g., the Federal Acquisition 

Regulations (i.e., 48 CFR). 

Number of Information Collections Included in the Model 68 

Environmental Protection Agency Activities and Burdens 

Portal and Rule Development 

Under the “Baseline” scenario, EPA estimates that nine program areas would develop a portal and 

rulemaking for receiving electronic submissions: OAR-OMS, OAR-OAQPS, OPPTS-TSCA, 

OPPTS-FIFRA, OSWER-OSW, OSWER-CEPPO, OSWER-CERCLA, OW-NPDES, and OWSDW. Under the “To Be” scenario, EPA assumes that CDX and CROMERR would be developed. 

Total Number of Portals Developed 9 1 

Total Development Cost per Portal $6.2 million $95.6 million 

Annual Maintenance Cost per Portal $2.1 million $0.4 million to 

$3.9 million 

Total Number of Rulemakings 9 1

Development of Automated Collections 

Under both the “Baseline” and “To Be” scenarios, the model assumes that EPA would incur costs 

for converting each collection to an electronic format. Under the “To Be” scenario, EPA would also 

issue a Federal Register notice announcing the availability of electronic reporting of each 
57 

Estimate of Parameter 

Parameters “Baseline” 

Scenario 

“To Be” 

Scenario 

collection. 

Total Cost for Converting Each Collection to Electronic Format $0.2 million 

Total Number of Federal Register Notices Prepared NA 68 

Total Development Cost per Federal Register Notice NA $0.03 million 

Help Desk 

Under the “Baseline” scenario, the model assumes that each employee registrant to a program’s 

portal would need to contact the program for assistance. Further, EPA has determined that EPAregulated facilities are subject to 1.3 EPA programs on average. Therefore, the model assumes 

that each employee registrant would make 1.3 calls to EPA’s Help Desk on average. Under the 

“To Be” scenario, the model assumes that each employee registrant to the CDX would make one 

call to EPA’s Help Desk. 

Total Number of Calls per Registrant 1.3 1 

Time per Call 6 minutes 8 minutes 

Implementation 

Wet-Ink-on-Paper Signature Agreements 

Receive, process, review, approve, and file new wet-ink-on-paper 

signature agreements 

0.17

Receive, process, review, approve, and file new wet-ink-on-paper 

signature agreements (employee turnover) 

 0.17 

Receive, process, review, approve, and file wet-ink-on-paper 

signature agreements renewals 

 0.17 

LRA Certification and Notification of Registered Users 

Receive application to designate first-time local authority 0.5 

Receive, store, process and review notification of registered users 0.17 

Receive application to designate local authority (local authority 

turnover) 

 0.5 

Receive, process, review, and approve updated notification of 

certificate (employee turnover) 

 0.17 

Receive notification of breach of storage security and take 

appropriate follow-up action 

 1 

Receive, process, review, and approve updated notification of 

certificate (breach of security) 

 0.17 

Receive, process, review, approve, and file application renewals 0.5 
58 

Estimate of Parameter 

Parameters “Baseline” 

Scenario 

“To Be” 

Scenario 

Ongoing Management 

Identify and resolve problems 1 

Respond to information requests 1.5 

Review of State/Locals Program Modification Applications 

The model estimates costs to EPA for reviewing program 

modification applications from State/Locals. Under the “Baseline” 

scenario, the model assumes that each authorized state 

environmental protection agency would submit three program 

modification applications to EPA on average. Under the “To Be” 

scenario, the model assumes that each authorized state 

environmental protection agency would submit one consolidated 

program modification application to EPA. In addition, the model 

assumes that under both the “Baseline” and “To Be” scenarios, 

“other authorized State/Locals jurisdictions” (e.g., county 

governments) would each submit one application to EPA on 

average. 

3 1 

Total Number of Applications submitted by each State EPA 80 160 

Total EPA Hours for Review/Approval of a State EPA Application 1 

Total Number of Applications submitted by each “Other 

State/Locals Jurisdiction” 

80 

Total EPA Hours for Review/Approval of an “Other State/Locals Jurisdiction” Application 

Wet-ink-on-paper signature agreements 20 

Develop a process for collecting, processing, and storing wet-inkon-paper signature agreements  8 

Local Registration Authority (LRA) Certification and Notification of Registered Users 

Develop a process for collecting, processing, and storing 

applications and other submittals 

 20 

Develop Web certification guidance 8 

Processing of Paper/Electronic Submittals 

The model assumes EPA would incur annual costs for processing paper and electronic submittals 

from direct reporters under all of the collections under “Baseline” and “To Be”. Refer to Figure VII1 of Appendix VII for the equation used in the model to estimate EPA costs in processing paper 

and electronic submittals under each of the collections. (Although the equation, as written, is 

directed at facility burden in submitting information, the model uses the same equation to estimate 

EPA burden in processing submittals.) 
59 

Estimate of Parameter 

Parameters “Baseline” 

Scenario 

“To Be” 

Scenario 

State and Local Environmental Programs Activities and Burdens 

Number of State/Locals Jurisdictions Expected to Have Electronic Receiving Systems 

During Modeling Period 

EPA believes that many State/Locals jurisdictions are 

implementing or are planning to implement electronic receiving 

systems. The model assumes that a percentage of State/Locals 

will upgrade their systems and apply for EPA program 

modification approval throughout the modeling period. Refer to 

Section 2.3.2 of this document for the percentage of State/Locals 

expected to upgrade and apply for modification approval each 

year. 

56 

Number of State EPAs Examined During the Modeling Period 20 

Number of Tribes Examined During the Modeling Period 40 

Number of County Air Programs Examined During the Modeling 

Period 

412*** 

Number of POTWs Examined During the Modeling Period 22 

Number of State Health Departments Examined During the 

Modeling Period 

19 

Number of Oil and Gas Agencies Examined During the Modeling 

Period 

Upgrade Costs 

Under the “To Be” scenario, EPA believes that a percentage of 

State/Locals would need to upgrade their receiving systems to 

make them CROMERR-compliant. EPA believes that the 

standards established under EPA’s rules under the “Baseline” 

scenario would be comparable in scope and stringency to 

CROMERR and the CDX and hence would require the same level 

of upgrades. Following is information on the features expected to 

be upgraded and the percentage of State/Locals performing the 

upgrades under “Baseline” and “To Be”. 

Upfront Start-up: $50,000 - 

$208,333 

Annual Maintenance: 

$10,000 -$28,333 

Copy of Record (COR) Upgrade Costs 58% 

Percent of State/Locals Receiving Systems that Would Need 

COR Upgrade 

Upfront Start-up: $25,000

Annual Maintenance: $600 

Secure Socket Layer (SSL) Upgrade Costs 27% 

Percent of State/Locals Receiving Systems that Would Need SSL 

Upgrade 

Upfront Start-up: $56,000

Annual Maintenance: NA 

Email Notification Upgrade Costs 7% 
60 

Estimate of Parameter 

Parameters “Baseline” 

Scenario 

“To Be” 

Scenario 

Percent of State/Locals Receiving Systems that Would Need Email Notification Upgrade Upfront Start-up: $15,270 

Annual Maintenance: NA

Electronic Signature Upgrade Costs 100% 

Percent of State/Locals Receiving Systems that Would Need 

Electronic Signature Upgrade 

 

Program Modification Application 3 1 

Total Number of Applications Submitted per State EPA 1 

Total Number of Applications Submitted per “Other State/Locals 

Jurisdiction” 

180 225 to 425 

Total Hours per State EPA for Application Development/Submittal 180 225 

Total Hours per “Other State/Locals Jurisdiction” for Application 

Development/Submittal 

 

Wet-Ink-On-Paper Signature Agreements 20 

Develop a process for collecting, processing, and storing wet-inkon-paper signature agreements 8 

Develop Web guidance 

Facility Activities and Burdens

Direct Reporters 9 minutes 11 minutes 

Time for Registration and Help Desk per Employee Registrant 30 minutes 

Time for Digital Signature Certification and Re-Certification per 

Employee Registrant 

20% 

Percent of Employee Registrants that will Require Digital 

Signature 

Refer to Appendix VII 

Costs for reporting to EPA by paper and electronic methods 

Indirect Reporters under Electronic Signature Agreement for 

“Baseline” Scenario 

10 minutes See 

“Electronic 

Signature 

Agreement” 

below 

Time per employee registrant to prepare, sign, and keep records of electronic signature 

agreement
61 

Estimate of Parameter 

Parameters “Baseline” 

Scenario 

“To Be” 

Scenario 

Direct and Indirect Reporters under Electronic Signature Agreement for “To Be” 

Implementation 

Small facilities/wet-ink-on-paper signature agreements 

Prepare, submit, and file wet-ink-on-paper signature agreements 0.25 

Prepare, submit, and file new wet-ink-on-paper signature 

agreements (employee turnover) 

 0.25 

Help Desk/technical support 0.033 

Renew wet-ink-on-paper signature agreements 0.25 

Medium-Size and Large Facilities/Local Registration Authority 

Develop a plan/process to collect and wet-ink-on-paper signature 

agreements, designate local authority, and submit application 

material 

 12 

Obtain legal counsel 1 

Register local authority with CDX or State/Locals system 0.183 

Prepare/send wet-ink-on-paper signature agreements to local 

authority 

 0.25 

Prepare local authority certification and submit notification of 

certificate 

 1 

Prepare/send new wet-ink-on-paper signature agreements to 

local authority (employee turnover) 

 0.25 

Submit updated notification of certificate (employee turnover) 0.08 

Re-designate local authority and send application material (local 

authority turnover) 

 1 

Register new local authority 0.183 

Report breach of storage security 0.5 

Prepare/send wet-ink-on-paper signature agreements to local 

authority (breach of security) 

 0.25 

Prepare and submit notification of certificate (breach of security) 0.08 

Renew local authority designation 1 

Ongoing Management 

Identify and resolve problems 1 
62 

Estimate of Parameter 

Parameters “Baseline” 

Scenario 

“To Be” 

Scenario 

Other Model Operating Parameters 

Annual implementation Rates for Electronic Reporting 

The annual implementation rate is the rate at which direct 

reporters would adopt electronic reporting each year under each 

information collection. The costs in this chapter reflect a 30-

percent first-year implementation rate and a 10-percent rate per 

annum thereafter. The model applies this rate to derive the total 

annual costs associated with both paper and electronic 

submittals, as well as the number of registrants each year. The 

implementation rate was applied on a collection-by-collection 

basis, based on the collection’s automation start date under 

“Baseline” or “To Be”. 

An information collection’s automation start date determines the 

percentage of facilities and submittals that will be automated by 

the end of the modeling period. As an example, information 

collections with an automation start date of 2003 would see 73 

percent automation by the end of 2012. The majority of 

collections would be automated in the 2003 to 2005 timeframe 

under “Baseline” and “To Be”. 

The results presented in Section 3 and the appendices of this 

CBA are based on the central rates shown below. In Section 4 of 

this document, EPA conducted sensitivity runs using the low and 

high rates, referred to as Scenario 1 and Scenario 2, respectively, 

in Section 4. 

First Year: 25% 

Annually thereafter: 8.5% 

Low Implementation Rate First Year: 30% 

Annually thereafter: 10% 

Central Implementation Rate First Year: 45% 

Annually thereafter: 15% 

High Implementation Rate N/A 

Electronic Reporting Savings Rate 

The model assumes that facilities that report electronically would 

save time and costs per document preparation and submittal in 

comparison with paper submittals. 

10% 

Percent of Time Saved Per Document Submittal (Web Form) 25% 

Percent of Time Saved Per Document Submittal (XML/Flat File) N/A 
63 

Estimate of Parameter 

Parameters “Baseline” 

Scenario 

“To Be” 

Scenario 

Usage Rate of Web Forms and XML/Flat File 

The model assumes that EPA would make both Web forms and 

XML/flat file available to reporters under all 68 collections. The 

model assumes that most small and medium-size reporters, as 

well as some large reporters, will opt for Web forms. The model 

assumes that a subpopulation of medium-size and large reporters 

will opt for XML/flat file for all of their electronic reporting. Refer to 

Appendix X for more information on XML and flat file 

assumptions. 

94% 

Annual Percent of Electronic Reporters Using Web Forms 6% 

Annual Percent of Electronic Reporters Using XML or Flat File N/A 

*This table presents the basic data and assumptions used in the model. Refer to Section 2 for additional discussion on how the data 

and assumptions were incorporated into the model. 

**The automation start dates under “To Be” reflect EPA program feedback. In developing automation start dates for “Baseline”, EPA 

assumed that an information collection would be delayed by 2 years in relation to its start date under “To Be”. 

***The model assumes that 10% of POTWs would implement electronic receiving systems in the first 2 years of EPA rule 

promulgation and 5% annually thereafter. Because the modeling period for State/Locals receiving system implementation spans 

roughly 7 years, the model does not assume that all 412 POTWs would implement electronic systems during that timeframe. 
64 

Appendix IV. Labor Rates Used in the Analysis 

As described in Section 2, EPA accessed two data sources for the model’s hourly labor costs. 

For facility reporting costs under specific collections, EPA referred to the average hourly labor 

costs in the corresponding ICR. For all other labor activities, EPA developed its own costs. In 

doing so, EPA developed weighted-average labor cost for EPA, State/Locals, and facilities. The 

weighted average costs reflect an assumed “weight” for each labor category, i.e., the percent of 

time that the labor category is assumed to be involved in the activities being modeled. EPA 

developed the weights using its best judgment. EPA multiplied each weight by the 

corresponding average loaded hourly rate (i.e., loaded with fringe and overhead) and summed 

these products in order to derive a single loaded hourly rate for each labor category for EPA, 

State/Locals, and facilities, respectively. 

■ For EPA employees, EPA referred to the 2002 General Services Pay Schedule to ascertain 

the annual average salary of legal, managerial, technical, and administrative staff. EPA 

divided total annual salaries by 2080, the total hours in the work-year, to derive annual 

hours. EPA then applied a 1.6 loading factor to account for overhead and fringe. 

■ For State/Locals employees, EPA referred to Table 3, Employer costs per hour worked for 

employee compensation and costs as a percent of total compensation: State and Local 

government, by selected characteristics, June 2002, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of 

Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation-June 2002. 

■ For facility employees, EPA referred to Table 5, Employer costs per hour worked for 

employee compensation and costs as a percent of total compensation: Private industry 

workers, by major industry group, June 2002, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor 

Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation–June 2002. 

Updated hourly wage rates were inflated to 2003 dollars. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) 

employment cost index (available at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.t02.htm) was used to 

inflate the wage rates. 

The tables below present these loaded rates and corresponding weights. Refer to Exhibit 2-3 for 

the weighted-average rates used in the model. 

Table IV-1. Labor Rates and Weight for EPA Employees 

Labor Category Wage Weight 

Lawyers $65.59 10% 

Managers $55.94 20% 

Technical Staff $40.40 50% 

Administrative Staff $18.65 20% 
65 

Table IV-2. Labor Rates and Weight for State/Locals Employees 

Labor Category Wage Weight 

Lawyers $43.28 10% 

Managers $40.58 20% 

Technical Staff $27.53 50% 

Administrative Staff $21.07 20% 

Table IV-3. Labor Rates and Weight for Facility Employees 

Labor Category Wage Weight 

Lawyers $69.34 10% 

Managers $51.47 20% 

Technical Staff $34.69 50% 

Administrative Staff $23.25 20% 

Contractors $93.51 
66 

Appendix V. State Survey Data 

During the Summer of 2002, EPA consulted with regulators in 15 states to learn about their 

automation activities and receiving systems. EPA believes the states contacted are sufficiently 

representative of all states in the U.S. to enable an extrapolation of the summary data to all 

State/Locals. 

Tables V-1 through V-3 present the raw data used in estimating cost impacts to State/Locals 

and facilities under the “Baseline” and “To Be” scenarios. 

EPA reviewed the data in the tables to: 

■ Estimate the average number of receiving systems per state environmental protection 

agency and other State/Locals jurisdictions. EPA’s review of the state data suggests that the 

state environmental protection agencies are implementing, or plan to implement, three 

receiving systems on average. Therefore, the model assumes that each state environmental 

protection agency would implement three receiving systems, on average, during the 

duration of the modeling period. Based on the table, the model also assumes that other 

State/Locals jurisdictions (e.g., county agencies, etc.) would implement one receiving 

system, on average. 

■ Estimate the percentage of receiving systems that would need to upgrade to meet 

CROMERR’s standards at 40 CFR 3.2000. EPA’s review of the state survey data, in relation 

to the 3.2000 standards, suggests the following upgrades would be needed: 

– Copy of Record with Context (40 CFR 3.2000(b)). EPA identified eight or nine of the 15 

state receiving systems that potentially would not satisfy the 3.2000(b) standard for copy 

of record with context. Therefore, the model extrapolates to the universe State/Locals to 

assume that 58 percent of their receiving systems would need to be upgraded for copy of 

record with context. 

– EPA used its best judgment to estimate the costs associated with each of the upgrade 

options below. EPA was unable to collect sufficient information to enable it to precisely 

predict the level of upgrades needed for the state environmental protection agencies’ 

receiving systems. Therefore, the model derived the average startup and maintenance 

cost across all three options (i.e., $208,000 in startup and $28,333 in annual maintenance 

costs), and assumed the state environmental protection agencies would incur these 

average costs for each receiving system. 

Copy of Record Upgrade Costs 

Upgrade Options Initial/Startup Cost Annual Maintenance Cost 

Print out and file hardcopy of each 

submittal and keep transaction log 

$50,000 $10,000 

Use Web upload approach that captures 

transaction history and copy of record 

$20,000 $25,000 

Reconfigure backend of receiving system 

to enable electronic archiving of records 

$375,000 $50,000 

– The model assumes that the other State/Locals jurisdictions would generally be collecting 

less enforcement-sensitive information from facilities and face greater resource limitations 

than the state environmental protection agencies. Therefore, the model assumes that, on 

average, these other State/Locals jurisdictions would opt for the least-cost option of 

maintaining a paper-based copy of record system (i.e., $50,000 in start up and $10,000 

ongoing maintenance). 
67 

– Secure Sockets Layer. EPA expects that all State/Locals receiving system would need to 

have SSL to provide for data encryption, server authentication, and message integrity 

among other things. The state survey table suggests that four states’ receiving systems do 

not have SSL technology. Therefore, the model assumes that 27 percent of State/Locals 

receiving systems would need to be upgraded for SSL. EPA used its best judgment to 

estimate one-time SSL costs of $25,000 for network administration and $600/yr for 

maintaining the vendor certificate. 

– E-mail Notification. EPA expects that all State/Locals receiving systems would need to 

have a process to confirm receipt of the facilities’ electronic submittals. The model 

assumes notification would be accomplished by sending an e-mail confirmation to the 

facility’s e-mail inbox. EPA’s review of the state summary table suggests that one state 

has a receiving system that would need to be upgraded for e-mail notification. Therefore, 

the model assumes that 7 percent of State/Locals systems would need to be upgraded for 

e-mail notification. EPA used its best judgment to estimate one-time upgrade costs of 

$56,000 per system. This includes $12,000 to $20,000 for an e-mail server and $40,000 to 

bring the e-mail server online. 

– Electronic Signature (40 CFR 3.2000(a) (2)). EPA’s review of the state summary table 

suggests that 50 percent of receiving systems do not have electronic signature features in 

satisfaction of CROMERR. However, EPA does not expect that all receiving systems 

would need to be upgraded. Rather, only those systems that receive information of a 

sufficiently enforcement-sensitive nature would need to meet the signature standards. 

EPA used its best judgment to assume that 20 percent of these receiving systems would 

receive sensitive information and need to upgrade (i.e., 50% x 20% = 10% of receiving 

systems). The model assumes these state systems would need to implement a process 

for maintaining a database of registrants’ signature information. The model assumes this 

would require about 0.25 of a full-time equivalent, at about $15,270/system/year. 

Refer to Table V-4 for EPA’s upgrade cost estimates and the percentage of State/Locals 

performing the upgrades annually. 

– Estimate the average hour burden to State/Locals in applying to EPA for program 

modification approval. EPA’s review of the state summary table suggests that, on average, 

a State/Local would take about 180 hours/program to apply to EPA for program 

modification approval. EPA believes this per-program estimate is relevant to state 

environmental protection agencies under the “Baseline” scenario, since they would be 

submitting program-specific applications to EPA. The estimate is also appropriate for other 

State/Locals jurisdictions under both “Baseline” and “To Be”, because it is assumed they 

generally administer one program. For state EPAs under “To Be”, EPA believes the 

burden for preparing the consolidated program modification application would be greater, 

because it would encompass all of the Agency’s receiving systems across its programs. 

The State Overview Table suggests that it would take a state environmental protection 

agency about 245 hours under “To Be” for preparing/submitting the consolidated 

application. 

– Estimate the number of facilities reporting to State/Locals receiving systems (i.e., indirect 

reporters). EPA tallied up the total number of electronic reporters to the 15 states’ 

receiving systems and extrapolated to the U.S., to estimate the total number of indirect 

reporters that would report electronically. In total, EPA estimates that 490,218 indirect 

facilities would be reporting electronically. 

Refer to Tables V-5 and V-6 for EPA’s estimated number of indirect employee registrants. 
68 

Table V-1. State Overview 

System Credential Signature Scenario Archive System 

Security

E-mail 

notification 

(Y = yes, 

N = no, 

U = under 

consideration)

Transmission 

Protocol 

(E = Email, 

HS = HTTPS, 

H = HTTP)

States P = 

Planned 

or E = 

Existing 

System(s)

Staff Mgmt PS = 

Shared 

PIN; PA = 

PIN SelfAssigned; 

DS = 

Digital 

Signature 

Warnings A = Affix 

Signature 

to 

Document; 

S = pr 

Associated; 

NA = No 

Signature

Human 

readable

CORCOR w. 

context 

or 

audit 

trail

Hash/ 

Sign

General 

Arizona P 320 20 PS 1 S Y Y N Y Y HS

Florida E 240 20 PA, PS 1 A Y N Y Y Y N

Georgia P NONE 0 NA Y N N N Y N

Illinois P DS 1 A Y N Y Y Y Y HS,

Kentucky P PS, 

Encryption 

Mississippi E PS, 

Encryption 

Nebraska (oil 

and gas)

E 320 20 PS 1 S Y N N N Y Y H, HS

North Dakota 

(OIL and 

GAS)

E 120 20 PS 1 S Y N N N Y N E, H

New Mexico E 200 20 PS, 

Encryption

1 A Y N Y Y Y U E

P PS 1 S Y N N N Y U HS

New Jersey P 120 15 PS 1 A Y N N N Y Y HS

E PS, 

Encryption

1 S Y N Y Y Y N

Ohio E 320 20 PS 1 S y N N N Y E,

Pennsylvania P 320 40 PS 1 A Y Y N N Y Y HS

E PS 1 S Y Y N N Y E

Tennessee P PS, 

Encryption 

Virginia P DS 1 A Y N Y Y Y HS, H

Wisconsin E PS, HASH 1 A Y N Y N Y Y

Table V-2. Existing State Receiving Systems 

State Existing Systems 

 Start Date Program Number of 

Entities 

Arizona 

Florida 2000 EDMR 3 

Georgia 

Illinois 

Kentucky 

Michigan 
69 

State Existing Systems 

 Start Date Program Number of 

Entities 

Mississippi 

Nebraska (oil and gas) 

North Dakota (oil and gas) 2000 UIC 250 

New Mexico 1999 Air (NEI) 200 

New Jersey 2000 Air (CEM) 12 

2000 EPCRA(Tier II) 28000 

2002 UST 1000 

2002 P2 250 

2002 Air Permits 1500 

Ohio 2001 HW annual report 480 

2000 Drinking/Ground Water 5700 

1999 Wastewater 1550 

1999 Air title V emissions 780 

1999 Air Permits (PTIs) 200 

1999 Risk Management 500 

1999 PTO applications 780 

1999 Emission Reports (non-title V) 2400 

Pennsylvania Air Facility Trust 4000 

Air Quality 125 

Asbestos Notification 6000 

Texas 

Tennessee 

Virginia 

Wisconsin 2002 Consolidated (air, haz waste) 5800 

2002 EDMR 22 

Table V-3. Planned State Receiving Systems 

State Planned Systems 

Start 

Date 

Implementation 

Date Program Number of 

Entities 

Arizona 37621 37986 Drinking Water 1800 

37986 38352 NPDES (NOI) 60000 
70 

State Planned Systems 

Start 

Date 

Implementation 

Date Program Number of 

Entities 

Florida 37621 37986 NPDES (DMR) 900 

37543 37986 Drinking Water 7000 

Georgia 37680 37986 EPCRA (Tier II) 5000 

Illinois 37621 37986 DMR 800 

Indiana 

Kentucky 

Michigan 

Mississippi 

Nebraska (oil and gas) 37621 37986 UIC 177 

North Dakota (oil and gas) 37621 UIC 250 

New Mexico 37621 37986 Air Excess 

Emissions 

1000 

 

37621 1/2 /04 NEI 1000 

37621 37988 Title V 200 

37986 37989 Air Emissions Scan 

New Jersey 37590 Water (DMR) 2000 

Ohio 37621 37986 HW Annual report 1200 

37621 37986 Drinking Water 

Ground Water 

5700 

37621 37986 Wastewater 

37621 37986 Air title V emissions 780 

37621 37986 Air Permits 200 

37621 37986 Risk Management 500 

37621 37986 PTO applications 780 
71 

State Planned Systems 

Start 

Date 

Implementation 

Date Program Number of 

Entities 

37621 37986 Emission Reports 

(non-title V) 

2400 

Pennsylvania 37772 38138 DMR 6000 

Texas 

Tennessee 

Virginia 37346 37955 DMRs 3000 

Wisconsin 37955 38321 DMRs 1800 

 Compliance NESHAPS 

Table V-4. Summary of State/Locals System Upgrade Costs Per Receiving System 

 Copy of Record SSL Email Notification E-Signature 

 Cost Per System 

Upgrade 

Cost Per System 

Upgrade 

 Startup 

Cost 

Annual 

Maintenance

% of 

Systems 

Needing 

Upgrade Startup 

Cost 

Annual 

Maintenance

% of 

Systems 

Needing 

Upgrade

Cost 

Per 

System 

Upgrade

% of 

Systems 

Needing 

Upgrade

Cost 

Per 

System 

Upgrade

% of 

Systems 

Needing 

Upgrade

State 

EPAs 

$208,333 $28,333 58% $25,000 $600 27% $56,000 7% $15,270 10% 

All Other 

State and 

Local 

Agencies 

$50,000 $10,000 58% $25,000 $600 27% $56,000 7% $15,270 10% 

Table V-5. Annual Number of State/Locals Receiving System Employee 

Registratants Under “Baseline” 

 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Total - - - - 489,726 114,270 102,840 95,562 83,301 74,973 
72 

Table V-6. Annual Number of State/Locals Receiving System Employee 

Registrants under “To Be”* 

 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Total - - 489,726 114,270 102,840 92,562 83,301 74,973 67,476 60,729 

*Table includes rounding error. 

Table V-7. Upgrade Costs Per State/Locals Receiving System under Electronic 

Signature Agreement Provisions 

Activities for Upgrade Receiving 

Systems 

Burden Hours Cost per Hour Total Cost 

Requirements analysis 49 $93.51 $4,581.99 

System design analysis 73 $93.51 $6,826.23 

Database changes and testing 35 $93.51 $3,272,85 

Application changes and testing 73 $93.51 $6,826.23 

QA testing and rework 35 $93.51 $3,272.85 

Deployments 22 $93.51 $2,057.22 

Project management 47 $93.51 $4,394.97 

Totals: Hours, Rate, Cost 334 $93.51 $31,232.34 
73 

Appendix VI. State Contacts 

The information pertinent to State/Locals Agency’s existing and planned receiving systems have 

been obtained from the following individuals via a phone interview. 

Table VI-1. State Survey Contacts 

Name Entity 

Tom Aten Wisconsin Department of Environmental Quality 

Russ Brodie Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 

John Coates Florida 

Mike Garretson Illinois EPA 

Allison Kittle Virginia 

Renee Martinez New Mexico 

Greg Nudd Texas 

Pete Tenebruso New Jersey 

Stan Belieu NB Oil and Gas 

 
74 

Appendix VII. Burden Hours and Costs to Direct Reporters 

EPA reviewed the ICRs in Appendix II to estimate the hours and cost burden to direct reporters 

and the Agency under each collection. In doing so, EPA “scaled” the hour and cost burden in 

each ICR to determine the burden associated only with these direct reporters. 

To do so, the Agency developed a scaling factor for each EPA program. The scaling factor 

reflects the percentage of burden in each of the program’s ICRs that is associated with only 

direct reporting. Specifically, a program’s scaling factor is derived by the following equation: 

Number of Regulated Entities in Nonauthorized States in Program = Program Scaling Factor 

Total number of Regulated Entities in all States 

The equation reflects the general assumption that facilities located in nonauthorized states 

submit information to EPA for any given program. That is, EPA generally administers 

information collections in nonauthorized states, whereas authorized states generally collect the 

information themselves. For example, OSWER/Office of Solid Waste (OSW) oversees the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste program and has 

authorized 48 of the 50 states to administer state RCRA programs in lieu of EPA. In these 48 

states, facilities generally submit reports to the state, not EPA. In only the two nonauthorized 

states (i.e., Alaska and Iowa) are information collections administered by EPA. Because 1 

percent of the regulated universe is located in these states, the model multiplies the hour and 

cost burden in OSWER/OSW’s ICRs by 1 percent, in order to derive the burden associated with 

direct reports. The model performed a similar computation for each of the collections in 

Appendix II. 

Table VII-1 shows the scaling factors for each program. 

Table VII-1. Scaling Factors 

Program Scaling 

Factor Source 

CWA 0.09 http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/npdes-modules.pdf 

http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water 

OSW 0.01145 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (1999 data) 

SDWADrinking 

Water 

Systems 

0 http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo.htm. 

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwa/electronic/intropwss/pwss.pdf 

epa.gov/safewater/data/00factoid.pdf 

TRI 1 EPA's best judgment 

CERCLA 1 EPA's best judgment 

Based on this analysis, EPA reduced the hours in each ICR, as appropriate, by applying the 

scaling factors. These hours are shown in Table VII-2. 

Table VII-2. Annual Burden Hours to Direct Reporters* 

Office Name ICR Title ICR 

Number 

Scaling 

Factor 

Annual Scaled 

Burden Hours 
75 

Office Name ICR Title ICR 

Number 

Scaling 

Factor 

Annual Scaled 

Burden Hours 

OEI Toxic Chemical 

Release Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, 

Supplier Notification 

and Petitions 

1363.11 1.00 6,870,800 

OW Clean Water Needs 

Survey 

318.09 1.00 7,700 

OPPTS TSCA Section 12(b) 

Notification of 

Chemical Exports 

795.10 1.00 10,400 

OPPTS Toxic 

Substances 

Partial Updating of 

TSCA Inventory Data 

Base; Production and 

Site Reports 

1011.05 1.00 53,600 

OA Amendment to 

Regulatory Reinvention 

Pilot Projects (Project 

XL) ICR; New York 

State 

1755.06 1.00 58,300 

OGC National Roster of 

Environmental Dispute 

Resolution and 

Consensus Building 

Profe 

1888.01 1.00 500 

OPPTS Voluntary Cover Sheet 

for TSCA Submissions 

1780.02 1.00 900 

OW Questionnaire for 

Operations and 

Maintenance, Biosolids 

Use, Combined Sewer 

Over 

1287.06 0.09 300 

OW CWA State Revolving 

Fund Program 

1391.06 1.00 34,400 

OW National Water Quality 

Inventory Reports 

(TMDL) Final Rule: 

Clean Water Act 

1560.06 1.00 4,243,500 

OW Drinking Water State 

Revolving Fund 

(DWSRF) Program 

1803.03 1.00 29,800 
76 

Office Name ICR Title ICR 

Number 

Scaling 

Factor 

Annual Scaled 

Burden Hours 

OAR NESHAP: 

Radionuclides 

 1100.11 1.00 5,400 

OW Water Alliances for 

Voluntary Efficiency 

(WAVE) Program 

 1654.03 1.00 2,600 

OAR IAQ Practices in Large 

Buildings Survey 

1917.01 1.00 1,100 

OW National Program to 

regulate nondomestic 

discharges to municipal 

sanitary sewer 

2.09 0.09 85,000 

OW Modification of 

Secondary Treatment 

Requirements for 

Discharges into Marine 

Water 

138.06 0.09 5,900 

OW Applications for 

NPDES Discharge 

Permits and the 

Sewage Sludge 

Management Permit 

226.15 0.09 3,100 

OW Applications for 

NPDES Discharge 

Permits and the 

Sewage Sludge 

Management Permit 

226.15 0.09 120,300 

OW Applications for 

NPDES Discharge 

Permits and the 

Sewage Sludge 

226.15 0.09 1,400 

OW Applications for 

NPDES Discharge 

Permits and the 

Sewage Sludge 

Management Permit 

226.15 0.09 1,300 

OW Applications for 

NPDES Discharge 

Permits and the 

Sewage Sludge 

Management Permit 

226.15 0.09 1,100 

OW Applications for 

NPDES Discharge 

Permits and the 

Sewage Sludge 

226.15 0.09 5,800 
77 

Office Name ICR Title ICR 

Number 

Scaling 

Factor 

Annual Scaled 

Burden Hours 

Management Permit 

OW Applications for 

NPDES Discharge 

Permits and the 

Sewage Sludge 

Management Permit 

226.15 0.09 3,600 

OW Application for NPDES 

Discharge Permits and 

the Sewage Sludge 

Management Permits 

226.15 0.09 100 

OW Application for NPDES 

Discharge Permits and 

the Sewage Sludge 

Management Permits 

226.15 0.09 24,300 

OW Applications for 

NPDES Discharge 

Permits and the 

Sewage Sludge 

Management Permit 

226.15 0.09 12,400 

OW NPDES DMR ICR 229.15 0.09 199,500 

OSWER Notification of 

Regulated Waste 

Activity 

261.13 0.01 1,100 

OSWER RCRA Hazardous 

Waste Permit 

Application and 

Modification, Part A 

262.09 0.01 10 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 27,300 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 
78 

Office Name ICR Title ICR 

Number 

Scaling 

Factor 

Annual Scaled 

Burden Hours 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 

OW UIC Program 370.18 0.04 - 

OW Construction Grants 

Program 

827.05 0.09 118.10 

OW Water Quality 

Standards Regulation 

988.08 1.00 238,800 

OSWER Application for 

Reimbursement to 

Local Governments for 

Emergency Response 

to Hazardous 

Substance Releases 

1425.05 1.00 1,600.00 

OSWER Reporting and 

Recording 

Requirements under 

EPA's Wastewise 

Program 

1698.04 1.00 57,600 

OW National Health 

Protection Survey of 

Beaches 

1814.02 1.00 1,300 

OW Phase II of the NPDES 

Stormwater Program 

(Final Rule ICR) 

1820.02 0.09 74,200 

OW Notice of Intent for 1842.02 0.09 671,600 
79 

Office Name ICR Title ICR 

Number 

Scaling 

Factor 

Annual Scaled 

Burden Hours 

Storm Water 

Discharges Associated 

with Construction 

Activity 

OAR Motor Vehicle Emission 

and Fuel Economy 

Compliance; Light Duty 

Vehicles; Light Duty 

Trucks and 

Motorcycles 

783.42 1.00 489,000 

OPPTS TSCA Section 402/404 

Training, Certification, 

Accreditation and 

Standards for LeadBased Paint Activities 

1715.03 1.00 93,200 

OPPTS Request for Contractor 

Access to TSCA 

Confidential Business 

Information 

1250.06 1.00 300 

OPPTS Correction of 

Misreported Chemical 

Substances on the 

Toxic Substances 

Control Act 

1741.03 1.00 200 

OPPTS Pre-Manufacture 

Review Reporting and 

Exemption 

Requirements for New 

Chemical 

574.11 1.00 178,700 

OPPTS PCBs: Consolidated 

Reporting and 

Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

1446.07 1.00 800 

OPPTS PCBs: Consolidated 

Reporting and 

Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

1446.07 1.00 62,900 

* This table lists all the ICRs to be automated by the CDX as identified by the EPA programs. Note that certain programs listed an 

ICR more than once if it contained multiple collections that will be automated through the CDX. For example, UIC ICR #370.18 is

listed multiple times for each collection in the ICR that will be automated. On the other hand, other EPA programs listed an ICR once 

regardless of the number of collections it contained. 

Based on the hours in Table VII-2, the model uses the equation in Figure VII-1 to estimate the 

total costs to direct reporters in preparing and submitting information under EPA’s information 

collections. The model uses the equation for both “Baseline” and “To Be”. Specifically, the 

model applies the equation to each of the collection’s scaled hours, as described above. 

Through the equation, the model applies the annual automation implementation rate described 
80 

in Exhibit 2-5. The model then applies the Web form and XML form usage and savings rates 

described in Exhibit 2-5 to reduce the electronic hours by the savings rate. 

Following this, the model sums up both the paper and electronic hours and applies the ICR’s 

average hour labor rate to derive total costs. Through this process, the model estimates the total 

annual cost to direct reporters under the collection. Finally, the model sums up the total annual 

costs for each of the 68 collections to derive total annual aggregate costs for all collections per 

year. 

From this, the model estimates total aggregate annual costs to direct reporters under “Baseline” 

and “To Be” across all collections for each year during the modeling period. Note that the model 

performs the same process for estimating costs to EPA in receiving and processing paper and 

electronic submittals. 

Figure VII-1. Model Equation for Estimating Costs under EPA Collections

Total ICR 

Hours for 

Reporting

Hours for Paper 

Submittals

Implementation 

Rate

Hours for 

Electronic 

Submittals

Web Form 

Usage Rate

Hours for Web 

Submittals

Hours for XML 

Submittals

(1 -Savings 

Rate)

Total 

Hours 

Average ICR 

Hourly Labor 

Rate

X = 

i = 1

Total Annual 

Cost

For ICR

X

X (1 -Savings 

Rate)

k

Total 

Annual 

Cost i

* k = number of ICRsused in the analysis

(1 -Implementation 

Rate)

where i = 1...k*

XML Form 

Usage Rate
81 

Appendix VIII. Multi-Media Reporting Scaling Factor 

In several places in the analysis, the model examines the universe of “unique” facilities subject 

to EPA’s collections. EPA notes, however, that the number of facilities in the ICRs in Appendix II 

is potentially overlapping across programs. That is, a facility in an OSWER ICR might also be 

examined in an OW ICR. Given this, EPA derived a multi-media scaling factor (i.e., 1.3), which 

reflects the average number of EPA programs to which the average facility is subject. The 

scaling factor was derived by the equation shown in Table VIII-1: 

Table VIII-1. Facility Count 

Multi-Media Frequency Count 

Single 873,253 

Double 83,847 

Triple 30,600 

Four 13,881 

Five 7,489 

Six 4,474 

Seven 2,564 

Eight 1,265 

Nine 589 

Ten 234 

Eleven 41 

Twelve 2 

Thirteen 0 

 Source: FRS Statistics as of October 16, 2002. 
82 

Appendix IX. Number of Direct Reporters 

To derive the number of facilities reporting to the CDX, EPA obtained the number of 

respondents associated with each of the information collections in Appendix II. Note that each 

collection is examined in an ICR that estimates the total annual number of respondents to that 

collection. EPA then “scaled” the number respondents in each ICR to determine the number of 

facilities reporting directly to the Agency. 

To estimate the number facilities reporting to EPA, the Agency developed a scaling factor for 

each of EPA’s environmental programs. The scaling factor reflects the percentage of 

respondents in each program that is located in a nonauthorized state. Specifically, a program’s 

scaling factor is derived by the following equation: 

No. of Regulated Entities in Nonauthorized States in Program = Program Scaling Factor 

Total No. of Regulated Entities in all States 

The equation reflects the general assumption that facilities located in nonauthorized states 

submit information directly to EPA, not the state. That is, EPA generally administers information 

collections in nonauthorized states until the state receives authorization. For example, 

OSWER/OSW oversees the RCRA hazardous waste program and has authorized 48 of the 50 

states to administer state RCRA programs in lieu of EPA. In these 48 states, facilities generally 

submit reports to the state, not EPA. In only the two nonauthorized states (i.e., Alaska and Iowa) 

are information collections administered by EPA. Because 1 percent of the regulated universe is 

located in these states, the model multiplies the total number of respondents in OSWER/OSW’s 

ICRs by 1 percent, in order to derive the number that reports directly to EPA. Scaling factors are 

presented in Table IX-1. 

Table IX-1. Scaling Factors 

Program Scaling 

Factor Source 

CWA 0.09 \d 4http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/npdes-modules.pdf 

\d 4http://oaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ef_home2.water 

OSW 0.01145 National Biennial RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (1999 data) 

SDWA-Drinking 

Water Systems 

0 \d 4http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo.htm. 

\d 4http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwa/electronic/intropwss/ 

pwss.pdf epa.gov/safewater/data/00factoid.pdf 

TRI 1 EPA best judgment 

CERCLA 1 EPA best judgment 

SDWA-UIC 0.04 http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic.tml

OAR 0 EPA best judgment 

Through the calculations above, EPA estimated the number of respondents who report directly 

to EPA. Note, however, that EPA needed to further refine these estimates to determine the 

number of unique respondents to EPA. That is, regulated entities may be subject to more than 

one information collection in Appendix II. This could include, for example, more than one 

information collection within any program or more than one information collection across 
83 

programs (e.g., information collections under the hazardous waste and water programs). To 

eliminate this potential duplication, EPA took the following two steps: 

■ Reviewed all ICRs within each program to determine if the ICRs contained overlapping 

respondent universes. EPA used its best judgment in determining if two or more ICRs within 

the same program applied to the same population of respondents, using information such as 

the Standard Industrial Classification codes and respondent universe descriptions in the ICR 

supporting statement. In doing so, EPA eliminated potential duplication within programs. 

■ Once EPA had eliminated potential duplication within each program, the Agency summed 

up to the total number of respondents that remained and divided this sum by the multimedia 

scaling factor described in Appendix VIII to eliminate duplication across programs. 

From these calculations, EPA estimated the total number of unique respondents to EPA under 

each of the information collections. EPA then further refined these estimates by distinguishing 

the size of facilities in terms of number of employees. Understanding the breakdown in number 

of small vs. medium/large facilities assisted the Agency in configuring the model to account for 

differences in number of employees who would register with EPA’s receiving systems. It also 

informed the Agency of appropriate implementation rate assumptions, in that smaller facilities 

might not have the same level of capabilities in reporting electronically. 

For purposes of this analysis, EPA has defined a “small” facility as one with 20 employees or 

fewer. EPA believes this is a reasonable threshold, as it focuses in on the smallest and most 

vulnerable of facilities and those most likely to face resource constraints in reporting 

electronically. The U.S. Census data indicate that 89 percent of all businesses employ 20 or 

fewer persons, and the remaining 11 percent employ 21 or more.2

 EPA used these percentages 

to estimate the number of small and large facilities reporting to EPA. These estimates are 

shown in Table IX-2. 

In addition, EPA estimated the average number of employees per facility that would register with 

EPA’s receiving systems. Based on public comments on the proposed CROMERR, EPA 

estimates that the typical small facility will designate three employee registrants and the typical 

large facility will designate six employee registrants, on average. Table IX-2 presents the total 

number of employee registrants per facility and for all facilities. 

Table IX-2. Direct Reporters and Registrants* 

Unique 

Facilities 

No. of 

Registrants per 

Facility 

Total No. of Registrants 

Small Facilities 67263 3 201,790 

Large Facilities 8313 6 49,881 

TOTAL 75577 - 251671 

*Table includes rounding error.

 

2

 U.S. Bureau of Census. Statistics of U.S. Businesses: 1999: All industries in the United States. 

http://www.census.gov/epcd/susb/1999/us/US--.HTM 
84 

Appendix X. XML and Flat File Usage To derive the number of XML/flat file users, EPA’s first assumption was that XML or flat file would be used only facilities, because of the upfront costs and technical expertise required. Given this assumption, EPA reviewAppendix II to estimate the total number of respondents under each information collection. EPA then assumthem are medium or large.12 In total, EPA estimates 8,313 medium and large facilities are subject to the informa

EPA further assumed that approximately 50 percent of these facilities would opt for XML or flat file, while the r

form, for each collection.13 EPA also assumed that each facility is part of a business that consists of, on average

and that XML or flat file mapping (or purchase of off-the-shelf software) would be done centrally at one 

headquarters location) and then distributed to the other two facilities.14 EPA consulted with several of the respon

who agreed with this assumption. Tables X-1 and X-2 present the total number of facilities that are expected tfile mapping across all of the ICRs in Appendix II. 

Table X-1. Number of Companies Implementing XML/Flat File under “Baseline

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

No. of Companies Implementing XML 

108 39 34 25 23 377 113 115 92 82 

Table X-2. Number of Companies Implementing XML/Flat File under “To Be” 

 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

No. of Companies Implementing XML 

 108 39 34 382 118 119 95 85 77 69 

In addition, EPA estimated the total XML or flat file mapping cost to facilities. EPA recognizes that, in actualivary greatly during the modeling period. They will be higher during the earlier years as facilities begin to use then decline over time because of greater user sophistication. In addition, EPA anticipates the emergence of shelf software that can work within a user’s environment, eliminating the need for significant mapping. 12 U.S. Bureau of Census. Statistics of U.S. Businesses: 1999: All industries in the United States. 13 “eMarketplaces Spur XML Adoption,” Business Technographics of North America, May 11, 2001. The article estimates that more than 50 percent of Glo

implementing, rolling out, or piloting XML. 14 U.S. Bureau of Census. Statistics of U.S. Businesses: 1999: All industries in the United States. The Census estimates that firms with 20 or more emplo

establishments, on average. 
85 

EPA estimates that current XML and flat file mapping costs are roughly $25,000 for a facility per collection, on ais based on EPA’s best judgment and consultations with industry representatives listed in Appendix XI. EPA eto a facility to purchase and install the off-the-shelf software would be approximately $1,000 for a facility per colEPA further expects that the vast majority of users will opt for the off-the-shelf software, on average, over the mdue to its lower cost and greater convenience. For purposes of this analysis, the model assumes that 5 percent perform their own mapping and that the remaining 95 percent would purchase/install the software, on averagperiod. Note that EPA fully expects that, during the early years, the majority of facilities will map on their oAgency implements greater electronic reporting across its programs, commercial vendors will increasingly suppto EPA’s collections. As such, facilities will transition from mapping on their own to purchasing the software. 
86 

Appendix XI. Industry Consultations EPA contacted industry stakeholders on November 6 and 7, 2002, to collect information used in this cost acontacts are as follows: ■ Salman Shaikh - Suffolk County Water Authority, New York (UCMR: Lab and PWS) ■ Steve McSherry - Decatur Utilities, Alabama (UCMR: PWS) ■ Brad Bollen - New Jersey Bureau of Air Quality Evaluation - (AEI: State) ■ Angelique Luedeker - Institute for Tribal Professionals, Arizona - (AEI: Tribe) ■ Ruth Curfman - Dow Corning Corporation, Michigan - (TSCA-HASD) ■ Jack Halstuch - JH Consulting Group, New York - (UCMR: PWS Consultant) 
87 

Appendix XIV. Background Tables on Sensitivity Runs Table XIV-1. EPA Costs under Baseline”, “To Be”, and Difference (in millions of dollars)** Costs presented for Scenario 1. ** Cost savings shown in parentheses.

Table XIV-2. State/Locals Costs under “Baseline”, “To Be”, and Difference 

(in millions of dollars)*

* Costs presented for Scenario 1. ** Cost savings shown in parentheses.
88 

Table XIV-3. Facility Costs under “Baseline”, “To Be”, and Difference 

(in millions of dollars)*

* Costs presented for Scenario 1. ** Cost savings shown in parentheses.
89 

Table XIV-4. EPA Costs under “Baseline”, “To Be”, and Difference 

(in millions of dollars)*

* Costs presented for Scenario 2. ** Cost savings shown in parentheses.

Table XIV-5. State/Locals Costs under “Baseline”, “To Be”, and Difference 

(in millions of dollars)*

* Costs presented for Scenario 2. ** Cost savings shown in parentheses.
90 

Table XIV-6. Facility Costs under “Baseline”, “To Be”, and Difference 

(in millions of dollars)*

* Costs presented for Scenario 2. ** Cost savings shown in parentheses.
91 

Appendix XV. Acronyms and Terms BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics CAA Clean Air Act CBA Cost Benefit Analysis CDX Central Data Exchange CEPPO Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations COR copy of record CROMERR Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule CWA Clean Water Act DMR Discharge Monitoring Report DWSRF Drinking Water State Revolving Fund EDMR Electronic Discharge Monitoring Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act FBCA Federal Bridge Certificate Authority FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act FOIA Freedom of Information Act GPEA Government Paperwork Elimination Act 
92 

HW hazardous waste IAQ indoor air quality IFB Invitation for Bid ICR Information Collection Request LRA local registration authority NEIN National Environmental Integrated Network NESHAPS National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OA Office of Administrator OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards OAR Office of Air and Radiation OARM Office of Administration and Resource Management OEI Office of Environmental Information OGC Office of General Counsel OMB Office of Management and Budget OMS Office of Mobile Sources OPPTS Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances OSW Office of Solid Waste OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response OW Office of Water 
93 

PIN personal identification number POTW publicly owned treatment works PRA Paperwork Reduction Act RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RFP Request for Proposals SDW safe drinking water SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act SSL secure socket layer TRI Toxics Release Inventory TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act UIC Underground Injection Code UST Underground Storage Tank SML Extensive Markup Language WAVE Water Alliances for Voluntary Efficiency WWW World Wide Web