1 

## Econom **ic Impacts Assessment**  **for Revisions to the**  **Export Provisions of Cathode Ray Tube s**  **(CRT s**  **) Final**  **Rule**

**Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response**  **U.S. Environmental Protection Agency**

**June 201**  **3**2 **EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**
With this Final Rule, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is revis ing the export provisions of the C athode R ay T ube (CRT) final rule published on July 28, 2006 (71 FR 42928). The purpose of these revisions is to address certain implementation concerns with the current export provisions in the 2006 rule. These changes will facilitate compliance with the requirement s and will enable the Agency to obtain additional information on the export of this class of used electronics. This rule affect s only the export provisions of the CRT rule. It does not affect any requirements applicable to domestic management of used CRTs. Nor does this action affect households or conditionally exempt small quantity

generators (CESQGs). Therefore, e ntities potentially affected by

today ’s action are limited to tho se persons or companies who export used CRTs and CRT glass for reuse or recycling. In the proposed rule published on March 15, 201 2 , EPA propos ed to add a definition of “CRT exporter” to the CRT rule , in order to clarify the responsibilities of brokers and other intermediaries in fulfilling the export notice requirements. EPA also propos ed revis ing the notifications that must be submitted to EPA when CRTs are exported for reuse or recycling, while requiring that new annual reports now also be submitted by exporters of CRTs for recycling. Based on feedback from public comments and input from Agency workgroup members , all of the proposed rule changes were adopted for the final rule. In addition, this final rule also adopts requirements for the translation of foreign language business documents into English so that they

may be more readil y reviewed i f necessary . This document assesses the potential economic impacts of the se final CRT Rule revisions.

**Summary of Results** G iven the minor changes being imposed b y this r ule, the results of our cost assessment reveal v ery modest cost impacts

. 1) All e xporters of CRTs (regardless of whether they are sending CRTs for Recycling or Reuse), will face a new o ne - t ime up

- front c ost t o familiarize themselves with the new CRT r ule r e quirements . This o ne - t ime c ost is expected to be incurred b y 140 CRT e xporters

. 1 The total one - time cost is estimated to be $ 42,90 4 in the fir st ye ar following promulgation of the r

ule

. 2) Exporters of CRTs sent for r ecycling will face a new requirement to produce and submit an Annual Report regarding their actual r ecycling e xports. However, because this new requirement is expected to result in only approximately 12 new reports each

1 Please see S ection 3.1 for more i nformation about the number of entities used in the impact analyses to follow.3

ye ar, the total cost to both e xporters and EPA is very low and equals a total of just $2, 454 per year. 3) Added to these costs are additional annual c osts to 140 Exporters of CRTs for reuse, which rang e from $ 2,575 to $ 4, 782 for adhering to the additional information requirements for Reuse Notices. These costs, in combination with the added costs for EPA's receipt and processing of these notices (estimated to be between $ 1, 548 and $ 2,876 ) , brings the total annual c ost for this feature of the rule to a range of approximately $4,123 to $7,658

. 4 ) Finall y, costs associated with translating normal business records into English ( as necessary upon request) are estimated to range from $3,2 00 to $7,2 50 per year. In conclusion, the total estimated cost impacts from this rule are estimated to be $ 42 , 904 in y ear one onl y , plus annual costs in the range of $ 9,777 to 17,362, starting in ye ar one and continuing each ye ar thereafter

.4 **TABLE OF CONTENTS**

1.0 IN TRODUCTION 1.1 Background on Existing Cathode Ray Tube ( CRT ) Rule 1.2 Need for Regulatory Action
2. 0 OVERVIEW OF NEW REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS 2.1 Definition of “CRT Exporter” 2.2 Rule Changes Specific to the “ Export of CRTs for Recycling ” 2. 2 .1 New Annual Report Required by “ Exporters of CRTs Sent for Recycling ” 2. 2

. 2 Additional Destination Data Requested as Part of the Recycling Notice 2. 3 Changes Specific to the “Export of CRTs for Reuse” 2. 3 .1 Changes to Notification Requirements 2.3.2 English Translation of Normal Business Records 3.0 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTI ONS 3 .1 Estimate d Number of Potentially Impacted CRT Exporters 3 .2 Lab or Rate Estimates and Assumptions 3.3 Burden Hour Estimates and Assumptions 3.4 Material Cost Estimates and Assumptions 3.5 Notification Estimates and Assumptions 3.6 Estimated Ty

pe and Quantity

of Normal Business Records Requiring Translation 3.7 English Translation Rates and Assumptions 4.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL COSTS 4 .1 Estimated Costs for Readin g the Rule 4 .2 Estimated Costs for New Annual Reporting by CRT Export Recyclers 4.3 Estimated Costs for Additional Reuse and Recycling Notification Requirements 4.4 Estimated Costs for English Translation of Normal Business Records 4. 5 Total Cost Impact of the Proposed CRT Rule Revisions 5.0 QUALITAT IVE D IS CUSSI ON OF BENEFITS
ATTACHMENT A: Supporting Documentation f or Cost Assessment s Exhibit A

- 1: Estimated Costs for Reading & Understandin g the New Rule Requirements Exhibi t A

- 2: Estimated Costs for Annual Reporting b y Exporters of CRTs for Recycling Exhibit A

- 3: Estimated Costs for Me eting Proposed Reuse Notification Changes Exhibit A

- 4: Estimated Costs for Translating Foreign Language Records into English
ATTACHMENT B : Summary of Regulatory

Flexibility

Analy s e s5

**1.0 INTRODUCTION**  1.1 Background on Existing Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Rule The Agency

promulgated the CRT rule on July 28, 2006 (71 FR 42928). Inthat rule, EPA amended its regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to streamline management requirements for used CRTs and glass removed from CRTs , with the intent of encourag ing their recycling and reuse

. Under 40 CFR 261.39, these materials are excluded from the definition of solid waste if certain conditions are met. Used CRTs (intact or broken) sent for reuse and recycling are subject to the speculative accumulation requirements of 261.1(c ) ( 8). Facilities that send u sed, broken CRTs for recycling are subject to packaging and lab eling requirements, as are CRT glass processors. CRT glass processors are also subject to speculative accumulation requirements and may not use temperatures high enough to volatilize lead. In addition to these domestic requirements, the CRT rule also cont ains requirements ( at 40 CFR 261.39 (a)(5) ) for used CRTs exported for recycling. Exporters of used CRTs for recycling must notify

EPA of an intended shipment 60 day s before the shipment. Notifications may cover exports extending over a 12

- month or shorte r period. The notification must include contact information about the exporter and recycler, and an alternate recycler. It must also include a description of the recycling, frequency and rate of export, means of transport, total quantity of CRTs, and infor

mation about transit countries. With respect to used intact CRTs that are exported for reuse, 40 CFR 261.41 requires exporters to submit a one

- time notification to EPA with contact information and a statement that they are exporting the CRTs for reuse. The y must keep copies of normal business records demonstrating that each shipment will be reused. Records must be retained for three ye ars from the date of export. 1.2 Need for Regulatory Action Since promulgation of the CRT rule in 2006, exports of CRTs and CRT glass have continued , whether for reuse or recycling. As EPA implemented the rule, two principal concerns became apparent. The first was that when CRTs and CRT glass are exported for recycling or reuse, several parties may be involved in the transact ion. This multi

- party involvement has sometimes led to confusion about which part y is responsible for fulfilling the export notice requirements. The second concern involves CRTs that are ostensibl y exported for reuse but that are actuall y disassembled and recycled when they reach the receiving country , sometimes under unsafe conditions. To address these concerns, EPA is adopt ing minor changes to the current CRT Rule as described in Section 2.0 below.6

**2.0 OVERVIEW OF**  **NEW REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS**  2.1 Definition of “CRT Exporter” (applicable to both CRTs for Reuse or Recycling) When CRTs are exported for recycling or reuse, there are often several parties involved and this can cause considerable confusion over exactly who must file the export notices r equired under 40 CFR 261.39(a)(5)(for CRTs exported for recycling) and 40 CFR 261.41(for CRTs exported for reuse). To reduce this confusion, th e Agency is add ing a definition of “CRT exporter” to 40 CFR 260.10 , which st ates that a CRT exporter is “any pers on or entity

in the United States who initiates a transaction to send used CRTs outside the United States and its territories for recycling or reuse, or any intermediary

in the United States arranging for such export. The reference to “an y intermediary arranging for the export” is modeled on the definition of “primary

exporter” of hazardous waste in 40 CFR 260.10. As described above, there may be multiple parties who participate in the export ing of CRTs

. To avoid duplicative submissions, the Agency

expects only

one part y for a given export shipment to perform the exporter duties under 40 CFR 261.39(a)(5) and 40 CFR 261.41 Lastly , EPA emphasizes that this definition would clarify rather than change current liability for violations of the CRT export requirements. [Note: EPA considers there to be no economic costs associated with this definitional change.] 2.2 Rule Changes Specific to the “Export of CRTs for Recycling” Under the provisions of this rule, parties that “E xport CRTs for purposes of R ecycling ” shall face the following additional requirements

.

2. 2 .1 New Annual Report Required from Exporters of CRTs Sent for Recycling Per the existing CRT Rule, parties that export CRTs for recy cling currently have notification requirements regarding the ir projected exports, but are not required to submit any retrospective documentation regarding the amount of the ir actual exports in a given ye ar. To help ensure that CRTs exported for recycling are handled as commodities and not otherwise discarded, EPA is requiring that such parties now submit Annual Reports of the ir exports. [Note: This annual r eport requirement has been modeled after th e annual r eport required for exporters of hazardous waste under 40 CFR 262.56 ( Also s ee cited reference and web URL provided in Footnote 2 )

. ] 2.2.2 Additional Destination Data Requested as Part of the Recycling Notice Per the current CRT Rule (40 CFR 261.39(a)(5)(F) ) , exporters of CRTs sent for recycling are required to state the name and address of the recycler and any alternate recycler. Because CRTs are sometimes exported to more than one recycler in the receiving country , EPA is now requiring that the exporter st ate the name and address of the recycler or recyclers and the estimated quantity of CRTs to be sent to each facility , as well as the names of an y alternate recyclers. In this way EPA will be able to provide the7

receiving country

with the most accurate inf ormation available about the ultimate fate of the CRTs entering their country

. 2. 3 Changes Specific to the “Export of CRTs for Re use ” Under the provisions of the final rule, parties that “E xport CRTs for R euse ” shall face the following additional requirements.

2.3.1 Changes to Notification Requirements Per the current CRT Rule, exporters of CRTs sent for reuse are alread y required to submit a one

- time notice to EPA with minimal information under 40 CFR 261.41. Since original promulgation of this requirement, the Agency has become aware that some CRTs , ostensibly

exported for reuse , are actually recycled in the receiving country , sometimes under unsafe conditions. Inresponse , EPA is expand ing the current reus e notice to provide more complete information about the potential reuse of the exported CRTs. The added items to the reuse notice are modeled on those required in the notice for CRTs exported for recycling, and will help the Agency determine whether exported CRTs are actuall y products which are ultimately sent for reuse. [Note: For more detail on the additional data elements that are being proposed for the CRT Reuse Notice, please see the appropriate section of the preamble for the Final Rule.] [Note: F or each export shipment, the Agency expects only

one part y to perform the exporter duties under 40 CFR 261.39(a)(5) and 40 CFR 261.41 (notifications to EPA, and the annual reports as proposed and described above).] 2.3.2 English Translation of Normal Business Records Under § 261.41(b), persons who export CRTs for reuse must keep copies of normal business records, such as contracts, demonstrating their exported CRTs will in fact be reused. The documentation must be retained for a period of at least thre e ye ars from the date the CRTs were exported. In the March 2012 proposal, EPA requested comment regarding whether to require persons who export CRTs for reuse to provide a third

- part y translation of the documents into English if the documents are written i n a language other than English and if EPA requests such a translation. EPA believes that requiring CRT exporters to provide an English translation of normal business records upon request b y EPA is inherent in the demonstration that each shipment of CRTs w ill be reused. English translation will also assist with compliance monitoring of this provision. Specificall y, the regulatory language reads: [ (b) CRT exporters of used CRTs for reuse must keep copies of normal business records, such as contracts, demonstrating that each shipment of exported CRTs will be reused. This documentation must be retained for a period of at least three ye ars from the date the CRTs were exported. If the documents are written in a language other than English, CRT exporters of used CRTs for reuse must also8 provide a third

- part y translation of the normal business records into English upon request b y EPA. ] [Note: Normal business records are further described in the preamble of the CRT Rule to be “contracts, invoices, and bills of lading” which “would likely contain the appropriate information for meeting the various requirements of the rule .” ]

**3.0 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS**  Described below are the key data and assumptions underlying the cost analy ses that were conducted for th e final rule. In assessing the cost impacts, we estimated the incremental annual costs of th e final requirements upon U.S. exporters , as well as EPA. In estimating these costs, EPA first reviewed the provisions under the existing regulations and the new requirements being enacted in this rule

. We estimated the costs of these new requirements using the following inputs:

 Number of affected entities
 Hourly

labor rates
 B urden hours
 Material costs
 Number of Annual Reuse/Recycling Notifications
 Number & typ e of normal business r ecord s r e quiring translation
 Costs for English translation services Section 3.1 describes the sources used in identifying the “ number of entities ” involved in the exporting of CRTs who will be directly a ffected by

th is Final Rule

. Section 3.2 describes the

“ hourly labor rates ” that are used in our calculations. Section 3.3 describes the “burden hour s” (e.g. staff hours) assumptions that EPA utilized in its analy sis. Section 3.4 outlines the

“ material ” costs that EPA envision s may be incurred in association with the Final CRT Rule re quirements

. Section 3.5 details the total “number of reuse and recycling notices” th at EPA projects will be submitted per year. Lastl y, Sections 3.6 and 3.7 outline available information collected as necessary

to develop cost estimates for meeting the additional rule requirement that call s for the English translation of normal business records b y “Exporters of CRTs for Reuse” upon request

. Underl yi ng unit costs discussed in Sections 3.1 through 3.5 , as well as the estimated costs explained later in Sections 4.1 through 4.3 , were previously developed as part of the Economic Impact Assessment (E IA ) conducted in November of 2011 for the initial proposed CRT rule

. For purposes of consistency and simplicity , the unit costs for the earlier estimated costs of these specific requirements remain unchanged. EPA did not receive any public comments on the 2011 EIA that would have called for revising the unit cost estimates. Also, bec ause there was very little inflation between November, 2011 and now, the Agency decided that adjustments to certain of the 2011 estimates were unnecessary

.9

Sections 3.6, 3.7, and 4.4 cover the underl yi ng assumptions and estimated costs associated with the additional rule requirement that calls for English translation of normal business records as necessary upon request for those who “Export CRTs for Reuse”

. The co st estimates associated with this new requirement are therefore newl y developed and were n ot covered in the earlier EIA for the proposed rule.

3.1 Estimated Number of Potentially Impacted CRT Exporters For the proposed rule, the Agency estimate d that a total of approximately 12 entities exported CRTs for r ecycling during 2011 (i.e., per EPA data on the number of approved exporters and the number of export notices that were submitted during 2011). Based on the number of CRT Reuse Notifications submitted during 2011, there exist ed approximately 126 CRT exp orters for reuse in the U.S. (i.e., based on Sept. 14 th , 2011 CRT data published on EPA’s website at [ http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/international/crts/recycling.htm ]). As of 2013 , the number of entities who export CRTs for recycling appears to have dropped from a total of 12 in 2011 to 4 in 2013. As in 2011, the number for 2013 is based on the current number of export notice s and associated consent s received from CRT recyclers in 2013. While this is an excellent barometer for the current number of subject exporters, EPA has chosen to use the larger 2011 estimate of 12 for the number of “ E xporters of CRT s for R ecycling ” , as a more conservative number for the purpos es of the current EIA

. Evaluation of updated 2013 data from the same sources used in our 2011 analy ses, reveal s that the number of potentially impacted “ CRT Export er s for Reuse” has not changed dramaticall y from that of 2011

. The number of “Exporters of CRTs for Reuse” has risen from 126 entities to just 140 since 2011

. However, there is no means with in the Agency ’s tracking sy stem for officiall y identifying who has exited from the business of exporting CRTs for reuse

. As a r esult , there is no clear way to confirm with certaint y how many practicing CRT reuse exporters there are at any given point in time. W e have therefore adopted the more recent 2013 estimate of CRT reuse exporters for this EIA . As a result, all newl y added or modified estimates within this EIA are based on the larger estimates of exporters, based on either 2011 or 2013 data. As such, we assume that there are 12 Recycling Exporters and 140 Reuse Exporters.
3.2 Labor Rate Estimates and Assumptio ns Exhibit 3

- 1 presents the hourly labor rates used in this analy sis. As shown in the exhibit, for U.S. exporters, EPA estimated an average hourl y labor rate (including fringe and overhead) of $ 103.84 for managerial staff, $64.71 for technical staff, and $33.85 for clerical staff. These labor10

rates were originall y obtained by rel yi ng on prior EPA Cost Assessments and then updated to 2011 using Employ

ment Cost Indices developed by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2 For EPA ’s involvement and review/approval responsibilities , we estimated an average hourly labor rate of $ 74 .6 7 for manageri al staff (GS

- 14, Step 1), $63.20 for technical s taff (GS

13, Step 1), and $36.64 for clerical staff (GS

- 9, Step 1) . To derive these hourly estimates, we referred to the General Schedule (GS) Salary Table 2011 . This publication summarizes the unloaded (base) hourl y rate for various labor categories in the Federal Government. 3 We then applied the standard government overhead factor of 1.6 to the unloaded rate to derive loaded hourly labor rates.

**Exhibit 3**
**- 1**  **Average Hourly Labor Rates Used to Assess the Cost Impacts of the Rule**

**Labor Category Exporters**  **(2011 dollars)**  **EPA (2011**  **dollars)** Managerial $ 107.06 $74.67
Technical $70.08 $63.20
Clerical $36.60 $36.64

2 To obtain hourly labor rates for this EIA, we relied on readily available cost analyses conducted for the SLAB Rule (which in turn also relied on labor rates from an earlier relevant EPA Cost Assessment from September 27, 2004 (revised February 24, 2005) titled, “ Cost Assessment in Support of the Proposed Rule on exports and Imports of Hazardous Waste Destined for Recovery among OECD Countries”). To update the 2007 hourly rates (used in the SLAB Rule Cost Assessment) to 2011 levels, EPA referred to Tabl e 9. Employment Cost Index for Wages and Salaries, for Private Industry Workers by Occupation Group and Industry (Not seasonally adjusted) of Employment Cost Index: Historical Listing (December 2005 = 100) , U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Oct. 28, 2011). This table presents employment cost indices for private industry workers, by annual quarter (i.e., for March, June, and September). EPA used the June 2007 Index (105.1) from the SLAB Rule Cost Analyses, in combination with the June 2011 Index (113.8) to develop an adjustment factor of 1.083 (i.e., 113.8 / 105.1 = 1.083 ). Available at: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/home.htm

. 3 “Loaded hourly rate” is defined as the direct hourly labor rate along with appropriate load factors, inclusive of profi t or fees

. Other load factors include overhead, fringe, and general & administrative (G&A) costs. Loaded hourly rates are therefore inclusive of both the direct costs and indirect costs characterized as follows: Direct Costs are costs created and necessitated by the existence of a project or contract (Consultant working on a contract): Calculate the Hourly Labor Rate (annual salary divided by billable hours Calculate Fringe Benefit Costs and prorate per employee Indirect Costs are costs that are occurring even if there is no project or contract in place: Labor costs of support staff: human resources, budget, computer help desk, and management/administrative Costs of operating the office: rent, utilities, equipment depreciation, repairs, maintenance, and other costs These indirect costs (overhead) are added up and distributed to the direct costs by using calculated overhead rate. To calculate Overhead Rate divide Indirect Costs by Direct Costs11

3.3 Burden Hour Estimates and Assumptions As with other components of the methodology underlying our anal ys es, to estimate the total number of hours (“burden hours”) required to meet the annual notification and reporting requirements of this rule, EPA relied heavil y upon previous cost anal ys es conducted for the 2009 SLAB Rule (See Footnote 1). S ince the new CRT annual r eporting and n otification requirements are nearly

the same as those called for in the Agency ’s 2009 SLAB r ule , we used the same burden hour estimates in our cost assumptions for this proposal. 3.4 Material Cost Estimates and Assumptions Minimal material costs were assumed to be associated with the production and submission of new Annual Reports and Notification requirements for this revision of the CRT Rule. These costs are described below:

 Mailing costs : The Agency estimate d that affected entities w ould incur a cost of approximately $ 5.20 to mail a five ounce package by certified mail ($ 2.20 for postage, $2. 8 5 for the certified mail fee, and $0.1 5 for a 9 x 12 manila envelope). Affected entities are expected to incur a cost of $0.4 9 for each standard letter mailed ($0.4 4 for first class postage and $0.0 5 for a standard envelope).

 Copying Costs : The agency estimate d that affected entities w ould incur a cost of $0.11 per page for cop yi ng.

 Faxing costs : The Agency estimated that affected entities would incur a cost of $0.15 for each international fax they send. This cost was derived from the average revenues per minute for a telephone call from the U.S. to an OECD Country (excluding Canada and Mexico). Revenue figures were obtained from the 2005 International Telecommunications Data Report issued by the Federal Communications Commission on April 24, 2007. The cost estimate assumes that the fax transmission will take one

- minute.

 Domestic telephone ca ll costs : The Agency estimates that affected entities will incur a cost of $ 0.90 for each domestic telephone call they make. This cost was derived b y averaging the advertised rates of a 15

- minute State

- to

- State telephone call from four large U.S. long dis tance carriers.

3.5 Notification Estimates and Assumptions The numbe r of e xport n otifications used in our cost assessment was based on EPA’s professional experience , in combination with historical records associated with the submission of r euse/r ecycling n otices by CRT e xporters

. In EPA’s experience , most CRT recyclers seldom have cause to submit more than 1 notice per ye ar . T he number of Recycling Notices has never exceeded 60% of the number of Recycling Exporters themselves. This means that the ratio of Recycling Notices to CRT12

Recycling Exporters is less than 2 to 1. So , while the number of notices may increase subsequent to the proposed rule, EPA assumed for the purposes of this analy ses that each CRT recycler would submit only 1 to 2 notices annually . Accordingl y , this result s in approximately 12 to 24 Notices being submitted per y ear for this category of exporters

. E xporters that send CRTs abroad for purposes of r euse tend to have a broader list of potential destinations for their CRTs. For instance, one r euse e xporter may ship their CRT s to schools, charit able organizations, and resale facilities, or any combination thereof. Therefore, for purposes of this anal ys i s, EPA assum ed :

 75% of reuse exporters ( 10 5) would submit 2

- 4 reuse notifications per ye ar ; and
 25% of reuse exporters (3 5 ) would submit 1 reuse notification per ye ar . When added together with the projected r ecycling n otices, the total estimated number of notices ranges from 2 45 to 4 5 5. 3.6 Estimated Ty

pe and Quantity

of Normal Business Records in Need of Translation As discussed above, 40 CFR 261.41 requires exporters of used intact CR Ts to submit a one - time notification to EPA with contact information and a statement that they are exporting the CRTs for reuse. They

must also keep copies of normal business records demonstrating that each shipment will be reused. These r ecords must be retaine d for three ye ars from the date of export. The only change to th ese requirements in this Final Rule, calls for English translation of an y business records written in a foreign language that help document their shipments are being reuse d

. Such translati ons would only be required upon request. However, in reality there may

be relativel y few such foreign records that require English translation. All of the U.S. sour ce documents as well as much of the return documentation from abroad are presumed to alre ad y be written in English. All one

- time notifications by U.S. exporters should already be in English, as well as an y of their own U.S. based business records. This only leaves business records that may originate from receiving countries that are then ret ained b y the U.S. exporters as evidence that their shipped CRTs are in fact being reused. But, it is also reasonable to assume that many of these records from foreign countries would already be written in English

. Unfortunatel y, there are no records available on the actual number of CRT export s for reuse that occur annually. In fact, the collection of such data is a primary objective of the requirements being called for under this final rule. In the absence of this data , EPA uses the estimated numbe r of reuse notifications (discussed in Section 3.5 above) as a direct prox y for the number of shipments that also occur each ye ar. Based on information from regional experts on the Agency ’s Workgroup for this rule, E PA conservatively assumes that approxim ately 25 percent of exporters and the ir export shipments would be subject to review in any given y ear. Moreover , we also assume that as many as 50% of the se export shipments may be subject to review and might ultimately require some limit ed trans lation of their business records into English

. EPA further assumes that either 1 return invoice , 1 return bill of lading or similar13

would be provided to the exporter for each shipment sent abroad (as evidence of the shipped CRTs going for reuse)

. With these as our underlying assumptions, the number of such invoice s and billing documents that would require translation annuall y is approximatel y 32 to 58 , which represents a combined total of the calculations as shown below:

 75% of the 140 current reuse exporter s (105) are assumed to conduct 2

- 4 reuse shipments per year, 25% of which are audit ed, with 50% of those requiring translation of just 1 document, [(105)(2 to 4 shipments per y r)(.25 audit s )(.50 foreign ) (1 document/ shipment) = 27 to 53 potent ial documents needing translation ];

 25% of the 140 current reuse exporters (35) conduct only 1 reuse shipment per y ear, 25% of which are audited, with 50% of those requiring translation of just 1 docum ent, [(35)(1 shipment per y

r)(.25 audits)(.50 foreign texts )(1 document/shipment)
= 5 potential documents needing translation]

. 3. 7 English Translation Rates and Assumptions Pricing for translation projects and services can vary widel y and depend on several factors including for example ; the number of source words , the complexity of the subject matter , the combination of language s , the amount of turnaround time for completion , and the need for special formating and processing requirements , etc. To gauge the ultimate rates that might be charged in the case of CRT export r ecords, on line resources and rate quotes were relied upon

. 4 Costs were generall y based on an hourl y rate or by the number of source words in the document to be translated

. R ates were highl y dependent upon the ty

pe of l anguages that were being translated. One vend o r supplied a quote (specificall y tailored to the translation of shipping receipts and contractual types of documents from Spanish into English) of 18 cents , 22 cents, and 38 cents per word depending upon the necessary turnaround time. Since the final rule allows for up to 30 day s for CRT exporters to provide English translation upon request , this RIA does not assume costs associated with rushed turnaround. Therefore, we used a baselin e cost of 20 cents per word for basic translation s of foreign languages such as Spanish. For the purpose of our analy ses, Spanish was assumed to be the predomi nant text requiring translation, since man y exports of CRTs for re use and recycling go to Mexico and South America. However, the cost may be higher for translation of more complex Asian and African texts. To account for this, we conservatively a ssume that these costs could double to as high as 40 cents per word

. To ar rive at a range of ultimate costs, the low range assumes that

4 Rate Quote requested on May 29, 2013 at “ www.betranslated.com ”, for Spanish translation of basic contracts, bills of lading, shipping documents, and purchase & sales agreements, as well as descriptions of computer materials. Additional on

- line resources were also consulte d for rates and terms at www.trustedtranslations.com , etc.14

there are no high cost translations necessary , while the upper bound estimate assume s that as many as 1⁄2 of the documents may require translations at the higher rate. As such, at the low end our cost remains at 20 cents per word and goes to 25 cents per word on average under the high end of our cost range.

**4.0 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL COSTS**  D iscussed below is the Agency ’s best projection of the costs associated with this final rule. Since the subject provisions currently being proposed appl y onl y to the export of CRTs , U.S. importer s will not experience an y costs from these revisions. 4. 1 Estimated Costs for Reading the Rule As noted above, the Agency estimates that a total of approximately 12 entities exported CRTs for r ecycling and 140 entities exported CRTs for reuse . Therefore, we estimated that 1 52 U.S. exporters will need to read the rule in order to understand and comply with the new requirements. For purposes of this anal ys is, we as sumed that the hours required for reading/reviewing this new rule would be similar to the hours used in EPA’s assessment of the impacts associated with reading/reviewing the 2009 SLAB rule. The one - time cost for of reading/reviewing this new rule w as then estimated to be $282.26

. ( S ee Exhibit A

- 1 in Attachment A ). 5 Thus, U.S. exporters may experience a one - time cost of approximately $ 42,904 (i.e., 1 52 entities x $2 82.26 /entity ) for this activity

. 4. 2 Estimated Costs for New Annual Reporting b y C RT Export Recyclers Under this rule, U.S. entities who export CRTs for the purpose of recycling must now submit detailed annual reports on their CRT exports to EPA. This annual reporting is in addition to the current notice requirements and represents a new requirement for CRT Recycling Exporters not called for in the current CRT Rule. The following paragraphs discuss the estimated costs associated with this newly required annual report. U.S. Exporters of CRTs for Recycling As noted above, EPA estimate s that approximately 12 U.S. exporters of CRTs sent for r ecycling will be required to prepare and submit an annual report in accordance with this provision of the proposed rule. Furthermore, this new annual report for CRT Export Recyclers has been fashione d after other existing annual reporting requirements recently codified in the 2009 Final Rule governing the Exporting of Spent L ead

- Acid Batteries (SLAB) from the U.S. Therefore , EPA used the cost estimates for annual r eporting alread y available in the May 2009 Cost Assessment prepared for the “SLAB Rul e”, as the best and most relevant reference (See Footnote 2 )

. Based on these figures, EPA estimate s that the cost for a CRT Exporter to prepare

5 Estimated costs for Reading the Rule were drawn from the May 2009 Cost Assessment for the Final Rule on Exports and Imports of Hazardous Waste D estined for Recovery Among OECD Countries, Exports of Spent Lead

Acid Batteries from the U.S., and Import Consent Documentation.15

and submit an annual report ranges from $156.07 to $203.36 , depend ing upon whether the size of the e xporter is l arge vs. s mall . For purposes of analy sis, EPA assumed a 50/50 distribution of these exporters (e.g. with half considered large and half considered small). Thus, EPA estimate d that the total cost of the annual reporting requirement for export ing CRTs for recycling is $2,158 (i.e., $203.36/ annual report x 6 L arge Recycling Exporters , plus $156.07 / annual report x 6 Small Recycling Exporters ) (See Exhibit A

- 2 in Attachment A)

. EPA EPA estimate s that it will receive 12 annual reports per year. EPA e stimate s that it will incur $24.64 to receive and record each annual report ( S ee Exhibit A

- 2 in Attachment A ). Thus, EPA estimate s that the Agency will e xpe rience an annual cost of $296 (i.e. , 12 annual reports/y ear x $24.64 /report) to meet this requirement of the proposed rule. In total , the estimated cost to CRT Exporters and the EPA for the new annual reporting requirement for recyclers totals $ 2,454 per y ear (See Exhibit A

- 2 in Attachment A). 4.3 Estimated Costs for Additional Reuse and Recycling Notification Requirements Under the current CRT R ule, exporters alread y must submit notification s to EPA indicating their intent to export CRTs

. As noted above, the final CRT Rule revisions call for very minor additional reporting elements to the current CRT rule requirements. The following paragraphs discuss the estimated costs associated specificall y with the added notification elements for reuse notices

. [Note: In the case of Recycling Notices, onl y one additional data element has been added. As such, the subject cost attributable to this change is considered DeMinimus and does not appear in an y of the following impact anal ys es. ] U.S. Exporters of CRTs for Reuse To calcu late the notification

- relat ed cost impacts, EPA start ed by rel yi ng on the original burden hour estimates associated with the current notification requirements . EPA then adjusted these burden hour estimates to reflect our best estimate of the potential burden associated with the proposed changes in the notification requirements. Our best estimate is that these burden estimates would not exceed 10% of the burden attributable to the current notification requirements. Then EPA utilized the adjusted burden estimates and labor rates in combination with the projected quantity of CRT Notices to derive costs associated with the relevant proposed changes to the CRT notification process. Based on the assumptions and calculations above , EPA estimate d that CRT reuse exporters submit between 2 45 and 4 5 5 notices each y ear. We estimated that each notice will cost an additional $10. 51 (See Exhibit A

- 3 in Attachment A). In total, EPA estimates that the additional costs to Exporters will be in the range of $2 ,575 to $4, 782 (i.e., 2 45 to 4 5 5 noti ces per ye ar x $10. 51 per notice) under the final rule. EPA We estimate that EPA will incur an additional cost of $ 6.32 per notice to receive and process these notices (S ee Exhibit A

- 3 in Attachment A ). Thus, we estimate th at the Agency will16

experience a total incremental annual cost in the range of $ 1,548 to $ 2,876 (i.e., 2 45 to 4 5 5 notices per ye ar x $ 6.32 per notice) under the final rule. In total , the estimated costs to CRT Exporters and the EPA for meeting the proposed reuse and recycling notification changes are $4,123 to $7,658 per year (See Exhibit A

- 3 in Attachment A). 4. 4 Estimated Costs for English Translation of Normal Business Records (b y “Exporters of CRTs for Reuse”) In accordance with the rule’s d efinition of “normal business records , ” several ty pes of documents may

need to be translated into English, such as contractual agreements. However, since the rule onl y requires translation of documents sufficient to demonstrate that the CRTs are ultimately

shipped for purposes of reuse , exporters in most cases will choose not to conduct more costly and unnecessary

translations of voluminous contract documents. EPA assumes rather, that any translations will be restricted to smaller

- sized documents with an average word count of approximately

500 words, such as shipping receipts or pertinent excerpts only , from relevant contracts. As noted above, the A gency estimates that during 2013 a tot al of approximately 140 entities exported CRTs for reuse. For purposes of this analy sis, we established that as man y as approximately

32 to 58 business records would need to be translated into English for review. The costs for such translations can be expected to vary widel y d epending upon the size of the exporter, the number of shipments and alternative destinations, and the quantity and complexity of the normal business records associated with their reuse shipments abroad. Therefore as might be expected, the range of annual translation costs for these exporters are estimated to range from $3,200 to $7,250. (See Exhibit A4 in Attachment A).
4. 5 Total Cost Impact of the Proposed CRT Rule Revisions In total, EPA estimate s that the costs of the proposed CRT Rule revisions include approximate ly $ 42,904 in y ear one of the Rule, as well as annual costs in the range of $9,777 to 17,362 per year (starting in y ear one and continuing each ye ar thereafter)

. M an y of the assumptions used in the anal ys i s may be characterized as “cons ervative

. ” Therefore these cost estimates are likel y to be higher than in actualit y .
**5.0 QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFITS**  Promulgati on of this rule will engender benefits , both internal and external to the U.S., incl uding : ( 1 ) increased regulatory efficiency ; ( 2 ) reduction of risks associated with treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes; ( 3 ) improved ability to acquire information regarding the quantities of CRTs exported from the U.S. and the destination facilities to which the CRT s are exporte d; and ( 4 ) better tracking of compliance with the terms of CRT export notices.17

More specificall y, the se CRT Rule r evisions will help determine whether CRTs exported for recycling and reuse are handled as commodities and not inappropriatel y discarded. Such annual reports and notification enhancements improve the accuracy of our records and allow for proper d ocument ation of the total amount of CRTs being exported for recycling and reuse

. The improved data that shall be collected will also enable EPA to compare actual vs. proposed shipments to ensure that the se shipments are occurring under the terms approved by the receiving country

. Finall y, such data will enable EPA to provide summary information, if requested b y a receiving country , which would a ssis t the receiving country in better management of their CRT imports

. In conclusion , while these benefits have not been expressly quantified as part of this Economic Assessment, the resultant improvements in information provision/transparency and CRT management practices from this Rule are believed to have benefits that significantly outweigh its costs.18 **ATTACHMENT A**  **SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION**  **FOR COST ASSESSMENT**  **S**19 **Exhibit A** 
**- 1**  **Estimated Costs for**  **Reading & Understandi**  **n g**  **the New**  **Rule Requirements** 

**Cost per Entity Cost of All Entities**  **Activity** Managerial

Staff Hours a Technical Staff

Hours a Clerical Staff

Hours a Hours Labor Cost b Materials

Cost c Total Cost

per Entity Number of

Entities d Total Cost
**Reading the Regulations** U.S. Exporters 1.00 2.50 0.00 3.50 $282.26 $0.00 $2 82.26 1 52 $ 42,904
NOTES:

a Based on hourly burden estimates discussed in Section 3.3 above.
b Based on hourly labor rates discussed in Section 3.2 above.

c Based on materials costs discussed in Section 3.4 above. d Based on universe assumptions discussed in Section 3.1 above.20 **Exhibit A** 
**- 2**  **Estimated Costs for**  **New Annual Report**  **ing by Exporters of CRTs for Recycling** 

**Cost per Entity Cost for all Entities**  **Activity** Managerial

Staff Hours a Technical Staff

Hours a Clerical Staff

Hours a Total

Hours Total Labor

Cost b Material

Cost c Total

Cost Number of

Entities d Total Cost
**Annual Report Large U.S. Exporters**  Research specific export information 0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 $106.68 $0.00 $106.68 6 $640.08 Prepare and submit report 0.10 1.00 0.30 1.40 $91.77 $5.20 $96.97 6 $581.82

**Subtotal:** $1 98

. 45 $5.20 $ 203.65 6 $1,221.90 **Small U.S. Exporters**  Research specific export information 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 $70.08 $0.00 $70.08 6 $ 420.48 Prepare and submit report 0.10 0.50 0.50 1.10 $80.79 $ 5.20 $85.99 6 $ 515.94

**Subtotal:** $150.87 $5.20 $156.07 6 $936.42 **Total for Exporters:**  **$ 2,158.32**  **EPA** Receive and record report 0.00 0.10 0.50 0.60 $24.64 $0.00 $24.64 12 $ 295.68

**T otal**  **for EPA:** 0.00 0.10 0.50 0.60 $24.64 $0.00 $24.64 12 **$ 295.68**  **TOTAL: (for both Exporters & EPA)**  **$2,454** NOTES:

a Based on hourly burden estimates discussed in Section 3.3 above. b Based on hourly labor rates discussed in Section 3.2 above.

c Based on material costs discussed in Section 3.4 above. d Based on universe assumptions discussed in Section 3.1 above, which reveal a total of approximately 12 CRT Recycling Exporter s in the U.S. And, we assume there is a 50/50 Percent Ratio regarding the total number of Large vs. Small U.S. CRT Exporters, s uch that there are 6 of each type in the above calculations.21 **Exhibit A**
**- 3**  **Estimated Costs for Meeting Proposed Reuse**  **Notification Changes** 

**(calling for minor additional information)**

**Cost per Notice Cost of All Notices**  **Activity** Manage r Staff Hours a Technical

Staff Hours a Clerical

Staff Hours a Total Hours b (10% of Orig

. Hours) Total

Labor Cost c Total Material Cost s d Total Cost per Notice Number

of Entities e Estimated

Number of Notices f Total Cost

**U.S. Exporters**  **of CRTs for Reuse** Prepare & submit notification **Subt otal**  **for Exporters:** 0.00 1.50 0.00 0 .15 $10.51 $0.00 $10.51 1 40 2 45 to 4 5 5 **$ 2,575**  **to $4, 782**  **EPA** Receive and process notification s 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.10 $6.32 $0.00 $6.32 1 40 2 45 to 4 5 5 **$1, 548**  **to $2, 876** 

**Total for both Exporters & EPA**  0.00 2.5 0 0.00 0

. 2 5 $ 16.83 $0. 00 $ 16.83 1 40 2 45 to 4 5 5 **$4, 123**  **to $ 7,658**  Notes:
a Staff level h ourly burden estimates are discussed in Section 3.3 above. b Total final hourly burden estimates are conservatively assume d to only involve an additional burden equal to 10% of the overall burden from the notification requirements under the current CRT Rule.
c Based on hourly labor rates discussed in Section 3.2 above. d Since e ntities are already required to submit Recycling and Reuse Notices, the effected entities face no additional costs associated with mailings, copies, facsimiles, etc. due to the newly proposed modifications to the existing notices.
e The projections for the total number of entities potentially impacted by the rule are discussed in Section 3.1 above. f The projections for the total number of notifications that may be submitted annually is discussed in Section 3.5 above

.

.22 **Exhibit A**
**- 4**  **Estimated Costs for Translating Foreign Language Records into English Breakout of**  **Entities that Conduct More vs.**  **Less Annual Shipments of CRTs**  **for Reuse a**  **Assumed Number**

**of Shipments per Year**  **( Equals Assumed**  **Number of**  **Business Records that Must be**  **R etained**  **per Y**  **ear b**  **Assumed**

**Percentage of Shipment**  **Records Potentially**  **Subject to an Audit and**  **Review c**  **Assumed**

**Proportion of Audited**  **Records that are in Foreign**  **Text and Require**  **English Translation**  **c Estimated** 

**Number of Business**  **Records that will Need**  **Translat ion**  **c Average** 

**Word Count per**  **Record Translated**  **c Total Estimated** 

**Unit Cost per Word Count**  **& Level of Complexity**  **d (Low Estimate)** 

**of Total Cost per**  **Record Translated**  **(High Estimate)**

**of Total Cost per**  **Record Translated**  **Total Estimated**

**Range of Costs Per Year** 

105 (or 75% of 140 ) Entities Make 2 to 4 Shipments per Year 2 to 4 25 % 50 % 27 to 53 500 $ 0.20 to $ 0.25 $100 $125 **$2,700 to $6,625**

35 (or 25% of 140) Entities Make Only 1 Shipment 1 25 % 50 % 5 500 $ 0.20 to $ 0.25 $100 $125 **$500 to $625**

Totals 1 to 4 **Overall Totals:** 1 to 4 NA NA 32 to 58 NA NA NA NA **$3,200 to $7,250**
NOTES:
a Based on using the assumed number of reuse notifications (presented in Section 3.5) as a direct proxy for the number of annua l shipments potentially subject to review. b Based on assumption that every shipment will only need 1 English language business record as documentation/proof that their C RTs were shipped for purposes of reuse. C Se e Section 3.6 for further expla nation of underlying assumptions and the estimated quantity of Normal Business Records that will Need Translation

. d Based on range of potential costs for attaining third party translation of foreign language documents into English, as discus sed in Section 3.7 above.23 

### Attachment B **Summary of Regulatory Flexibility Analyses**  **Conducted in**  **Coordination with the Economic Im**  **pacts Assessment for Revisions to the Export Provisions of the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT)**  **Final Rule** 

**1.0 Regulatory Flexibility Act Requirements**  The Regulatory

Flexibility

Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), requires EPA to prepare a regulatory flexibility anal ys is for any

rule that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (i.e., small businesses, small governments, and small non

- profit organizations). However, a regulatory flexibility

analy sis is not required if the Administrator certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA further requires E PA to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. **2.0 Summary Discussion of Analyses and Results**  In the Nov. 2011 Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed CRT rule, the Agency examined the rule's potential effects on small entities as required by the RFA/SBREFA. At that time, we determined that the rule would not result in a significant impa ct on a substantial number of small entities. This determination was made b y comparing annual compliance costs under the rule to the relative average annual sales of small businesses in the industrial sectors most likely

to be affected by

the rule. Summarized below is a description of our earlier anal ys es, as well as a discussion of the minimal change in the overall economic impacts associated with this final rule. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration's small business size standards, fir ms in most of these industry sectors are classified as a "small business" if they have fewer than 750 employ ees. However, for purposes of this analy sis, we determined that this threshold may be too high and could mask the potential effects on the smallest , most vulnerable firms. Therefore, the Agency

relied upon a far more conservative approach and selected a threshold for firms with fewer than 20 employ ees instead of the official standard of 750. As summarized in the Executive Summary of the Economic Impact Assessment conducted in Nov. 2011 for the proposed revisions to the Export Provisions of the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Rule, the estimated costs of the rule were shown to be very low. Our analy ses found that only

approximately

138 CRT Exporters would be affected b y the proposed revisions (including roughl y 12 whom export CRTs for recycling with the remaining 126 exporting CRTs for purposes of reuse).24

The subject rule revisions vary for those exporters that recycle vs. those that reuse CRTs. Th e baseline annual compliance costs for all CRTs exporters (including both those that export for purposes of recycling and/or reuse) ranged from $2,286 to $4,453 in the baseline. Then, an additional total annual cost of approximately $2,500 is incurred by just those 12 firms that export CRTs for recycling. Lastly , the one

- time cost expected to be incurred by all exporters to familiarize themselves with the rule totaled $39,000. When annualized and considered on a per facility basis, the costs for “CRT Reus ers” ranges from $57.54 to $72.51 per facilit y, while that for “CRT Recyclers” ranges from $265.87 to $280.84. As reflected in Exhibit 1, when considered together, this results in costs as low as $57.54 and as high as $280.84 (depending on the ty pe of exp orts that are occurring). Further display ed in Exhibit 1 are ty pical numbers of facilities in 4 specific industrial sectors viewed to be most representative of CRT Exporters. The numbers shown reflect estimates of the numbers of facilities with less th an 20 employ ees, as well as their Annual Sales. As shown in Exhibit 1, for firms with fewer than 20 employ ees, the annual compliance cost as a percentage of annual sales is less than 0.1 percent. It was therefore determined that rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

**Exhibit B** 
**- 1**  **Evaluation of the Economic Impacts on Small Businesses (as Conducted in the Nov. 2011 EIA for the Proposed CRT Rule)**  **Industry Sector NAICS**  **Code Number of** 

**Firms with Fewer t**  **han 20**  **Employees Annual** 

**Sales Per Facility**  **(2007$) a**  **Range of Annual**

**Compliance Costs for both CRT Recyclers**  **& Reusers ($)**  **b Annual** 

**C om**  **pliance Cost as a Percentage**  **of Sales**
**CRT Rule** Lo w High Recyclable Material Wholesaler 423930 5133 2,636,310 57.54 280.84 0. 002 % to 0.01% Materials Recovery Facilities 562920 621 971,543 57.54 280.84 0.006% to 0.03% Recyclable Material Collection Services, Solid Waste Collection 562111 5620 1,014,036 57.54 280.84 0.006% to 0.03%

Other Waste Collection 562119 457 423,059 57.54 280.84 0.015% to 0.07%

a Based on 2002 U.S. Census Bureau data, updated to 2007 dollars using the GDP Implicit Price Deflator (1.15). b Based on an annual compliance cost calculated as the aggregate annual costs incurred by all CRT exporters, importers and transporters, divided by the total number of affected entities. First year costs were annualized over 10 years using a disco unt factor of seven percent

.

Additional analy ses were conducted to evaluate the incremental increase in the costs of the rule as a means of validating our earlier determination. As already revealed in the results of our EIA analy ses, the total estimate costs of the final rule are very similar to those that were25

proje cted b y our earlier analyses for the proposed rule in November of 2011. Based on the updated anal ys es, annual compliance costs for exp orters or CRTs for purposes of reuse ranged from $ 5,775 to $ 12,032 in the baseline. Then, an additional total annual cos t of approximately $2,45 0 is incurred b y just those firms that export CRTs for recycling. Lastly , the one

- time cost expected to be incurred by all exporters to familiarize themselves with the rule totaled $ 42,90 0. When annualized and considered on a per facility basis, the costs f

or “CRT Reusers” ranges from $84.88 to $129.57 per facility , while that for “CRT Recyclers” totals approximately $713.50 per facility

. Therefore, under the final rule, the estimated annual costs are t ypi cally going to be as low as $56.88 for the 140 reuse exporters, as compared to $713.50 per facility for recycling exporters

. The costs results from our updated analy ses are very similar to those observed in our earlier anal ys es. The assumptions and methodology underl yi ng these analy ses were furthermore highl y conservative. As such, the results help reaffirm that, for firms with fewer than 20 employ ees, annual compliance cost as a percentage of annual sales should be less than 0.1 percent. Based on the above, EPA projects that rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.