Economic Analysis of the Proposed Rule to add 

HBCD to the List of TRI Reportable Chemicals

March 28, 2014

Prepared by Abt Associates for:

Analytical Support Branch

Environmental Analysis Division

Office of Information Analysis and Access

Office of Environmental Information

US Environmental Protection Agency
CONTENTS

Economic Analysis of the Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. ii

ES. Executive Summary................................................................................................................iv

ES.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................iv

ES.2 Need for Rule ..................................................................................................................iv

ES.3 Addition of HBCD..........................................................................................................iv

ES.4 Estimated Reporting Activity...........................................................................................v

ES.5 Costs of the Proposed Rule ..............................................................................................v

ES.5.1 Industry Costs .....................................................................................................v

ES.5.2 EPA Costs........................................................................................................ vii

ES.5.3 Total Costs....................................................................................................... vii

ES.6 Small Entity Analysis................................................................................................... viii

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

1. Background and Overview of Analysis.............................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Overview of TRI.......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1.1 Pollution Prevention Act................................................................................. 1-3

1.1.2 Changes to the List of Chemicals.................................................................... 1-3

1.1.3 Alternate Threshold......................................................................................... 1-3

1.1.4 Executive Order 12856 ................................................................................... 1-4

1.1.5 Changes to the List of Industries..................................................................... 1-4

1.1.6 Changes for Chemicals of Special Concern (e.g. Persistent, Bioaccumulative, 

and Toxic)....................................................................................................... 1-4

1.1.7 Toxic Chemical Release Reporting Using North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) Rule.............................................................. 1-4

1.1.8 TRI Dioxin and Dioxin-like Compounds Toxic Equivalency (TEQ) 

Information Rule............................................................................................. 1-5

1.2 Addition of HBCD to EPCRA Section 313 Reporting Requirements......................... 1-5

1.3 Organization of This Report......................................................................................... 1-5

2. Estimates of the Number of Reports and Affected Facilities........................................... 2-1

2.1 Background .................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1.1 Uses................................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1.2 Production ....................................................................................................... 2-2

2.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................ 2-2

2.2.1 HBCD Manufacturers..................................................................................... 2-3

2.2.2 EPS and XPS Foam Manufacturing................................................................ 2-3

2.2.3 Textiles............................................................................................................ 2-7

2.2.4 High Impact Polystyrene............................................................................... 2-10

2.3 Summary .................................................................................................................... 2-12
CONTENTS

Economic Analysis of the Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. iii

3. Cost Estimates...................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Industry Burden and Cost Estimates............................................................................ 3-1

3.1.1 Estimation of Burden ...................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.2 Estimation of Cost........................................................................................... 3-3

3.1.3 Total Industry Burden Estimates..................................................................... 3-5

3.1.4 Total Industry Cost Estimates......................................................................... 3-6

3.1.5 Annualized Cost Estimates ............................................................................. 3-7

3.2 EPA Cost Estimates..................................................................................................... 3-8

3.3 Total Costs ................................................................................................................... 3-9

4. Small Entity Analysis........................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Impact on Small Entities.............................................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Definitions of Small Entities........................................................................................ 4-1

4.3 Methodology Overview ............................................................................................... 4-2

4.3.1 Sectors Analyzed using Actual Facility Data (EPS Resin Manufacturing, XPS 

and EPS Foam Manufacturing, and Automotive Textile Manufacturing)...... 4-4

4.3.2 Sectors Analyzed using Census Data (HBCD Manufacturing, Automotive 

Textile Manufacturing, and HIPS Manufacturing)......................................... 4-7

4.4 Summary of Impacts to Small Parent Entities ........................................................... 4-13

5. Benefits.................................................................................................................................. 5-1

6. References............................................................................................................................. 6-1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Economic Analysis of the Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. iv

ES. Executive Summary

ES.1 Introduction

Under section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), and section 

6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), certain facilities are required to file annual reports to the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to states or Indian Country officials on their 

releases, transfers, and other waste management practices for certain toxic chemicals if they are 

manufactured, processed, or otherwise used above certain threshold amounts. This information is 

included in a publicly available database known as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).

Currently, there are 594 chemicals and 31 chemical categories on the list of chemicals subject to EPCRA 

section 313 requirements. EPCRA section 313(d) authorizes EPA to add chemicals to the list of 

reportable substances. Under the proposed rule, EPA adds hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) to the list 

of individual chemicals subject to EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements.

ES.2 Need for Rule

EPA believes that HBCD meets the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) criteria for listing because it presents 

potential human health concerns based on animal test results indicating developmental and reproductive 

effects. EPA also believes that HBCD meets the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(C) criteria because it is highly 

toxic to aquatic organisms. Additionally, HBCD bioaccumulates and biomagnifies in the food chain; is

persistent; and is transported long distances in the environment. As a result, HBCD meets the TRI criteria 

for a Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) chemical and is designated as a chemical of special 

concern. Further, EPA believes that facilities currently manufacture, process, or otherwise use these 

chemicals above TRI thresholds and therefore will file TRI reports based on the analysis presented in this 

document.

ES.3 Addition of HBCD

HBCD is a brominated flame retardant found world-wide in the environment and wildlife. Human 

exposure is evidenced from its presence in breast milk, adipose tissue and blood. It bioaccumulates and 

biomagnifies in the food chain. It persists and is transported long distances in the environment, and is 

highly toxic to aquatic organisms. It also presents potential human health concerns based on animal test 

results indicating potential reproductive and developmental effects (U.S. EPA, 2010). 

The main use of HBCD is as a flame retardant in expanded polystyrene foam (EPS) and extruded 

polystyrene foam (XPS). EPS and XPS are used primarily for thermal insulation boards in the building 

and construction industry (Morose, 2006). HBCD may also be used as a flame retardant in textiles 

including: upholstered furniture, upholstery seating in transportation vehicles, draperies, wall coverings, 

mattress ticking, and interior textiles, such as roller blinds (Morose, 2006; European Chemicals Agency 

[ECHA], 2009). In addition, HBCD is used as a flame retardant in high impact polystyrene (HIPS) for 

electrical and electronic appliances, such as audio-visual equipment as well as for some wire and cable 

applications (ECHA, 2009). 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Economic Analysis of the Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. v

ES.4 Estimated Reporting Activity

The number of additional TRI reports expected due to the proposed rule is summarized in Table ES-1

below.

Table ES-1: Total Estimated Forms and Facilities

Sector Number of 

Facilities

Number of Forms

Rs

HBCD Manufacturing (NAICS 325) 3 3

EPS Resin Manufacturing (NAICS 325211) 4 4

XPS and EPS Foam Manufacturing (NAICS 326140) 66 66

Automotive Textile Manufacturing (Misc. NAICS Codes) 3 3

Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing

(NAICS 336360) 10 10

HIPS Manufacturing (NAICS 325211) 15 15

Total 101 101

ES.5 Costs of the Proposed Rule

The proposed rule will result in associated costs to both industry and EPA. Affected facilities will spend 

time reporting the required information to EPA on Form R or Form A. The Agency will spend time 

processing new forms.

ES.5.1 Industry Costs

For the proposed rule, the burden and cost potentially incurred by industry are estimated using the RatioBased Burden Methodology (RBBM), which is a simplified formulation of the previously employed 

burden methodology (U.S. EPA, 2011b). Estimating reporting burden using RBBM produces a more 

stable estimate that reflects overall “average” reporting conditions at affected facilities. According to 

RBBM, reporting activities can be divided into two groups: 

 Form Activities, consisting of rule familiarization, reporter compliance determination, 

calculations and form completion, and recordkeeping and submission; and 

 Non-Form Activities, consisting of supplier notification and non-reporter compliance 

determination.

Form Activity burden is estimated using the variable Nominal Form R Unit Burden to represent average 

burden incurred by filers to file a Form R. The Nominal Form R Unit Burden is set at 35.70516 hours.1

Form A burden is closely linked to that of Form R, and is therefore quantified by the ratio A/R (set at 

0.615), thus reflecting the burden of a Form A as 61.5 percent of the burden of a Form R. Form Activity 

 

1 The burden of 35.70516 includes the addition of 0.00516 hours of burden associated with the Dioxin Reporting 

Requirements promulgated in May 10, 2007, and accounted for in the 2011 ICR (Docket# EPA-HQ-OEI-2010-

0835).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Economic Analysis of the Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. vi

Burden can be calculated using the Nominal Form R Unit Burden, the A/R ratio, and the number of Form 

R and Form A chemicals expected to be reported due to the proposed rule. RBBM combines Form 

Activity Burden with Non-Form Activity Burden (consisting of supplier notification and non-reporter 

compliance determination) in order to calculate Steady State Total Burden, which is the ongoing burden 

estimated to be incurred by filers due to the proposed rule (previously referred to as “Subsequent Year 

Burden”). To represent the elevated level of effort incurred by both filers reporting to TRI for the firsttime and those already reporting to TRI but considering the requirements of the proposed rule for the first 

time, a First-Time Filer Factor (FTFf) is computed at 2.1.

The costs potentially incurred by industry are estimated using the weighted average wage rate, WAWR,

representing the average loaded cost for a mix of Managerial, Technical and Clerical labor per hour of 

TRI reporter burden. The WAWR is calculated using data from Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employer 

Costs for Employee Compensation, updated quarterly. As of March 12, 2014, the WAWR reflecting 2013 

wage rate data is calculated at $49.25.

Table ES-2 presents the total industry cost of the proposed rule in the first year of the rule and in the 

steady state. Table ES-3 presents annualized industry costs annualized at discount rates of 3% and 7%.

Table ES-2: Total First Year and Steady State Industry Cost under the Proposed Rule

Sector

Number of 

Reporting 

Facilities

Number 

of 

Form Rs

First Year 

Total Cost

(2013 Dollars)

Steady State 

Total Cost

(2013 Dollars)

HBCD Manufacturing (NAICS 325) 3 3 $11,078 $5,275

EPS Resin Manufacturing (NAICS 

325211) 4 4 $14,771 $7,034

XPS and EPS Foam Manufacturing

(NAICS 326140) 66 66 $243,725 $116,060

Automotive Textile Manufacturing

(Misc. NAICS Codes) 3 3 $11,078 $5,275

Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior 

Trim Manufacturing (NAICS 336360) 10 10 $36,928 $17,585

HIPS Manufacturing (NAICS 325211) 15 15 $55,392 $26,377

Total 101 101 $372,973 $177,606
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Economic Analysis of the Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. vii

Table ES-3: Total Annualized Industry Cost under the Proposed Rule

Industry Costs

Number of 

Reporting 

Facilities

Number 

of 

Form Rs

Total 

Annualized 

Cost (3%, 

2013 Dollars)

Total 

Annualized Cost 

(7%, 

2013 Dollars)

HBCD Manufacturing (NAICS 325) 3 3 $5,936 $6,048

EPS Resin Manufacturing (NAICS 

325211) 4 4 $7,915 $8,063

XPS and EPS Foam Manufacturing

(NAICS 326140) 66 66 $130,590 $133,047

Automotive Textile Manufacturing

(Misc. NAICS Codes) 3 3 $5,936 $6,048

Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior 

Trim Manufacturing (NAICS 336360) 10 10 $19,786 $20,159

HIPS Manufacturing (NAICS 325211) 15 15 $29,680 $30,238

Total 101 101 $199,843 $203,603

ES.5.2 EPA Costs

In general, EPA incurs burden and costs for five categories of activities related to the TRI program: data 

processing, outreach and training, information dissemination, policy and petitions, and compliance and 

enforcement. These activities involve both fixed (e.g., rent for the EPCRA reporting center) and variable 

costs (activities such as data processing that depend on the number of forms submitted). As a result of the 

proposed rule, the Agency is only expected to incur variable costs associated with data processing.

As of January 21, 2014, all non-trade secret forms must be submitted electronically. EPA estimates that 

the processing cost for TRI-MEweb submissions is $3.33 per form. Therefore, the total form processing 

burden for EPA associated with Form R and Form A chemical submissions under the proposed rule is 

estimated at $336.

ES.5.3 Total Costs

The total cost of the proposed rule to industry and EPA is estimated at approximately $200,000 under a 

3% or 7% discount rate. Table ES-4 summarizes the total annualized costs to industry and EPA as a result 

of the proposed rule.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Economic Analysis of the Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. viii

Table ES-4: Summary of Total Costs of the Proposed Rule

Cost Category

Total Cost

(3% Discount Rate, 

2013 Dollars)

Total Cost 

(7% Discount Rate, 

2013 Dollars)

Industry Costs $199,843 $203,603

EPA Processing Costs1 $336 $336

Total Costs $200,179 $203,939

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

time frame.

ES.6 Small Entity Analysis

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. § 601 et. seq.) requires Federal agencies to 

assess the effects of regulations on small entities, and in some instances, to examine alternatives to the 

regulations that may reduce adverse economic effects on significantly impacted small entities. The RFA 

requires agencies to prepare an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis for each rule unless the 

Agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. 

This analysis uses annualized cost impact percentages to measure potential impacts on small entities. The 

cost impact percentage is defined as annualized compliance costs resulting from the proposed rule as a 

percentage of annual revenues or sales. For purposes of determining small entity impacts, comparing 

annualized compliance costs to annual revenues provides a reasonable indication of the magnitude of the 

regulatory burden relative to a commonly available and objective measure of a company's business 

volume. Where regulatory costs represent a small fraction of a typical firm's revenue, the impacts of the 

regulation are likely to be minimal.

Small entity impacts for the 101 facilities estimated to be affected by the proposed rule are estimated 

either using actual facility and parent entity data or using U.S. Census data.

For the sectors where the identity of each facility is known (EPS resin manufacturing, EPS foam 

manufacturing, XPS foam manufacturing, and automotive textile manufacturing), cost impact percentages 

are calculated using the actual compliance costs per facility, the number of facilities per parent company 

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

relationships, and the data necessary to determine if the parent entity is small were obtained from 

Hoover’s, Inc.’s business information database, which provides data including annual revenue, number of 

employees, line of business, parent company identity, and corporate linkages (Hoover's Inc, 2014).

Small entity impacts in sectors where the identify of each facility is not known (HBCD manufacturing, 

motor vehicle seating and trim manufacturing, and HIPS manufacturing) were estimated using revenue, 

employment, and facility-parent relationship data from the U.S. Census Bureau‘s Statistics of U.S. 

Businesses (SUSB) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). The SUSB provides annual data for U.S. business 

establishments by geography, industry, and enterprise size, including counts of establishments, firms, 

employees, and payroll. Data on total revenues are also provided by SUSB every five years. The data 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Economic Analysis of the Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. ix

available from the SUSB can therefore be used to estimate the number of small parent entities affected 

under the proposed rule, estimate annual revenues, and calculate cost impact percentages.

Although the specific methodology used to estimate small entity impacts differs based on the data 

available for each sector, the general methodology employed consists of the following steps:

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

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

Step 3: Estimate annual revenues of parent entities.

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

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

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

Step 6: Calculate the entity-level impact percentages, defined as annualized compliance costs as a 

percentage of annual revenues, to measure regulatory burden.

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

percentages in each of three categories: (1) less than one percent of annual revenues; (2) between one 

and three percent of annual revenues; and (3) greater than or equal to three percent of annual 

revenues.

The 101 facilities expected to report under the proposed rule were linked to 55 parent entities, 42 of 

which were categorized as small parent entities. All of the 42 small parent entities are estimated to incur 

annualized cost impacts of less than 1%. Therefore, the proposed rule is not expected to significantly 

impact a substantial number of small entities. Table ES-5 summarizes the results of the small entity 

analysis.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Economic Analysis of the Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. x

Table ES-5: Summary of Small Entity Analysis

Sector

Small Parent 

Entities Incurring 

Impacts of <1%

Small Parent 

Entities Incurring 

Impacts of 1% to 

3%

Small Parent 

Entities Incurring 

Impacts of >3%

HBCD Manufacturing (NAICS 325) 2

(100%)

0 0

EPS Resin Manufacturing (NAICS 

325211) 0 0 0

XPS and EPS Foam Manufacturing

(NAICS 326140)

26 

(100%) 0 0

Automotive Textile Manufacturing

(Misc. NAICS Codes)

1

(100%) 0 0

Motor Vehicle Seating and Trim 

Manufacturing (NAICS 336360)

5

(100%)

0 0

HIPS Manufacturing (NAICS 

325211)

8

(100%)

0 0

Total 42

(100%) 0 0

ES.7 Benefits of the Proposed Rule

The benefits of the proposed rule include improved understanding, awareness, and decision making 

related to the provision and distribution of information on releases and waste management of HBCD. The 

provision of information can lead to follow-on activities that create additional costs and benefits. In 

particular, this information can lead to voluntary initiatives by industry to review production processes, 

set goals for reductions in emissions, and institute “good neighbor” policies.

EPA has not attempted to monetize the benefits of the proposed rule due to the lack of quantitative 

information characterizing the range of users and non-users of TRI data and the substantial analytical 

challenges associated with conducting an analysis that accurately predicts behavioral responses to the 

provision of information. In addition, the potentially large numbers of beneficiaries who are not TRI data 

users, or who are otherwise unaware of the data (e.g., general public), further limits EPA’s ability to 

quantify potential benefits. However, the experience since the first forms were submitted to TRI in 1987 

suggests that reporting under EPCRA section 313 has produced real gains in understanding about 

communities’ exposure to toxic chemicals. In its report entitled The Toxics Release Inventory in Action: 

Media, Government, Business, Community and Academic Uses of TRI, EPA has documented numerous 

examples of how multiple stakeholders have used TRI data (U.S. EPA, 2013b). Moreover, a cursory 

search on GoogleScholarTM reveals thousands of academic articles referencing the Toxics Release 

Inventory. Listing HBCD, and the subsequent use of the reported information, should provide similar 

gains in understanding of this particular chemical. EPA believes that HBCD meets the statutory toxicity 

criteria of section 313, and is at least as toxic as some of the chemicals for which Congress initially 

believed there were net benefits due to reporting (i.e., the initial list of section 313 chemicals).
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 1-1

1. Background and Overview of Analysis

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), also known as Title III of the 

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), created a broad range of emergency 

response planning and reporting requirements for manufacturers, processors, and users of toxic chemicals 

in the United States. Under section 313 of EPCRA, certain facilities are required to submit annual reports 

to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to States and Indian Country officials

on their release(s), transfer(s), and waste management activities for certain toxic chemicals if they are 

manufactured, processed, or otherwise used above thresholds amounts. In addition, the Pollution 

Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990 requires these same facilities to report prevention, recycling, and other 

waste management information for these same chemicals. EPA maintains the data collected under 

EPCRA section 313 and the PPA in a database known as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).2

EPCRA section 313(f)(1) contains default reporting thresholds for facilities. These reporting thresholds 

are 25,000 pounds for toxic chemicals that are manufactured (including imported) or processed, and 

10,000 pounds for toxic chemicals that are otherwise used. For chemicals that are considered to be 

persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT), reporting thresholds are set at 10 or 100 lbs, with the 

exception of dioxin, which is set at 0.1 grams. Facilities that meet these reporting thresholds, as well as 

other reporting criteria, are required to submit annual reports. Under this rule, reporting would be required 

for hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), which EPA considers to present potential human health concerns 

based on animal test results indicating developmental and reproductive effects. Additionally, HBCD is 

highly toxic to aquatic organisms; bioaccumulates and biomagnifies in the food chain; is persistent; and is 

transported long distances in the environment. As a result, HBCD meets the TRI criteria for a Persistent, 

Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) chemical.

This report analyzes the economic impacts of the proposed rule. To understand the effects of the proposed

rule, however, it is first necessary to understand how EPCRA section 313 and TRI currently operate. This 

chapter provides an overview of TRI followed by a description of the rule and organization of the report.

1.1 Overview of TRI

In 1986, Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). The 

law was passed in response to the accidental release of methyl isocyanate gas in Bhopal, India, in 

December 1984, and to a number of chemical accidents in the United States, including one in Institute, 

West Virginia. These accidental releases highlighted the lack of information readily available to the 

public about toxic chemicals being manufactured, processed, used, and transported within their 

communities. EPCRA is based on the premise that the public has the right to know about the use of 

chemicals, as well as their routine and accidental releases. The broad purposes are to encourage planning 

for response to accidental chemical releases as well as daily management of routine releases, and to 

 

2 The term EPCRA section 313 properly refers to only the statutory requirements, while the term TRI properly refers 

to the database where the information collected under section 313 and under section 6607 of the PPA is stored. 

However, the terms have often been used interchangeably by the public to refer to the statute, the regulatory 

requirements, the reporting form, the database, and EPA's program to manage the data. In deference to common 

usage, the terms EPCRA section 313 and TRI are sometimes used interchangeably in this report where doing so will 

make the report simpler and easier to read.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 1-2

provide the public and government agencies with information about the presence, release, and 

management of toxic chemicals.

EPCRA contains four main provisions:

 Planning for chemical emergencies (sections 301-303),

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

 Reporting of hazardous chemical inventories (sections 311-312), and

 Toxic chemical release reporting (section 313).

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

reporting provisions of section 313.

The first regulations implementing EPCRA section 313 were promulgated on February 16, 1988 (53 FR 

4500), and are codified at 40 CFR part 372. Under these original regulations, owners or operators of 

certain facilities must complete and submit one or more Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting 

Form R reports. The information to be submitted on a Form R report includes, but is not limited to, 

information on releases to air, water, and land, as well as on-site waste treatment and transfers of the 

chemical to off-site locations.

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

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

2. It has ten or more full-time employees (or the hourly equivalent of 20,000 hours); and

3. It manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses any of the listed toxic chemicals or chemical 

categories above the applicable reporting threshold.

A completed Form R must be submitted for each listed toxic chemical manufactured, processed, or 

otherwise used above threshold levels at each regulated facility as described in 40 CFR part 372. For most 

chemicals, threshold levels are set at 25,000 lbs for manufacturing and processing and 10,000 lbs for 

otherwise use (40 CFR § 372.25). The EPCRA section 313 list currently contains over 600 toxic 

chemicals and chemical compound categories (hereinafter, “TRI chemicals”). Reports for each Calendar 

Year are due by July 1 of the following year.

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

was designed for public access. The primary purpose of TRI data is to inform the public of releases and 

other waste management activities of toxic chemicals in their communities, and enable citizens to make 

informed decisions regarding the consequences of such activities to human health and the environment. 

TRI data are also used by the federal, state and local governments for prioritization purposes and to assess 

pollution prevention activities. Researchers, public interest groups, as well as others use TRI data for a 

variety of purposes. In general, TRI data have proven to be a powerful tool in environmental decisionmaking.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 1-3

1.1.1 Pollution Prevention Act

In 1990, Congress passed the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA), which adopted as national policy an 

environmental hierarchy that establishes pollution prevention as the first choice among waste 

management options (42 U.S.C. §§ 13101-13109). For waste that cannot be prevented at the source, 

recycling is considered the next best option, and treatment or disposal should be considered only when 

source reduction and recycling options cannot be implemented. Section 6607 of the PPA requires 

facilities to also provide information on their pollution prevention, recycling, and other waste 

management activities. This information complements the information reported under EPCRA section 

313 by providing information about the waste management activities related to the reported chemicals. 

The data elements required by the Pollution Prevention Act are included as Section 8 of Form R.

1.1.2 Changes to the List of Chemicals

When Congress passed EPCRA it provided an initial list of approximately 300 chemicals and chemical 

categories subject to TRI reporting. The statutory list was derived from chemical lists used in New Jersey 

and Maryland. Congress also included a provision in EPCRA that allows EPA to amend the list of 

chemicals subject to TRI reporting. Under section 313(d), EPA has the authority to add a chemical to the 

list if it determines that the chemical can cause or can be reasonably anticipated to cause:

 Adverse acute human health effects at concentration levels reasonably likely to exist beyond 

facility site boundaries as a result of continuous or frequently recurring releases;

 In humans, cancer or teratogenic effects, serious or irreversible reproductive dysfunctions, 

neurological disorders, heritable genetic mutations, or other chronic health effects; or

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

EPA has added chemicals to the list through its authority under section 313(d). Most notably, EPA added 

286 chemicals and chemical categories to the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic chemicals on November 

30, 1994 (59 FR 61432).

EPA may remove a chemical from the list if it does not meet any of the above criteria found in 313(d). 

According to section 313(e) of EPCRA, any person may petition EPA to add or delete a chemical from 

the list on the basis of whether or not it meets the above criteria (see 42 U.S.C. § 11023(e)). All changes 

to the list are made through the rulemaking process under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

1.1.3 Alternate Threshold

On November 30, 1994, EPA finalized the “TRI Alternate Threshold for Facilities with Low Annual 

Reportable Amounts” (59 FR 61488). This rule was intended to reduce the compliance burden associated 

with EPCRA section 313. It established a streamlined reporting option for facilities that manufacture, 

process or otherwise use a TRI chemical in annual quantities of one million pounds or less and where the 

annual reportable amount of the chemical does not exceed 500 pounds.3 Under such circumstances the 

facility has the option of filing a two-page certification statement known as a “Form A” instead of the 

longer Form R (40 CFR 372.27). The Form A is a certification that once completed and signed certifies 

 

3 The annual reportable amount is equal to the combined total quantities recycled, combusted for energy recovery, 

treated, or released. It can be calculated as is the sum of data elements 8.1 through 8.7 on Form R.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 1-4

that the facility is not required to file a Form R for the chemical because the facility did not exceed 500 

pounds for the total annual reportable amount for that chemical, and that their amounts manufactured or 

processed or otherwise used did not exceed one million pounds. EPA has excluded certain chemicals 

designated as chemicals of special concern (see below) from Form A eligibility.

1.1.4 Executive Order 12856

On August 3, 1993, Executive Order 12856, “Federal Compliance with Right-to-Know Laws and 

Pollution Prevention Requirements” was signed by the President (58 FR 41981). The Executive Order 

requires federal facilities to comply with EPCRA requirements beginning with the 1994-reporting year. 

The Executive Order also asked all federal agencies to set a voluntary goal of 50% reduction from 

baseline quantities of their releases and transfers by 1999.

1.1.5 Changes to the List of Industries

On May 1, 1997, EPA added facilities in seven industry groups to the list of facilities subject to the 

reporting requirements of section 313 (62 FR 23833). The first reports from these facilities were required 

to be submitted by July 1, 1999 for the calendar year 1998. Prior to this action, reporting was limited to 

facilities in the manufacturing sector (SIC codes 20-39) and federal facilities. This action added facilities 

in the following sectors: 

 Metal mining, 

 Coal mining,

 Electric utilities,

 Commercial hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities,

 Chemicals and allied products-wholesale,

 Petroleum bulk terminals and plants-wholesale, and

 Solvent recovery services.

1.1.6 Changes for Chemicals of Special Concern (e.g. Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic)

On October 29, 1999, EPA published a final rule that lowered the reporting thresholds to 10 or 100 

pounds for certain TRI chemicals (persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals, or PBT chemicals) 

that are of special concern (64 FR 58666). In the same rule, EPA also added to the section 313 list of 

toxic chemicals certain PBT chemicals that were not already listed, including a dioxin category with a 

reporting threshold of 0.1 gram. Additionally, this rulemaking included other changes to PBT chemical 

reporting, such as disallowing the use of the de minimis exemption, range reporting, and Form A for PBT 

chemicals (40 CFR § 372.28(b)). On January 17, 2001, EPA published a final rule that designated lead 

and its compounds as PBTs, lowered the reporting threshold for these chemicals to 100 pounds, and 

applied the same limitations as are applied to other PBT chemicals (40 CFR § 372.28).

1.1.7 Toxic Chemical Release Reporting Using North American Industry Classification System 

(NAICS) Rule

On June 6, 2006, EPA published a final rule requiring facilities reporting to TRI to use North American 

Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes in place of the Standard Industry Classification (SIC) 
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 1-5

codes previously used on TRI reporting forms. This rule required facilities that report to TRI to use 2002 

NAICS codes on reporting Form R and the Form A Certification Statement. The 2007 NAICS Revision 

Final Rule published on June 9, 2008, required facilities to use 2007 NAICS codes on TRI reporting 

forms. NAICS reporting requirements were revised again on July 18, 2013. Under the 2012 NAICS 

Revision Final Rule, facilities are required to use 2012 NAICS codes when submitting forms for reporting 

years 2013 and beyond.

1.1.8 TRI Dioxin and Dioxin-like Compounds Toxic Equivalency (TEQ) Information Rule

On May 10, 2007, the Toxics Release Inventory Program issued a final rule expanding reporting 

requirements for the dioxin and dioxin-like compounds category. There are seventeen distinct members of 

this chemical category that are included on the EPCRA section 313 list of toxic chemicals. The final rule 

requires that, in addition to the total grams released for the entire category, facilities must report the 

quantity for each individual member on a new Form R Schedule 1. EPA will then use the individual mass 

quantity data to calculate TEQ values that will be made available to the public along with the mass data. 

The final rule also removes the requirement to report the single distribution of compounds in the category.

1.2 Addition of HBCD to EPCRA Section 313 Reporting Requirements

HBCD is a brominated flame retardant found world-wide in the environment and wildlife. Human 

exposure is evidenced from its presence in breast milk, adipose tissue and blood. It bioaccumulates 

and biomagnifies in the food chain. It persists and is transported long distances in the environment, 

and is highly toxic to aquatic organisms. It also presents potential human health concerns based on 

animal test results indicating potential developmental and reproductive effects (U.S. EPA, 2010). 

The main use of HBCD is as a flame retardant in expanded polystyrene foam (EPS) and extruded 

polystyrene foam (XPS). EPS and XPS are used primarily for thermal insulation boards in the building 

and construction industry (Morose, 2006). HBCD may also be used as a flame retardant in textiles 

including: upholstered furniture, upholstery seating in transportation vehicles, draperies, wall coverings, 

mattress ticking, and interior textiles, such as roller blinds (Morose, 2006; ECHA, 2009). In addition, 

HBCD is used as a flame retardant in high impact polystyrene (HIPS) for electrical and electronic 

appliances such as audio-visual equipment, as well as for some wire and cable applications (Morose, 

2006; ECHA, 2009). 

1.3 Organization of This Report

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

EPCRA section 313 reportable chemicals. The remainder of this report is organized as follows:

 Chapter 2: Estimates of the Number of Reports and Affected Facilities summarizes the 

expected number of reports and facilities affected by the proposed rule.

 Chapter 3: Cost Estimates presents the methodology used to estimate costs, as well as the 

results of the analysis in terms of total incremental cost to industry and total incremental cost to 

EPA. 

 Chapter 4: Small Entity Analysis examines the impacts of the proposed rule, specifically those 

impacts on “small” entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980. 
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 1-6

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

 Chapter 6: References provides references cited in this analysis.
ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 2-1

2. Estimates of the Number of Reports and Affected Facilities

This chapter presents the estimate of the number of additional forms and affected facilities that would 

result from the proposed addition of Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) to the TRI list of reportable 

chemicals as a chemical of special concern due to its persistent and bioaccumulation, with a chemical 

activity threshold of 100 lb.

Background information on HBCD is provided in Section 2.1 of this chapter. The methods and associated 

assumptions used to estimate reporting for HBCD are presented in Section 2.2. Section 2.3 provides a 

summary of expected reporting from the potentially affected universe of facilities.

2.1 Background

HBCD is a category of brominated flame retardants, consisting of 16 possible isomers. It has a molecular 

formula of C12H18Br6 and its structure consists of a ring of 12 carbon atoms to which 18 hydrogen and six 

bromine atoms are bound. HBCD may be designated as a non-specific mixture of all isomers 

(Hexabromocyclododecane; CASRN: 25637-99-4) or as a mixture of three main diastereomers 

(1,2,5,6,9,10-hexabromocyclododecane; CASRN: 3194-55-6). Commercial preparations of HBCD may 

contain some impurities, such as tetrabromocyclododecene or other isomeric HBCDs (U.S. EPA, 2010). 

EPA intends to list HBCD as a PBT category defined as:

Hexabromocyclododecane (This category includes only those chemicals covered by the 

CAS numbers listed below)

3194-55-6 1,2,5,6,9,10-Hexabromocyclododecane

25637-99-4 Hexabromocyclododecane

Regulation of HBCD has been increasing internationally. In the European Union, HBCD was identified 

as a Substance of Very High Concern (SVHC) under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and 

Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation. Under Title VII of REACH, HBCD has been added to 

Annex XIV and has a sunset date of July 21, 2015. After this date, only authorized applications for 

HBCD will continue to be allowed in the EU (U.S. EPA, 2011a). HBCD was also added to Annex A of 

the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants in May, 2013. This action bans the 

production and use of HBCD with a specific exception for the use of HBCD in EPS and XPS in 

buildings. There are 179 Parties to the Stockholm convention, including the European Union and 178 

other countries4(United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP], 2013a; UNEP, 2013b). 

2.1.1 Uses

The main use of HBCD is as a flame retardant in expanded polystyrene foam (EPS) and extruded 

polystyrene foam (XPS). EPS and XPS are used primarily for thermal insulation boards in the building 

and construction industry (Morose, 2006). HBCD is used as a flame retardant in these products because it 

is highly effective at low concentrations. EPS boards contain approximately 0.5-0.7% HBCD by weight, 

while XPS insulation contains approximately 0.8-2.5% HBCD by weight (UNEP, 2011). There is little 

published information about the distribution of HBCD in the United States; however, data for the 

European Union (EU) market shows that about 96% of HBCD is used in EPS and XPS (ECHA, 2009). 

 

4 Note that the United States is not a Party to the Stockholm Convention. 
ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 2-2

The EU market for HBCD is considered to be similar to the U.S. market, although differences may exist. 

For the purpose of this analysis, the two markets are assumed to be similar.

HBCD may also be used as a flame retardant in textiles including: upholstered furniture, upholstery 

seating in transportation vehicles, draperies, wall coverings, mattress ticking, and interior textiles such as 

roller blinds (Morose, 2006; ECHA, 2009). In these applications, HBCD is incorporated into a coating 

applied to the back of the textile. The maximum concentration of HBCD for use in fabrics and textiles 

and in rubber and plastic products ranges from 5-25% (UNEP, 2011). In the EU, about 2% of HBCD is 

used in the textile industry (ECHA, 2009). 

In addition, HBCD is used as a flame retardant in high impact polystyrene (HIPS) for electrical and 

electronic appliances, such as audio-visual equipment as well as for some wire and cable applications

(Morose, 2006; ECHA, 2009). An estimated 2% of HBCD used in Europe is used in HIPS (ECHA, 

2009). 

2.1.2 Production

The annual U.S. import/production volume of CASRN 25637-99-4 was between 10,000 and 500,000 

pounds as reported under the Inventory Update Reporting rule (now the Chemical Data Reporting rule) in 

2002 (U.S. EPA, 2002). No import or production was reported in 2006, and total production volume in 

2012 was CBI. The annual import/production volume of CASRN 3194-55-6 was 10-50 million pounds in 

2002 and 2006. The 2012 total production volume was CBI. This analysis assumes a total 

import/production volume of 10-50 million pounds for HBCD, as reported in the 2006 IUR (U.S. EPA, 

2006). 

2.2 Methodology

As a first step in estimating the potential for HBCD reporting, major sectors manufacturing and 

processing HBCD are identified. Sectors manufacturing and processing HBCD are presented in Table 

2-1. 
ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 2-3

Table 2-1: Major Sectors Manufacturing or Processing HBCD

Use NAICS NAICS Description

Manufacturers

325 Chemical Manufacturing

325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing

XPS and EPS 

Manufacturers 326140 Polystyrene Foam Product Manufacturing

Consumer 

Textiles

313320 Nonwoven Fabric Mills

313311 Broadwoven Fabric Finishing Mills

313312 Textile and Fabric Finishing (except Broadwoven Fabric) Mills

313320 Fabric Coating Mills

314110 Carpet and Rug Mills

336399 All other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing

336360 Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing

HIPS

325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing

334, 335 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing; Electrical 

Equipment and Component Manufacturing

2.2.1 HBCD Manufacturers

Information on manufacturers or importers of HBCD is available from TSCA Chemical Data Reporting 

(CDR; formerly Inventory Update Rule) and other sources. Both HBCD CASRNs are listed in CDR. The 

2012 CDR lists three facilities reporting CASRN 25637-99-4 and two facilities reporting CASRN 3194-

55-6 (U.S. EPA, 2013a). Other sources, including the Directory of World Chemical Producers (DWCP) 

and SRI Consulting’s 2010 Directory of Chemical Producers (DCP), did not identify any other 

manufacturers or importers. Therefore, it is assumed that these five are the only facilities manufacturing 

or importing HBCD in the U.S. Because the reporting threshold for CDR is 25,000 lb., which is 

significantly higher than the proposed TRI threshold of 100 lb., it is assumed that these five facilities will 

all exceed the TRI chemical activity threshold. However, two of these facilities are listed in CDR as 

having less than 10 employees, and are assumed to be below the employment threshold (U.S. EPA, 

2013a). As a result, a total of three manufacturers would be required to report to TRI under the proposed 

rule. 

2.2.2 EPS and XPS Foam Manufacturing

The main application of HBCD is as a flame retardant in expanded polystyrene foam (EPS) and extruded 

polystyrene foam (XPS). EPS is primarily used in insulation boards used by the construction industry. 

XPS is primarily used as insulation for bridges, floors, basement walls and foundations, and roofs (IOM 

Consulting, 2008). 

EPS foam is produced in two steps. First, resin manufacturers produce polystyrene resin beads by a 

suspension polymerization of styrene in water. Additives, including HBCD, are introduced in this stage. 

Second, the EPS beads are sold to molders to create EPS foam through an expansion and molding process

(IOM Consulting, 2008). 
ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 2-4

XPS foam is produced by XPS manufactures in an extrusion process. Polystyrene and additives, including 

HBCD, are fed into an extruder where the polymer is melted. The melted gel is fed into a die, where the 

blowing agent volatilizes and causes the plastic to become a foam (IOM Consulting, 2008). Reporting 

from EPS and XPS foam manufacturers is estimated as follows:

 First, the number of EPS resin bead manufacturers potentially reporting to TRI is estimated using 

trade association data.

 Second, two methods are used to estimate the number of EPS and XPS foam manufacturers. In 

Method 1, trade association data are used to identify specific EPS and XPS manufacturers. While 

the trade associations include the majority of EPS and XPS manufacturers, some manufacturers 

may not be included. Therefore, a second method (Method 2) is used to model the number of 

reporters using more general Economic Census data. Taken together, these methods act as a 

check against each other and likely bound the estimates of reporting from EPS and XPS foam 

manufacturers.

EPS Resin Bead Manufacturing

EPS polystyrene resins are produced by a suspension polymerization of styrene in water. Additives, 

including HBCD, are introduced during this stage. Through this process, HBCD is incorporated as a 

component into the polymer matrix. The resulting maximum concentration of HBCD in EPS resin beads 

is approximately 0.7% (IOM Consulting, 2008). 

A limited number of chemical companies in the U.S. manufacture EPS resin beads. The EPS Industry 

Alliance (EPS-IA), formed in 2012 by the consolidation of two industry trade groups, represents the 

entire EPS industry (EPS-IA, 2012a). The EPS-IA website lists facility names and addresses for all 

member EPS manufacturers. The list includes manufacturing facilities, distribution centers, and company 

headquarters. There are three companies that own four facilities manufacturing EPS resin in the U.S. 

Employment data for these facilities were identified using the Hoover’s database (Hoover's Inc, 2014). 

One facility could not be located in the Hoover’s database; therefore, employment data was identified 

from Manta, a free online database with data for small businesses. All four facilities have 10 or more 

employees.

According to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), an estimated 46% of HBCD is used in the 

manufacture of EPS (ECHA, 2009). Assuming an import/production value of 50 million lb., which is the 

maximum amount listed in the 2006 IUR, the amount of HBCD used in EPS manufacturing in the United 

States is estimated to be 23 million lb. Assuming HBCD production is proportional to employment, if the 

total quantity of HBCD processed is distributed across the four resin bead manufacturing facilities by 

facility-specific employee counts, then all four facilities are estimated to exceed the TRI reporting 

threshold and would be required to report under the proposed rule.

EPS and XPS Foam Manufacturing

Method 1: Estimate EPS and XPS Foam Manufacturing Facilities Directly

Method 1 relies on information from EPS and XPS trade associations to identify specific facilities that 

manufacture EPS and XPS foam.

Identifying EPS Foam Manufacturers

EPS foam manufacturers process EPS resin beads that contain HBCD at a maximum concentration of 

0.7% w/w. Because HBCD is a PBT chemical, the de minimis exemption does not apply and facilities 
ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 2-5

will need to evaluate whether they exceed the reporting threshold regardless of the HBCD concentration 

in EPS foam.

As mentioned above, the EPS Industry Alliance (EPS-IA) website lists facility names and addresses for 

all member EPS manufacturers. The list includes manufacturing facilities, distribution centers, and 

company headquarters (EPS-IA, 2012b). However, only manufacturing facilities are expected to report to 

TRI. Therefore, facility addresses were checked against EPA’s Facility Registry System (FRS) records 

and individual company websites to identify which facilities are currently manufacturing EPS foam. 

Because most EPS packaging material usually does not contain HBCD (IOM Consulting, 2008), facilities 

manufacturing EPS packaging were not included in this analysis.

Employment data for these facilities were identified using the Hoover’s database. For the several facilities 

that could not be located in the Hoover’s database, employment data were identified from Manta. When 

employment data was given as a range, the number of employees was assumed to be the midpoint of the 

range. A total of 56 facilities with 10 or more employees were identified, all of which may process 

HBCD. 

As stated in above, the amount of HBCD used in EPS manufacturing in the United States is estimated to 

be 23 million lb. Assuming the quantity of HBCD used is proportional to employment, if HBCD use is 

distributed across the 56 facilities by facility-specific employee counts, then all 56 facilities are estimated 

to exceed the reporting threshold of 100 lb. and would be required to report to TRI under the proposed 

rule.

Identifying XPS Foam Manufacturers

According to the Extruded Polystyrene Foam Association (XPSA), three of their members collectively 

manufacture more than 95% of all XPS foam products used in North America. These three companies 

are: Dow, Owens Corning, and Pactiv (XPSA, 2014). Ten XPS foam manufacturing facilities owned by 

these three companies were identified on company websites and through additional internet research. 

Employment data for these facilities were identified using the Hoover’s database. For the several facilities 

that could not be located in the Hoover’s database, employment data were identified from Manta. Two 

facilities did not have employment data in either database. In this case, employment was assumed to be 

the average facility employment for their respective parent companies. All ten facilities are estimated to 

have more than ten employees.

An estimated 51% of HBCD is used in the manufacture of XPS (ECHA, 2009). Assuming an 

import/production value of 50 million lb., which is the maximum amount listed in the 2006 IUR, the 

amount of HBCD used in XPS manufacturing in the United States is 25.5 million lb. Assuming the 

quantity of HBCD used is proportional to employment, if HBCD use is distributed across the ten facilities 

by facility-specific employee counts, then all facilities are estimated to exceed the TRI reporting threshold 

of 100 lb. and would be required to report to TRI under the proposed rule.

Method 2: Model EPS and XPS Foam Manufacturing Facilities on Economic Census Data

Method 2 uses Economic Census data for Product Code 3261403: Building and Construction Polystyrene 

Foam Products to model the amount of HBCD used per facility and then compares this amount to the TRI 

reporting threshold.

NAICS code 326140, Polystyrene Foam Manufacturing, is comprised of establishments primarily 

engaged in manufacturing polystyrene foam products including; transportation foam products, packaging, 
ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 2-6

furniture polystyrene foam products, and consumer foam products like coolers and dinnerware. Because 

EPS and XPS are used almost exclusively in the construction industry, processing of HBCD is assumed to 

be concentrated in Product Code 3261403: Building and Construction Polystyrene Foam Products. This 

product code primarily includes HBCD-treated EPS and XPS foam, and therefore it is assumed that all 

products in this code contain HBCD. Limiting the analysis to this specific product code excludes 

polystyrene manufacturers not using HBCD. In 2008, Product Code 3261403 accounted for 17% of the 

Product Shipments value of the overall NAICS code.

The U.S. Census Bureau’s Economic Census, Manufacturing Industry Series provides industry statistics 

including establishment count, employee count, and value of shipments for NAICS 326140: Polystyrene 

Foam Manufacturing. The 2002 Economic Census also provides total establishment and employee counts 

for Product Code 3261403. This information is not available in the 2007 Economic Census. As a result, 

this method uses the 2002 data.

Census provides the distribution of establishments (assumed to be the same as facilities) and the total 

number of employees by employment size class for NAICS 326140. For four size classes, Census 

provides the total number of employees in the class as a range instead of a specific number. In this 

analysis, the total number of employees for these four size classes is assumed to be the midpoint of the 

range. As a result, the sum of estimated employees based on size class does not match the total number of 

employees for the NAICS code. Facility and employee distribution is not available by size class for 

Product Code 3261403. Therefore, this distribution was approximated from the sector-wide distribution at 

the NAICS code level.

The amount of HBCD processed per facility was estimated by assuming HBCD use is proportional to 

employment. As noted above, an estimated 96% of all HBCD is used in the manufacture of EPS and XPS 

(ECHA, 2009), and the maximum U.S. consumption of HBCD is estimated to be 50 million pounds (U.S. 

EPA, 2006). Therefore, the amount of HBCD used in the Building and Construction Polystyrene Foam 

Manufacturing sector is estimated to be 48 million lb. This quantity was distributed by the percent of total 

employees in each size class, and then divided by the number of facilities in each employment class to 

estimate the pounds of HBCD per facility. All facilities exceeded the 100 lb. threshold; therefore, it is 

estimated that all facilities with more than 10 employees would be required to report to TRI under the 

proposed rule. Table 2-2 shows the estimated number of facilities reporting by employment size category.
ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 2-7

Table 2-2: Estimated Number of Reporting Facilities from Product Code 3261403, 

Building and Construction Polystyrene Foam Products

Employment 

Size Class

Total 

Facilities

Total 

Employees1

Total HBCD 

(lb.) 

HBCD / Facility 

(lb.)

Facilities 

Reporting

1-4 12 23 252,401 21,033 0

5-9 9 54 592,593 65,844 0

10-19 13 181 1,986,283 152,791 13

20-49 18 575 6,310,014 350,556 18

50-99 13 884 9,700,960 746,228 13

100-249 9 1,369 15,023,320 1,669,258 9

250-499 2 663 7,275,720 3,637,860 2

500-999 1 625 6,858,711 6,858,711 1

1,000-2,499 0 0 0 0 0

Total2 77 4,411 48,000,000 56

1 Because employment totals for several size classes were estimated from a range, the sum of total employees by size class does

not match the total employee count for the product code. 

2 Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Summary: EPS and XPS Manufacturing

Using the methods outlined above, four EPS resin manufacturers are estimated to report to TRI under the 

proposed rule. EPS and XPS foam manufacturers can be estimated either by identifying specific facilities 

from trade industry information that could report or by using Census data to model reporting. Using the 

first method, 56 EPS manufacturing facilities and ten XPS manufacturing facilities are estimated to 

report. Using the second method, 56 EPS and XPS facilities are estimated to report. Table 2-3

summarizes the estimated number of forms expected from EPS and XPS manufacturers under the 

proposed rule. As shown in Table 2-3, the two methods produce similar estimates of potential reporting. 

To be conservative, Method 1 is used in this analysis. 

Table 2-3: Estimated Reporting from EPS and XPS Manufacturers

Industry Facilities Reporting: 

Method 1

Facilities Reporting: 

Method 2

EPS Resin Manufacturing (NAICS 

325211) 4 4

EPS and XPS Foam Manufacturing

(NAICS 326140) 66 56

Total 70 60

2.2.3 Textiles

HBCD is used in certain textile applications to comply with flame retardant standards. Specifically, it is 

formulated as polymer-based dispersions that are then applied in the textile finishing industry as a textile 

back-coating (ECHA, 2008). The amount of HBCD used in textile applications is estimated at about 2% 
ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 2-8

of overall HBCD use in Europe (ECHA, 2009). These applications include upholstered furniture and 

seating in transportation, draperies, bed mattress ticking, and automobile textiles (ECHA, 2009). 

EPA recently contacted several industries, including HBCD manufacturers, furniture manufacturers, and 

automobile manufacturers, to better understand the uses of HBCD in textiles in the U.S. Industry response 

suggests that HBCD is no longer used in the U.S. in consumer textiles other than automotive applications

(U.S. EPA, 2012). 

While some contacts in the automotive industry have confirmed that HBCD will be phased out because of 

European REACH legislation (U.S. EPA, 2012), other automotive trade groups have indicated that they 

cannot guarantee the phase-out of HBCD until functionally-equivalent, safer alternatives are identified 

(Stanton, 2012).Therefore, the number of facilities in the automotive textile sector potentially reporting 

HBCD was estimated using available data. Because data on the use of HBCD in automotive textiles is 

extremely limited, several simplifying assumptions were required in order to develop estimates. These 

assumptions are noted in the sections below.

Automotive Textiles

HBCD is processed in the automotive textile industry in two steps. First, HBCD is applied as a 

backcoating to textiles by automotive textile manufacturers. Second, HBCD is processed by 

manufacturers who install the treated fabric in headliners, seats, and interior trim. Because HBCD is not 

formed into a specific shape during manufacture, and because its end use function is not dependent on its 

shape, it cannot be claimed as an article. The number of facilities that would report HBCD is estimated 

separately for these two steps.

Approximately 2% of HBCD in Europe is used in textiles (ECHA, 2009); usage in textiles in the U.S. is 

unknown but assumed to be the same as in Europe. Applying this percentage to the maximum amount of 

HBCD in the U.S. (50 million lb.), yields an estimate of 1 million lb. of HBCD used in the U.S. 

automotive textiles industry. As mentioned above, because of current efforts to phase out the use of 

HBCD in automotive textiles, this estimate of the amount of HBCD used in automotive textiles is likely 

overstated.

Automotive Textile Manufacturers

Automotive textile manufacturers were identified from a list of textile companies profiled in Automotive 

Textiles, 3rd Edition (Wilson, 2013), and from conversations with an academic expert (Powell, 2013). The 

companies identified often manufacture a variety of products for the automotive sector, some of which are 

not treated with HBCD. Company websites and FRS were used to identify facilities owned by these 

companies that may be processing HBCD. In cases where product details for a facility were not available, 

the facility was conservatively included in the count of textile manufacturers. Therefore, it is likely that 

not all identified facilities process HBCD and that this method overestimates total facilities.

Employment data for textile facilities were identified using the Hoover’s database. For the several 

facilities that could not be located in the Hoover’s database, employment data were identified from 

Manta. Three facilities did not have employment data in either database. In this case, employment was 

assumed to be the average facility employment for their respective parents companies. A total of 81 

automotive textile facilities were identified. These facilities are classified under a variety of fabric-related 

NAICS codes, including: 

 313111: Yarn Spinning Mills
ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 2-9

 313230: Nonwoven Fabric Mills

 313311: Broadwoven Fabric Finishing Mills

 313312: Textile and Fabric Finishing (Except Broadwoven Fabric) Mills

 313320: Fabric Coating Mills

 314110: Carpet and Rug Mills

 336399: All other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing

Research indicates that not all automotive manufacturers use textiles treated with HBCD, and therefore it 

is likely that only a subset of the identified automotive textile manufacturers use HBCD. A recent report 

by the Ecology Center tested over 200 new 2011-2012 model vehicles for brominated flame retardants 

(BFRs), which includes HBCD, and found that 40% of vehicle interiors contained BFRs (The Ecology 

Center, 2012). Furthermore, HBCD accounted for 8.2% of total BFR market demand in 2001. This 

analysis assumes that if 40% of cars are manufactured with BFRs then 40% of automotive textile 

manufacturers use BFRs, and just 8.2% of these manufacturers use HBCD (Morose, 2006). This 

assumption is an oversimplification of the automotive supply chain; however, it reflects industry research 

indicating that only some automotive manufacturers still use HBCD-treated fabric. Therefore, for this 

analysis, of the 81 facilities identified above, 3.3%, or three facilities, are estimated to use HBCD.

The amount of HBCD processed per facility was estimated by assuming HBCD use is proportional to 

employment. As noted above, it is estimated that 1 million lb. of HBCD is used in automotive textiles. 

This quantity can then be distributed across the facilities using HBCD by the number of employees per 

facility. However, while it is estimated that 3 automotive textile facilities use HBCD, the identity of and 

employment information for these three facilities is not known. Therefore, HBCD could not be distributed 

across the three facilities. Instead, the 1 million lb. of HBCD was distributed across all 81 automotive 

textile manufacturing facilities by facility-specific employee counts. As all 81 facilities exceeded the 100 

lb. threshold, it is assumed that HBCD at the three facilities must exceed the threshold and would be 

required to report to TRI under the proposed rule.

Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing

The majority of facilities processing automotive textiles treated with HBCD are in NAICS 336360: motor 

vehicle seating and interior trim manufacturing. These facilities use HBCD-treated fabric to manufacture 

seats, headliners, and interior trim.

Potential reporting from this sector was modeled using the 2007 U.S. Census Bureau’s Economic Census, 

Manufacturing Industry Series data, which provides industry statistics including the number of facilities 

and value added by employment size class. In two size classes, value added information was withheld to 

avoid disclosing data for individual companies. In these cases, the value added per facility was estimated 

to be the average value added per facility of the smaller and larger size class. As a result, the estimated 

total value added is slightly different than the total value added for the NAICS code.

As in textile manufacturing, it was assumed that 40% of seating and trim facilities use BFRs, and 8.2% of 

these facilities use HBCD. This information was used to estimate the number of facilities in each size 

class using HBCD. Total HBCD was distributed by value added across all size classes with at least one 

facility estimated to use HBCD. The average amount of HBCD used per facility processing HBCD was 

then calculated for each size class by dividing the amount of HBCD per size class by the number of 

facilities in the size class. All facilities exceed the 100 lb. reporting threshold, therefore; all facilities with 
ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 2-10

10 or more employees would be required to report to TRI under the proposed rule. Table 2-4 presents the 

estimated number of facilities reporting by employment size category.

Table 2-4: Estimated Number of Reporting Facilities in NAICS 336360

Employment 

Size Class

Total 

Facilities

Facilities 

processing 

HBCD (0.033 × 

Total Facilities)

Value 

Added 

($1,000)

Total HBCD

(lb.)

HBCD /

Facility

(lb.)

Facilities 

Reporting

1-4 96 3 37,858 7,021 2,340 0

5-9 43 1 30,283 5,616 5,616 0

10-19 48 2 48,680 9,028 4,514 2

20-49 53 2 143,226 26,562 13,281 2

50-99 40 1 249,763 46,321 46,321 1

100-249 66 2 1,057,368 196,098 98,049 2

250-499 70 2 2,586,645 479,715 239,858 2

500-999 17 1 1,238,222 229,639 229,639 1

1000-2499 1 0 72,837 0 0 0

Total1 434 14 5,464,882 1,000,000 10

1 Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Summary: Textiles

Based on the methods outlined above, an estimated 3 automotive textile manufacturing facilities and 10 

motor vehicle seating and interior trim manufacturers would be required to report to TRI under the 

proposed rule.

Table 2-5: Estimated Reporting from Automotive Textile and 

Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturers

Industry Facilities Reporting

Automotive Textile Manufacturing (Misc. 

NAICS Codes) 3

Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim 

Manufacturing (NAICS 336360) 10

Total 13

2.2.4 High Impact Polystyrene

High Impact Polystyrene (HIPS) is produced either in a batch or continuous polymerization process. The 

raw material is homogenized and extruded into HIPS pellets. Various flame retardants are incorporated in 

this process, of which HBCD constitutes a small percentage (ECHA, 2008). Other common flame 

retardants used in HIPS include decabromodiphenyl oxide (ether) (“deca-BDE”), and other brominated 

flame retardants (UNEP, 2011). The HIPS pellets are then packaged and shipped to manufacturers 

(ECHA, 2008). 
ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 2-11

HIPS pellets are converted into HIPS products using various extrusion techniques and injection molding. 

Most flame retardant HIPS products are used in electrical and electronic appliances, including audio 

visual equipment cabinets, distribution boxes for electrical lines in the construction sector, and 

refrigerator lining (ECHA, 2008). The HBCD content of flame-retarded HIPS is 1-7% by weight. 

Approximately 2% of all HBCD in Europe is used in HIPS (European Chemicals Agency, 2009). The 

European Brominated Flame Retardants Industry Panel (EBFRIP) has estimated that about 5% of all 

HIPS in the EU is flame retarded with HBCD (Danish Ministry of the Environment, 2010). 

Estimating the amount of HBCD used in HIPS

As mentioned above, approximately 2% of HBCD in Europe is used in HIPS (ECHA, 2008). The use of 

HBCD in HIPS in the U.S. is unknown but assumed to be the same as Europe. Applying this percentage 

to the maximum amount of HBCD in the U.S. (50 million lb.) yields 1 million lb. of HBCD used in the 

U.S. HIPS industry. This estimate likely largely overstates the amount of HBCD used in HIPS given 

current legislation phasing out the use of HBCD in HIPS in the EU.

Estimating the number of facilities manufacturing HBCD-treated HIPS

HIPS manufacturers are covered by NAICS code 325211: Plastics material and resin manufacturing. This 

NAICS code encompasses a range of activities, of which HIPS manufacturing is a small percentage. The 

product code 3252111 (thermoplastic resins and plastics materials) is more specific to HIPS but also 

includes other plastics manufacturing. The U.S. Census Bureau’s Economic Census: Manufacturing 

Industry Series provides industry statistics including establishment count, employee count, and value 

added for NAICS 325211. The 2002 Economic Census also provides a total facility count for Product 

Code 3252111. This information is not available in the 2007 Economic Census. As a result, this analysis 

uses the 2002 data.

The distribution of establishments (assumed to be the same as facilities) and value added is provided by 

size class for NAICS 325211. In two size classes, value added data was withheld to avoid disclosing data 

for individual companies. In these cases, value added was estimated to be the average of the value added 

per employee for the smaller and larger size class. The facility and value added distribution by size class 

for product code 3252111 was approximated from the sector-wide distribution at the NAICS code level.

Because only 5% of HIPS contain HBCD, it was assumed that only 5% of facilities in product code 

3252111 will process HBCD. While this assumption is an oversimplification, it accounts for research 

indicating HBCD is not commonly used in HIPS. Therefore, 5% of facilities in each size class were 

estimated to be using HBCD. Total HBCD was distributed by value added across all size classes with at 

least one facility estimated to use HBCD. The amount of HBCD used per facility was then calculated by 

dividing the amount of HBCD per size class by the number of facilities processing HBCD in the size 

class. All facilities exceed the 100 lb. reporting threshold. Therefore, all facilities processing HBCD with 

10 or more employees would be required to report to TRI under the proposed rule. Table 2-6 presents the 

estimated number of facilities reporting by employment size category.
ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF REPORTS AND AFFECTED FACILITIES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 2-12

Table 2-6: Estimated Number of Facilities Reporting from Product Code 3252111

Employment 

Size Class

Total 

Facilities

Facilities 

processing 

HBCD (0.05 × 

Total Facilities)

Value 

Added 

($1,000)

Total HBCD

(lb.)

HBCD /

Facility

(lb.)

Facilities 

Reporting

1-4 25 1 9,606 1,092 1,092 0

5-9 34 2 42,114 4,785 2,393 0

10-19 46 2 222,619 25,296 12,648 2

20-49 105 5 965,363 109,692 21,938 5

50-99 81 4 1,786,180 202,959 50,740 4

100-249 60 3 3,408,181 387,263 129,088 3

250-499 19 1 2,366,631 268,914 268,914 1

500-999 4 0 469,508 0 0 0

1,000-2,499 4 0 2,932,247 0 0 0

2,500 or more 1 0 824,667 0 0 0

Total1 378 18 13,027,115 1,000,000 15

1 Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Estimating facilities manufacturing products using HBCD-treated HIPS

After HIPS is manufactured, it is incorporated into a variety of products, including electronic equipment 

and video and audio equipment housings. Available information regarding current uses of HBCD-treated 

HIPS is limited, and estimating reporting for this sector was not possible. However, because of the limited 

use of HBCD-treated HIPS and the current transition to other flame retardants, the number of facilities 

that will report HBCD for this use is likely very small.

2.3 Summary

Table 2-7 provides a breakdown of estimated reporting by industry sector under the proposed rule. Of the 

101 facilities, three are HBCD manufacturers, four manufacture EPS resin, 66 manufacture EPS and XPS 

products, 13 manufacture or process HBCD-treated textiles, and 15 manufacture HBCD-treated HIPS. 

Table 2-7: Total Estimated Reporting Under the Proposed HBCD Rule

Industry Facilities Reporting1

HBCD Manufacturing (NAICS 325) 3

EPS Resin Manufacturing (NAICS 325211) 4

EPS and XPS Foam Manufacturing (NAICS 326140) 66

Automotive Textile Manufacturing (Misc. NAICS Codes) 3

Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing (NAICS 336360) 10

HIPS Manufacturing (NAICS 325211) 15

Total 101

1 Assumes Method 1 for EPS and XPS Foam Manufacturing
COST ESTIMATES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 3-1

3. Cost Estimates

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

HBCD to the list of chemicals subject to TRI reporting. Section 3.1 describes the methodology used to 

estimate industry reporting burden and cost and presents the resulting estimates. Section 3.2 details the 

estimated cost to EPA. Section 3.3 summarizes the total cost of the proposed rule. 

3.1 Industry Burden and Cost Estimates

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

methodology (RBBM). RBBM is a simplification of the previous methodology for estimating reporting 

burden and cost (U.S. EPA, 2011b). Section 3.1.1 describes the estimation of industry burden using 

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

present the resulting industry burden and cost estimates. Section 3.1.5 presents annualized industry costs.

3.1.1 Estimation of Burden

Compared to the previous method used to estimate reporting burden, RBBM simplifies calculations, 

supports internal consistency, and sharpens transparency while retaining the components of the previous 

methodology. The foundation of RBBM is its use of ratio models to maintain relationships between 

related categories of reporting activities. Reporting activities can be divided into two distinct groups: 

Form Activities, consisting of rule familiarization, reporter compliance determination, calculations and 

form completion, and recordkeeping and submission; and Non-Form Activities, consisting of supplier 

notifications and non-reporter compliance determination. Specifically, the following activities may be 

undertaken under the proposed rule.

Form Activities

Rule Familiarization: Staff at a facility that is reporting under EPCRA §313 for the first time must 

read the reporting package and become familiar with the reporting requirements. This activity 

includes the time needed to review instructions as well as the time needed to train personnel to 

respond to an information collection request.

Reporter Compliance Determination: Staff at reporting facilities must make the determination that the 

facility meets the criteria for EPCRA §313 reporting. This activity includes the time required to 

become familiar with the definitions, exemptions, and threshold requirements under the TRI Program, 

to review the list of TRI chemicals, and to conduct preliminary threshold determinations to determine 

if the facility is required to report.

Calculations and Form Completion: Staff at reporting facilities must gather data and perform 

calculations to provide the information required on the form. This activity includes the time required 

to search data sources and to complete and review the information.

Recordkeeping and Submission: Staff at reporting facilities must maintain recordkeeping systems and 

submit the report to EPA and the state in which the facility is located. This activity includes the time 

required to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
COST ESTIMATES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 3-2

Non-Form Activities5

Supplier Notification: Certain suppliers of mixtures or trade name products containing reportable 

substances must annually notify their customers of the product's composition if the customer is 

subject to EPCRA §313 reporting. This activity includes the required staff time at reporting facilities 

to inform customers either by letter or through the materials safety data sheet (MSDS) for the product. 

Under the proposed rule, EPA assumes that the number of facilities that might be required to provide 

supplier notifications would only be a small fraction of potential supplier notifications in connection 

with the TRI program overall. Therefore, no additional supplier notification burden is estimated in 

connection with the proposed rule. 

Non-Reporter Compliance Determination: In any given reporting year, a group of eligible facilities 

will complete compliance determination but will not file a Form R or Form A. The activity is the 

same as is presented above under Form Activities; however, given that compliance determination 

applies to all other facilities in NAICS code-eligible sectors (with ten or more employees)—including 

those that ultimately do not report to TRI—the latter category is accounted for in this separate 

activity. For this proposed rule, it is assumed that the addition of HBCD constitutes a modest change 

when compared to the total number of chemicals subject to the program. Thus, it is assumed that the 

non-reporter compliance determination burden is already included in the existing compliance 

determination burden estimates.

The skills required to comply with the section 313 reporting requirements (including the requirements 

associated with Section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act) are expected to vary from facility to 

facility, depending upon factors such as: the complexity of the facility's processes and activities; the 

chemicals used at the facility; and the types of use and disposition of TRI chemicals at the facility. 

Individuals responsible for determining whether their facility is required to report and, if so, completing a 

Form R and Form A report (or multiple Form R and Form A reports) would often have an engineering, 

scientific, or technical background. These functions, however, do not require an engineering or other 

similar degree.

At a minimum, an understanding of the facility‘s chemical purchases and production processes are 

needed. Necessary skills may include the ability to evaluate and interpret records, understand material 

safety data sheets, and determine throughput or production volumes. Depending on the facility, estimates 

may be calculated using: (1) existing data collected under federal, state, or local regulations; (2) emissions 

factors; (3) design data supplied by the equipment manufacturer; (4) mass balance techniques; or (5) 

engineering calculations. Each technique requires varying skills and levels of sophistication to complete. 

EPA industry- and chemical-specific guidance documents would assist reporters in making the necessary 

calculations to comply with the section 313 reporting requirements. In addition to technical labor, 

requirements for managerial and clerical staff are also considered when estimating burden and costs.

Estimating reporting burden using RBBM produces a burden estimate that reflects overall “average” 

reporting conditions at reporting facilities. Burden calculations using RBBM involve the following key 

parameters:

 

5 Note that while petitions are considered in the overall burden/cost of the TRI program, they are not considered in 

this rulemaking as they are not related to the proposed addition of HBCD to the list of TRI-reportable chemicals. 
COST ESTIMATES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 3-3

Nominal Form R Unit Burden, which reflects the burden incurred by reporters to undertake all activities 

necessary to file a single Form R (including both facility- and form-level activities). Nominal Form R 

Unit Burden is set at 35.70516 hours.6

A/R is the ratio of Form A burden to Form R burden. A/R is calculated to be 0.615, reflecting the fact that 

filing a Form A results in a 38.5% (1.00 – 0.615 = 0.385, or 38.5%) reduction in burden per chemical 

compared to filing a Form R. Nominal Form R Unit Burden is multiplied by A/R to estimate burden 

associated with reporting a Form A chemical.

RBBM uses the estimated number of Form R and Form A chemicals, Nominal Form R Unit Burden, A/R, 

and Non-Form Burden to calculate Steady State Total Burden (previously referred to as “Subsequent Year 

Burden”) as shown in Equation 3-1. 

Equation 3-1: Steady State Total Burden Calculation

Steady State Total Burden = Form R Burden + Form A Burden + Non– Form Burden

Where:

Form R Burden = (Number of Form Rs)×(Nominal Form R Unit Burden) 

Form A Burden = (Number of Form As)×(A/R)×(Nominal Form R Unit Burden)

Non-Form Burden = Supplier Notifications + Non-Reporter Compliance Determination

Steady State Total Burden does not incorporate the greater burden incurred by facilities subject to TRI for 

the first time. RBBM accounts for the higher reporting burden in the first year through the use of the 

First-Time Filer Factor (FTFf). FTFf is calculated to be 2.1, indicating that burden in the first year of a 

rule is estimated to be roughly twice the ongoing burden. First Year Total Burden is calculated by 

multiplying the Steady State Burden by FTFf, as shown in Equation 3-2.

Equation 3-2: First Year Total Burden Calculation

First Year Total Burden = Steady State Total Burden × FTFf

3.1.2 Estimation of Cost

To estimate total reporting cost, RBBM uses the Weighted Average Wage Rate (WAWR), which is the 

average loaded cost for a combination of Managerial, Technical and Clerical labor per hour of TRI 

reporting burden. WAWR is based on the total cost to employ an individual and includes the cost of 

salaries, fringe benefits (e.g., paid leave), health insurance, retirement savings, legally required benefits, 

and other overhead costs, such as office space, furniture, equipment and computers, supplies and other 

business expenses.

According to feedback from existing TRI filers, the role of each labor category in the TRI reporting 

process at the facility level is as follows:

 Managerial staff are responsible for reviewing and certifying the accuracy of all TRI submissions 

and supporting documentation, including calculations, data sources, and assumptions. Managerial 

 

6 The burden of 35.70516 includes the addition of 0.00516 hours of burden associated with the Dioxin Reporting 

Requirements promulgated in May of 2007 and accounted for in the 2011 ICR (U.S. EPA, 2011b).
COST ESTIMATES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 3-4

staff are briefed by technical staff once annually regarding TRI submissions and any changes to 

TRI reporting requirements. All sections of the Form are reviewed by managerial staff at this 

time.

 Technical staff possess the facility knowledge and familiarity with the TRI program required to 

understand which processes and activities at the facility should be considered in making threshold 

determinations for TRI chemicals. Technical staff gather the required data, make threshold 

determinations, calculate release and waste management quantities, and enter the required data on 

the TRI form, either by hand or electronically using TRI reporting software. Technical staff are 

also responsible for briefing managerial staff once annually regarding TRI submissions and any 

changes to TRI reporting requirements.

 Clerical staff are responsible for organizing, photocopying, and cataloging all TRI submissions 

and supporting documentation in accordance with TRI recordkeeping requirements. Note that as 

reporting facilities move toward filing TRI reports electronically, clerical time is minimized.

WAWR is calculated using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on “Wages and Salaries” and “Total 

Benefits” for three labor categories: Managerial (the “Management, Business, and Financial” 

occupational category), Technical (the “Professional and Related” occupational category), and Clerical 

(the “Office and Administrative Support” occupational category) (U.S. BLS, 2014c). Total Compensation 

is equal to the sum of Wages and Salaries and Total Benefits. Based on information provided by the 

chemical industry and chemical industry trade associations, a loading factor of 17 percent is applied to 

Wages and Salaries to calculate Overhead (Heiden Associates, 1989). The sum of Total Compensation 

and Overhead is equal to the Total Loaded Hourly Wage Rate. The Total Loaded Hourly Wage Rates for 

these labor categories are weighted by the relative contribution of each labor category to TRI reporting 

activities derived from Engineering Studies conducted by Abt Associates (Abt Associates, 2004). The 

calculation of WAWR is shown Equation 3-3.

Equation 3-3: Weighted Average Wage Rate Calculation

WAWR = (wManagerial × pManagerial) + (wTechnical × pTechnical) + (wClerical × pClerical)

Where:

wi = Total Loaded Hourly Wage Rate for labor category i, given by the formula:

 Total Loaded Hourly Wage Rate = Wages and Salaries + Total Benefits + (17% × Wages and Salaries)

pi = Proportion of overall reporting burden borne by labor category i

The loaded hourly wage rates (in 2013 dollars) are $68.45 for managerial personnel, $50.64 for technical 

personnel, and $26.28 for clerical personnel. The relative fixed weights are 0.03 for Managerial, 0.89 for 

Technical, and 0.08 for Clerical. As shown in Table 3-1, WAWR is calculated at $49.25.
COST ESTIMATES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 3-5

Table 3-1: Derivation of Weighted Average Wage Rate (2013 Dollars)

Wage Type Managerial Technical Clerical

Wages and Salaries $42.35 $32.04 $16.27

Total benefits $18.90 $13.15 $7.24

Overhead $7.20 $5.45 $2.77

Total Loaded Hourly Wage Rate $68.45 $50.64 $26.28

Labor Burden Weights1 0.03 0.89 0.08

Weighted Average Wage Rate (WAWR) $49.25

1 Labor burden weights have been rounded for ease of presentation.

Source: (U.S. BLS, 2014c). 

Steady State Total Cost and First Year Total Cost are calculated by multiplying the relevant total burden 

by WAWR, as shown in Equation 3-4 and Equation 3-5.

Equation 3-4: Steady State Cost Calculation

Steady State Total Cost = Steady State Total Burden × WAWR

Equation 3-5: First Year Cost Calculation

First Year Total Cost = First Year Total Burden × WAWR

3.1.3 Total Industry Burden Estimates

The Steady State Total Burden estimated to be incurred by filers in subsequent years of this proposed rule 

is calculated by multiplying the estimated number of Forms Rs that will be filed as a result of the 

proposed rule by the Nominal Form R Unit Burden. No Form As are anticipated due to the proposed rule. 

Non-form burden is assumed to be zero.7

Table 3-2 presents the number of Form Rs estimated to be filed by facilities potentially affected by the 

proposed rule, the first year total burden (calculated using Equation 3-1), and the steady state total burden 

(calculated using Equation 3-2).

 

7 Under the proposed rule, EPA assumes that the number of facilities that might be required to provide supplier 

notifications would only be a small fraction of potential supplier notifications in connection with the TRI program 

overall. Therefore, no additional supplier notification burden is estimated in connection with the proposed rule. 
COST ESTIMATES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 3-6

Table 3-2: Estimated Number of Facilities Expected to Incur Reporting Burden, Total First 

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

Sector

Number of 

Reporting 

Facilities

Number of 

Form Rs

First Year 

Total 

Burden 

(Hours)

Steady 

State Total 

Burden 

(Hours)

HBCD Manufacturing (NAICS 325) 3 3 225 107

EPS Resin Manufacturing (NAICS 325211) 4 4 300 143

XPS and EPS Foam Manufacturing (NAICS 

326140) 66 66 4,949 2,357

Automotive Textile Manufacturing (Misc. 

NAICS Codes) 3 3 225 107

Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim 

Manufacturing (NAICS 336360) 10 10 750 357

HIPS Manufacturing (NAICS 325211) 15 15 1,125 536

Total 101 101 7,573 3,606

Under the proposed rule, industry is estimated to incur approximately 7,600 burden hours in the first year

and approximately 3,600 burden hours in the steady state.

3.1.4 Total Industry Cost Estimates

To estimate the cost of the proposed rule, total first year and total steady state industry reporting burden is 

multiplied by the Weighted Average Wage Rate (see Equation 3-4 and Equation 3-5); the first year and 

steady state costs are presented in Table 3-3.

Table 3-3: Total First Year and Steady State Industry Cost under the Proposed Rule

Sector

Number of 

Reporting 

Facilities

Number 

of 

Form Rs

First Year 

Total Cost

(2013 Dollars)

Steady State 

Total Cost

(2013 Dollars)

HBCD Manufacturing (NAICS 325) 3 3 $11,078 $5,275

EPS Resin Manufacturing (NAICS 

325211) 4 4 $14,771 $7,034

XPS and EPS Foam Manufacturing

(NAICS 326140) 66 66 $243,725 $116,060

Automotive Textile Manufacturing

(Misc. NAICS Codes) 3 3 $11,078 $5,275

Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior 

Trim Manufacturing (NAICS 336360) 10 10 $36,928 $17,585

HIPS Manufacturing (NAICS 325211) 15 15 $55,392 $26,377

Total 101 101 $372,973 $177,606
COST ESTIMATES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 3-7

Under the proposed rule, industry is estimated to incur approximately $373,000 in the first year and 

approximately $178,000 in the steady state.

3.1.5 Annualized Cost Estimates

The total cost to industry associated with the proposed rule is annualized over a ten-year period using 

Equation 3-6 below. 

Equation 3-6: Cost Annualization

Annualized Cost = Present Value of Costs ×

r × (1 + r)

10

(1 + r)

10 − 1

Where: 

Present Value of Costs = ∑ Costt ×

1

(1+r)

t

t=10

t=1

and r = 3% or 7%

Ten years is assumed to be a reasonable timeframe for annualization, as greater than forty percent of TRI 

facilities reported every year from reporting year 2003 to reporting year 2012. The annualized cost 

reflects both the first-year costs and steady-state costs presented in Section 3.1.4. Industry costs are 

annualized both at a 3% discount rate and a 7% discount rate,8resulting in annualized per-Form R costs 

of $1,978.64 and $2,015.87, respectively. Total annualized industry costs are presented in Table 3-4.

9

 

8 Pursuant to guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), federal agencies should take into 

account when costs and benefits will actually occur. Thus, costs and benefits that will accrue in the future must be 

discounted to present day dollars. Further, OMB’s guidance recommends federal agencies use discount rates of three 

and seven percent to estimate a range of average potential returns on investments. More information is available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf.

9 The annualization method used assumes that first-year costs are incurred at the end of the first year, and are thus 

discounted. No initial (undiscounted) costs are expected under the proposed rule.
COST ESTIMATES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 3-8

Table 3-4: Total Annualized Industry Cost under the Proposed Rule

Sector

Number of 

Reporting 

Facilities

Number 

of 

Form Rs

Total 

Annualized 

Cost (3%, 

2013 Dollars)

Total 

Annualized Cost 

(7%, 

2013 Dollars)

HBCD Manufacturing (NAICS 325) 3 3 $5,936 $6,048

EPS Resin Manufacturing (NAICS 

325211) 4 4 $7,915 $8,063

XPS and EPS Foam Manufacturing

(NAICS 326140) 66 66 $130,590 $133,047

Automotive Textile Manufacturing

(Misc. NAICS Codes) 3 3 $5,936 $6,048

Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior 

Trim Manufacturing (NAICS 336360) 10 10 $19,786 $20,159

HIPS Manufacturing (NAICS 325211) 15 15 $29,680 $30,238

Total 101 101 $199,843 $203,603

3.2 EPA Cost Estimates

For the TRI program in general, EPA incurs burden and cost to process TRI forms in five categories of 

activities: data processing, outreach and training, information dissemination, policy and petitions, and 

compliance and enforcement. The estimate of EPA burden and costs is separated into a fixed component 

and a variable component. Activities and expenses that are not greatly affected by marginal changes in 

report quantities are considered fixed costs. These activities and expenses include rent for the EPCRA 

Reporting Center, development costs for data access tools, compliance assistance measures, and other 

activities and expenses listed above. There are no additional fixed costs to the Agency associated with the 

proposed rule. Activities and expenses that vary with marginal changes in the number of reports 

submitted are considered variable costs. The primary variable cost analyzed in this analysis is the cost of 

processing forms. 

As of January 21, 2014, all non-trade secret forms must be submitted electronically. EPA estimates that 

the processing cost for TRI-MEweb submissions is $3.33 per form.10 Therefore, the total form processing 

burden for EPA associated with Form R and Form A chemical submissions under the proposed rule is 

estimated at $336.

 

10 Source: Personal communication with Juan Parra. TRI Information and Outreach Branch. January 9, 2012. Costs

updated to 2013 dollars using the Employment Cost Index (U.S. BLS, 2014b).
COST ESTIMATES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 3-9

3.3 Total Costs

As shown in Table 3-5, the estimated total cost of the proposed rule—the sum of annualized industry 

costs and agency costs—is approximately $200,000 with a 3% discount rate and approximately $204,000 

with a 7% discount rate.

Table 3-5: Summary of Total Costs of the Proposed Rule

Cost Category

Total Cost

(3% Discount Rate, 

2013 Dollars)

Total Cost 

(7% Discount Rate, 

2013 Dollars)

Industry Costs $199,843 $203,603

EPA Processing Costs1 $336 $336

Total Costs $200,179 $203,939

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

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 4-1

4. Small Entity Analysis

This chapter addresses the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. Section 4.1 discusses 

the regulatory requirement for this analysis. Section 4.2 provides the definitions of small entities for the 

industry groups affected by the proposed rule. Section 4.3 describes the methodology used to determine if 

the proposed rule results in a significant economic impact to a substantial number of small entities. 

Section 4.4 summarizes the results for all small entities affected by the proposed rule.

4.1 Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. § 601 et. seq.) requires federal agencies to assess 

the effects of regulations on small entities, including businesses, nonprofit organizations, and 

governments, and, in some instances, to examine alternatives to the regulations that may reduce adverse 

economic effects on significantly impacted small entities. Section 604 of the RFA, as amended by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires an agency to perform 

a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule unless the agency certifies under section 605(b) that the 

regulatory action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

The RFA does not specifically define “a significant economic impact on a substantial number” of small 

entities.

4.2 Definitions of Small Entities

The RFA uses the definition of “small business” found in the Small Business Act, which authorizes the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) to define “small business” by regulation. This analysis uses the 

SBA’s definition of a small business for each industry affected by the proposed rule (U.S. SBA, 2014). 

SBA's small business size definitions vary by industry. In establishing size standards, SBA considers a 

number of economic and market characteristics that may allow a business of concern to exercise 

dominance in an industry. Size standards are based on criteria—such as annual receipts or number of 

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

that a for-profit enterprise (together with its affiliates) may be and still qualify as a small business.

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

2014). For example, the smallest SBA size standard for manufacturing industries (NAICS 31-33) is 500 

employees. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Statistics of U.S. Businesses, 251,417 of 254,941 

manufacturing firms have fewer than 500 employees (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). Therefore, at least 

98.6% of manufacturing firms are classified as small businesses according to the SBA definition. In fact, 

this percentage is actually higher, since for certain industrial classification codes within the broader 

manufacturing sector, the SBA size standards are greater (750, 1,000, or 1,500 employees). Table 4-1 lists 

the small business size standards for the industries affected by the proposed rule.
SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 4-2

Table 4-1: Small Business Size Standards for Industry Sectors 

Affected by the Proposed Rule

Sector NAICS Assignment Small Business 

Size Standard

HBCD Manufacturing Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS 325) 500 employees1

EPS Resin Manufacturing Plastics Material and Resin 

Manufacturing (NAICS 325211) 750 employees

XPS and EPS Foam 

Manufacturing

Polystyrene Foam Product 

Manufacturing (NAICS 326140) 500 employees

Automotive Textile 

Manufacturing (Misc. NAICS Codes) Multiple

Motor Vehicle Seating and 

Interior Trim Manufacturing

Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim 

Manufacturing (NAICS 336360) 500 employees

HIPS Manufacturing Plastics Material and Resin 

Manufacturing (NAICS 325211) 750 employees

1 NAICS 325 has multiple SBA size standards, as standards are provided at the six-digit NAICS code level. 500 employees is the 

smallest threshold in NAICS 325xxx.

The RFA defines a “small governmental jurisdiction” as the governments of a city, county, town, school 

district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000 people. The RFA defines a “small 

organization” as any “not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field.”

4.3 Methodology Overview

This analysis uses annualized cost impact percentages to measure potential impacts on small parent 

entities that own facilities affected by the proposed rule. The universe of potentially affected facilities was 

estimated using a variety of data sources and methods, as described in detail in Chapter 2. The number of 

facilities expected to report in each sector under the proposed rule is summarized in Table 4-2. In this 

chapter, a determination is made as to the likelihood that the parent companies of these facilities are (1) 

small and (2) if small, disproportionately affected by the proposed rule.
SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 4-3

Table 4-2: Estimated Number of Facilities Expected to Report under the Proposed Rule

Sector Number of 

Facilities

Number of Form

Rs

HBCD Manufacturing (NAICS 325) 3 3

EPS Resin Manufacturing (NAICS 325211) 4 4

XPS and EPS Foam Manufacturing (NAICS 326140) 66 66

Automotive Textile Manufacturing (Misc. NAICS Codes) 3 3

Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing

(NAICS 336360) 10 10

HIPS Manufacturing (NAICS 325211) 15 15

Total 101 101

The annualized cost impact percentage is defined as annualized compliance costs resulting from the 

proposed rule as a percentage of annual revenues or sales, a commonly available and objective measure of 

a company’s business volume.

Annualized compliance costs are estimated using ratio-based burden methodology (RBBM).

11 RBBM 

yields a per-form cost estimate that reflects average conditions at reporting facilities in the first year of a 

rule and in the steady state. Pursuant to guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), these costs are then annualized at a seven percent discount rate,12 resulting in an annualized perForm R cost of $2,016. (For more information on cost annualization, see Section 3.1.5.)

As small entity impacts are assessed at the parent entity level, annualized per-form costs are multiplied by 

the number of forms per facility and the number of facilities per parent entity to estimate total annualized 

parent entity compliance costs. Cost impact percentages are calculated for the incremental compliance 

costs incurred as a result of the proposed rule, as shown in Equation 4-1. Where regulatory costs represent 

a small fraction of a typical entity’s revenue, the impacts of the regulation are likely to be minimal.

Equation 4-1: Calculation of Cost Impact Percentages

Annualized Cost Impact Percentage =

Annualized Parent Entity Compliance Cost

Annual Parent Entity Revenue

 

11 See Chapter 3 and Revising TRI Burden to Ratio-Based Methodology (U.S. EPA, 2011b).

12 OMB’s guidance recommends federal agencies use discount rates of three and seven percent to estimate a range of 

average potential returns on investments (more information is available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf.). As using a 7% discount rate 

results in higher annualized costs and therefore a more conservative estimate of small entity impacts, only the 7% 

discount rate is used for the small entity analysis. If no impacts are experienced at the 7% level, the same is true for 

impacts at the 3% level.
SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 4-4

Where Annualized Parent

Entity Compliance Cost =

Annualized Cost

Per Form ×

Number of Forms

Per Facility ×

Number of Facilities

Per Parent Entity

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

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

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

entities.13

Step 3: Estimate annual revenues of parent entities.14

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

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

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

Step 6: Calculate the entity-level impact percentages, defined as annualized compliance costs as a 

percentage of annual revenues, to measure regulatory burden.

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

percentages in each of three categories: (1) less than one percent of annual revenues; (2) between one 

and three percent of annual revenues; and (3) greater than or equal to three percent of annual 

revenues.

The specific methodology applied to each sector differs slightly from the general methodology above 

depending on the data available. For the EPS resin manufacturing, XPS and EPS foam manufacturing, 

and automotive textile manufacturing sectors, all facilities expected to report under the proposed rule are 

known and there are sufficient data available to conduct the small entity analysis using actual facility 

data. For the HBCD manufacturing, automotive textile manufacturing, and HIPS manufacturing sectors, 

none (or only a small subset) of the facilities expected to report under the proposed rule are known; 

Census data are therefore used to model small entity impacts. The following sections describe the specific 

methodology used for each sector in greater detail.

4.3.1 Sectors Analyzed using Actual Facility Data (EPS Resin Manufacturing, XPS and EPS 

Foam Manufacturing, and Automotive Textile Manufacturing)

All facilities in the EPS resin manufacturing, XPS and EPS foam manufacturing, and automotive textile 

manufacturing sectors expected to report under the proposed rule are known. For these facilities, cost 

 

13 The global ultimate parent entity is the uppermost parent or headquarters that encompasses all directly related 

branches, subsidiaries, or parents of a specific business at a specific location. For the purposes of this analysis, 

“parent entity” is synonymous with “global ultimate parent entity,” and denotes a global ultimate parent company 

owning a facility expected to report under the proposed rule; “small parent entity” denotes a small ultimate parent 

entity (as defined by the Small Business Administration or RFA threshold) owning a facility expected to report 

under the proposed rule. 

14 Revenues are converted to 2013 dollars using the GDP inflation index (U.S. BEA, 2014). 
SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 4-5

impact percentages are calculated using estimated compliance costs per facility (based on the number of 

reports the facility is expected to submit), the number of affected facilities per parent entity, and the 

annual revenue of each parent entity. Parent entities are classified as large or small, and impacts to small 

parent entities are summarized.

Identification of Small Parent Entities and Generation of Revenue Data

Each facility’s global ultimate parent company was identified using data obtained from Hoover’s, Inc.’s 

business information database (Hoover's Inc, 2014).

15 Hoover’s provides a range of business data 

including number of employees, annual revenue, NAICS code, and the identity of a facility’s parent 

entity. When Hoover’s data were incomplete or outdated, alternative resources such as company websites 

and annual reports were used to obtain missing data. With this information, it is possible to classify parent 

entities as small using the thresholds for the parent entity’s NAICS code.16

In the automotive textile manufacturing sector, 81 potentially affected facilities were identified, of which 

only 3 are expected to report. However, as it is not possible to determine which 3 facilities are expected to 

report, the small entity analysis for the automotive textile manufacturing sector was conducted for all 81 

potentially affected facilities, and the worst-case scenario (based on the calculated cost impact percentage, 

corresponding to all three facilities being owned by a single small parent entity) was used for the small 

entity analysis.

Table 4-3 displays the number of facilities, parent entities, and small parent entities for these sectors 

based on revenue and employment data obtained from Hoover’s. While the EPS resin and XPS foam 

manufacturing sectors have no small parent entities, the EPS foam and automotive textile manufacturing 

sectors both have small parent entities. In particular, a large proportion (93%) of the parent entities in the 

EPS foam manufacturing sector is small.

 

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

16 The small entity determination is made using the NAICS code of the global ultimate parent entity rather than the 

NAICS code of the facility subject to TRI. In some cases, the NAICS code of the parent entity is different from the 

facility’s NAICS code.
SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 4-6

Table 4-3: Summary of EPS Resin Manufacturing, EPS and XPS Foam Manufacturing, 

and Automotive Textile Manufacturing Universe

Sector Facilities Parent Entities Small Parent 

Entities

EPS Resin Manufacturing (NAICS 325211) 4 3 0

XPS and EPS Foam Manufacturing 

(NAICS 326140) 66 31 26

Automotive Textile Manufacturing (Misc. 

NAICS Codes) 3

1 1 1

Total 73 35 27

1 Note that 81 facilities were identified in the automotive textile manufacturing sector, of which only 3 are expected to report. 

Given that it is not possible to identify which 3 facilities are expected to report, small entity impacts are assessed for the worstcase scenario, which is a single small parent entity with revenues of approximately $27 million that owns three potentially

affected facilities.

Estimation of Compliance Costs

Compliance costs are calculated at the parent entity level by multiplying the per-Form R cost by the 

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

entity. In the EPS resin manufacturing and XPS foam manufacturing sectors, no small parent entities are 

expected to be affected by the proposed rule.

In the EPS foam manufacturing sector, 26 small parent entities are expected to be affected by the 

proposed rule. These small parent entities own between one and nine affected facilities, corresponding to 

annualized parent-entity compliance costs ranging from $2,016 to $18,143 at the 7% discount level.

In the automotive textile manufacturing sector, one small parent entity is expected to be affected by the 

proposed rule. This small parent entity owns three affected facilities, corresponding to annualized parententity compliance costs of $6,048 at the 7% discount level.

Estimation of Cost Impact Percentages

Cost impact percentages for small parent entities are calculated by dividing annualized parent entity

compliance costs by the parent entity’s annual revenue. The estimated impacts on small parent entities are 

presented in Table 4-4 below. Of the small parent entities identified, all have annualized cost impacts of 

less than 1%.
SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 4-7

Table 4-4: Small Entity Impacts in EPS Resin Manufacturing, XPS and EPS Foam 

Manufacturing, and Automotive Textile Manufacturing Universe Sectors

Sector

Small 

Parent 

Entities 

Incurring 

Impacts of 

<1%

Small 

Parent 

Entities 

Incurring 

Impacts of 

1% to 3%

Small 

Parent 

Entities 

Incurring 

Impacts of 

>3%

Minimum 

Impact

Maximum 

Impact

Mean 

Impact

Median 

Impact

EPS Resin 

Manufacturing 

(NAICS 325211)

0 0 0 NA NA NA NA

XPS and EPS Foam 

Manufacturing

(NAICS 326140)

26 

(100%) 0 0 0.005% 0.459% 0.057% 0.037%

Automotive Textile 

Manufacturing (Misc. 

NAICS Codes)

1

(100%) 0 0 0.022% 0.022% 0.022% 0.022%

Total 27 0 0

4.3.2 Sectors Analyzed using Census Data (HBCD Manufacturing, Automotive Textile 

Manufacturing, and HIPS Manufacturing)

As actual facility information is known for only one of the three facilities in the HBCD manufacturing 

sector expected to report (the two remaining facilities’ information is classified as confidential business 

information), and none of the facilities in the motor vehicle seating and interior trim manufacturing and 

HIPS manufacturing sectors, impacts to small entities in these sectors are modeled using national-level 

data from the U.S. Census’ Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB).

SUSB provides annual data for U.S. business enterprises, including counts of establishments, firms, 

employees, and payroll. Data on total receipts (revenues) are also provided by SUSB every five years. 

These data are available for each NAICS code tabulated by enterprise employment or enterprise revenue

(U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). SUSB data tabulated by enterprise revenue are used to estimate the number 

of small parent entities affected under the proposed rule and estimate the proportion of small parent 

entities incurring cost impacts greater than 1% or 3%.

SUSB defines an enterprise as “a business organization consisting of one or more domestic 

establishments that were specified under common ownership or control,” a firm as “a business 

organization consisting of one or more domestic establishments in the same industry that were specified 

under common ownership or control,” and an establishment as “a single physical location where business 

is conducted or where services or industrial operations are performed” (equivalent to TRI’s definition of a 

facility). For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the SUSB concept of an enterprise is 

equivalent to the concept of ultimate parent company used in this small entity analyses.

The small entity analysis for these sectors is conducted by: 

(1) Estimating key revenue thresholds using BLS and Census data;

(2) Estimating the number of parent entities;
SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 4-8

(3) Estimating annualized parent entity compliance costs and impact thresholds;

(4) Constructing parent entity revenue percentiles to characterize revenues in the sector; and 

(5) Estimating small entity impacts.

This methodology is explained in greater detail in the following subsections.

Estimation of Key Revenue Thresholds

Bureau of Labor Statistics data on sector-specific wages are first inflated to 2013 dollars using a GDP 

inflation index and then used to calculate loaded hourly wage rates (including an estimated 17% 

overhead, as in the calculation of the Weighted Average Wage Rate in Chapter 3) in each sector (U.S 

BEA, 2014; U.S. BLS, 2014a). This loaded hourly rate is then converted into a mean loaded annual wage 

per full-time employee by multiplying by 2,080 hours.

The mean loaded annual wage is used to estimate the minimum cost of employing 10 full-time employees 

for one year—termed the revenue floor—representing the minimum revenue a parent entity must have in 

order to potentially report to TRI (i.e., if the parent entity does not have revenues equal to the cost of 

employing 10 full-time employees, no facility owned by that parent entity is likely to be affected by the 

proposed rule). The revenue floor is used to exclude facilities that are not expected to be subject to TRI 

reporting requirements from the small entity analysis, thereby providing a more accurate estimate of small 

entity impacts. The method used to calculate the revenue floor provides a conservative estimate of this 

threshold: the revenue floor is equal to the cost of employing 10 full-time employees, implying the parent 

entity only earns enough revenue to cover its labor costs.

The mean annual wage is also multiplied by the employment-based Small Business Administration size 

standard to estimate the revenue corresponding to the small entity size standard for the sector, termed the 

small entity revenue threshold. The estimation of the small entity revenue threshold may understate the 

number of small entities, as a firm may have fewer employees than the SBA size standard yet earn more 

than the small entity revenue threshold. However, this methodology still provides a conservative estimate 

of overall small entity impacts for two reasons. First, while the number of small entities may be 

understated, any additional small entities would incur impacts of less than 1%; the number of small 

entities incurring impacts of greater than 1% would remain the same regardless of the small entity 

threshold selected.17 Second, when determining whether there is a significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities, the number and percent of small entities incurring impacts of greater than 1% is 

the critical factor, rather than the number of small entities incurring impacts of less than 1%. If the 

number of small entities incurring impacts of less than 1% were to increase (under an alternative small 

entity revenue threshold), the percent of small entities incurring impacts of greater than 1% would 

therefore decrease. In other words, any understatement of the number of small entities incurring less than 

1% impacts increases the proportion of small entities incurring impacts of greater than 1%, potentially 

making a certification of no significant impact to a substantial number of small entities more difficult, and 

thereby providing a conservative estimate of overall impacts to small entities. 

 

17 If the small entity revenue threshold were to change, the proportion of the affected universe estimated to be small 

entities incurring impacts of <1% or large entities would shift; however, the proportion of the affected universe to be 

small entities incurring impacts of 1% to 3% or >3% remains the same, as those thresholds would not change.
SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 4-9

Overall, the methodology employed to estimate the reporting threshold and the small entity threshold are 

estimated to result in a generally conservative estimate of impacts to small entities. 

The mean loaded annual wage, revenue floor, small entity size standard, and small entity thresholds are 

displayed in Table 4-5 below.

Table 4-5: Key Revenue Thresholds 

Sector

Mean Loaded 

Annual Wage 

(2013 Dollars)

Revenue Floor

Small Business 

Administration 

Size Standard

Small Entity

Revenue 

Threshold

HBCD Manufacturing

(NAICS 325) $68,725 $687,249 500 employees $34,362,430

Motor Vehicle Seating and 

Trim Manufacturing

(NAICS 336360)

$52,760 $527,604 500 employees $26,380,225

HIPS Manufacturing

(NAICS 325211) $69,139 $691,386 750 employees $51,853,935

Estimation of Number of Facilities per Parent Entity and Number of Parent Entities

Using the small entity revenue threshold from Table 4-5 above, each SUSB enterprise revenue category 

can be classified as small or large (if the lower bound of the enterprise revenue category is greater than 

the small entity revenue threshold, the category is large; otherwise it is considered small). For each 

revenue category determined to be small, the numbers of establishments and firms are used to determine 

the overall average number of establishments per firm for small entities. This calculation is summarized 

in Equation 4-2.

Equation 4-2: Calculation of Average Number of Facilities per Parent Entity

Average Number of Facilities

per Parent Entity =

∑ (Establishmenti) i

∑ (Firmi) i

Where i indexes the SUSB enterprise revenue categories identified as small. 

The number of facilities expected to report (as estimated in Chapter 2) is then divided by the average 

number of facilities per parent entity to calculate the number of parent entities expected to report. Table 

4-6 presents the estimated number of parent entities expected to report in each sector.
SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 4-10

Table 4-6: Average Number of Facilities per Parent Entity and Estimated Number of 

Parent Entities

Sector

Average Number of 

Facilities per Parent 

Entity

Number of Facilities 

Expected to Report

Estimated Number 

of Parent Entities 

Expected to Report

HBCD Manufacturing (NAICS 

325) 1.37 3 2

Motor Vehicle Seating and Trim 

Manufacturing (NAICS 336360) 1.37 10 7

HIPS Manufacturing (NAICS 

325211) 1.42 15 11

Estimation of Annualized Parent Entity Compliance Costs and Impact Thresholds

Annualized parent entity compliance costs are estimated by multiplying the annualized cost of submitting 

one Form R18 ($2,016) by the average number of facilities per parent entity. The parent entity revenue 

corresponding to a 1% impact and a 3% impact—i.e., the parent entity revenue at which cost impacts of 

1% or 3% are incurred—is calculated by dividing the annualized compliance cost by 1% or 3%, 

respectively. These revenues are displayed in Table 4-7.

Table 4-7: Annualized Parent Entity Cost Impacts

Sector

Average 

Number of 

Facilities 

per Parent 

Entity1

Annualized 

Parent Entity 

Compliance 

Cost

Revenue at which 

a 1% Impact is 

Incurred

(Annualized 

Compliance Cost 

/ 1%)

Revenue at which 

a 3% Impact is 

Incurred

(Annualized 

Compliance Cost 

/ 3%)

HBCD Manufacturing 

(NAICS 325) 1.37 $2,763 $276,326 $92,109

Motor Vehicle Seating and 

Trim Manufacturing 

(NAICS 336360)

1.37 $2,672 $276,249 $92,083

HIPS Manufacturing 

(NAICS 325211) 1.42 $2,871 $287,109 $95,703

1 Average number of facilities per parent entity has been rounded for ease of presentation.

Construction of Revenue Percentiles of Parent Entities

Under the assumption that an enterprise is equivalent to an ultimate parent entity and that revenues within 

each census revenue size category are uniformly distributed, parent entity revenue percentiles can be 

constructed using SUSB data tabulated by enterprise revenue size. Revenue distributions for each integer 

percentile are calculated by assuming that revenues are distributed uniformly within each SUSB revenue 

 

18 The cost of submitting a Form R annualized at a 7% discount rate is used as it provides a more conservative 

estimate of costs.
SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 4-11

category. Note that the overall distribution of revenues across the industry sector takes the distribution of 

enterprises across all revenue categories into account: though revenues are distributed uniformly within

each revenue size category, each revenue size category reflects a different proportion of the overall sector 

depending on the number of enterprises contained in the revenue category. The resulting revenue 

distribution is summarized in Table 4-8 below (for presentational simplicity, every fifth percentile is 

displayed).

Table 4-8: Parent Entity Revenue Percentiles

Percentile HBCD Manufacturing Motor Vehicle Seating 

and Trim Manufacturing HIPS Manufacturing

1 $13,217 $16,521 $23,129

5 $61,677 $79,299 $114,545

10 $154,195 $497,828 $721,411

15 $396,500 $770,974 $1,029,801

20 $644,314 $1,002,266 $1,679,623

25 $908,648 $1,349,205 $2,406,541

30 $1,217,038 $1,795,269 $3,194,037

35 $1,663,102 $2,224,811 $3,992,546

40 $2,125,686 $2,654,354 $4,791,055

45 $2,571,750 $3,331,711 $5,617,100

50 $3,304,176 $4,130,220 $7,021,374

55 $4,267,894 $4,928,729 $8,563,323

60 $5,231,611 $6,415,609 $12,115,313

65 $6,801,096 $11,674,756 $18,007,761

70 $8,921,276 $20,651,101 $29,572,377

75 $12,996,426 $34,473,572 $53,417,516

80 $20,210,544 $75,445,358 $110,139,210

85 $36,290,869 $110,139,210 $110,139,210

90 $89,212,760 $110,139,210 $110,139,210

95 $110,139,210 $110,139,210 $110,139,210

100 $110,139,210 $110,139,210 $110,139,210

Note: The largest SUSB enterprise revenue category does not have an upper bound ($100,000,000 and greater). All revenue 

percentiles corresponding to this largest category are therefore based on the lower bound of the category ($100,000,000) and 

are equal. However, as none of these entities are small, the distribution of parent entity revenues in this range is not relevant to 

the analysis.

Using the distribution of parent entity revenues, the revenue floor, 1%, 3%, and small entity thresholds 

can be identified. The percentiles corresponding to these thresholds are displayed in Table 4-9 below.
SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 4-12

Table 4-9: Revenue Percentiles Corresponding to Key Thresholds

Sector

Below 

Revenue 

Floor

3% Impact

Threshold

1% Impact

Threshold

Small Entity

Revenue

Threshold

HBCD Manufacturing (NAICS 

325) 21 8 13 85

Motor Vehicle Seating and Trim 

Manufacturing (NAICS 336360) 11 6 8 73

HIPS Manufacturing (NAICS 

325211) 10 4 6 75

In all three sectors, the revenue floor is higher than both the 1% and 3% impact thresholds, indicating that 

any parent entity affected by the proposed rule has revenues large enough to incur impacts of <1%. For 

example, in the HBCD manufacturing sector, the revenue floor is equivalent to the 21st percentile, while 

the 3% and 1% impacts occur at the 8th and 13th percentiles, respectively. Small entity impacts are 

incurred over 64 revenue percentiles (from the 21st percentile to the 84th percentile, as the 20th and lower 

percentiles are below the revenue floor, and the 85th and higher percentiles are classified as large parent 

entities). All of the small parent entity impacts are estimated to be less than 1%, as the 1% impact 

threshold is lower than the revenue floor.

The percent of parent entities in each impact category can be calculated using the revenue percentiles in 

Table 4-9. For example, 79% of the parent entities in the HBCD manufacturing sector are estimated to be 

potentially affected by TRI reporting requirements (i.e., 21% of the entities have revenues less than the 

revenue floor [the cost of employing 10 full-time employees]; the remaining 79% are potential reporters). 

Of these enterprises, 81% are estimated to be small entities, all of which are estimated to incur impacts of 

<1%.19 The percent of parent entities in each impact category is presented in Table 4-10 below.

Table 4-10: Percent of Parent Entities in Each Impact Category

Sector

Small Entities 

Incurring Impacts 

of <1%

Small Entities 

Incurring Impacts 

of 1% to 3%

Small Entities 

Incurring Impacts 

of >3%

HBCD Manufacturing (NAICS 325) 100% 0% 0%

Motor Vehicle Seating and Trim 

Manufacturing (NAICS 336360) 100% 0% 0%

HIPS Manufacturing (NAICS 

325211) 100% 0% 0%

 

19 Of all parent entities, 21% do not report, and 15% are not small (100 percentiles – 85 percentiles). However, of the 

parent entities expected to potentially report to TRI, 15 percentiles / 79 percentiles = 19% are not small, and the 

remaining 81% are small. As both the 1% and 3% impact thresholds are less than the revenue floor, all small entities 

are estimated to incur impacts of <1%.
SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 4-13

Estimation of Annualized Cost Impacts to Small Parent Entities

To estimate the number of small parent entities in each impact category, the estimated number of parent 

entities from Table 4-6 is distributed across the percent of potentially affected parent entities in each 

impact category from Table 4-10. The estimated number of small parent entities is presented in Table 

4-11.

Table 4-11: Estimated Small Parent Entities

Sector Estimated Parent 

Entities

Percent of Parent 

Entities that are 

Estimated to be Small

Estimated Small 

Parent Entities

HBCD Manufacturing 

(NAICS 325) 2 81% 2

1

Motor Vehicle Seating 

and Trim Manufacturing

(NAICS 336360)

7 70% 5

HIPS Manufacturing 

(NAICS 325211) 11 72% 8

1 Rounded up to provide a conservative estimate of the number of small parent entities.

Annualized cost impacts to small parent entities are presented in Table 4-12.

Table 4-12: Annualized Cost Impacts to Small Parent Entities

Sector

Small Parent 

Entities 

Incurring 

Impacts of <1%

Small Parent 

Entities 

Incurring 

Impacts of 1% 

to 3%

Small Parent 

Entities 

Incurring 

Impacts of >3%

Total Small 

Parent Entities

HBCD Manufacturing 

(NAICS 325)

2

(100%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

2

Motor Vehicle Seating 

and Trim Manufacturing 

(NAICS 336360)

5

(100%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

5

HIPS Manufacturing 

(NAICS 325211)

8

(100%)

0

(0%)

0

(0%)

8

Note: The percent figures denote the percent of small parent entities in each impact category.

4.4 Summary of Impacts to Small Parent Entities

The 101 facilities expected to report were linked to 55 parent entities, 42 of which were categorized as 

small entities. All of the small parent entities affected by the proposed rule are estimated to incur 

annualized cost impacts of less than 1%. Table 4-13 summarizes the results of the small entity analysis.
SMALL ENTITY ANALYSIS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 4-14

Table 4-13: Summary of Small Entity Analysis

Sector

Small Parent 

Entities Incurring 

Impacts of <1%

Small Parent Entities 

Incurring Impacts of 

1% to 3%

Small Parent 

Entities Incurring 

Impacts of >3%

HBCD Manufacturing 

(NAICS 325)

2

(100%)

0 0

EPS Resin Manufacturing 

(NAICS 325211) 0 0 0

XPS and EPS Foam 

Manufacturing b(NAICS 

326140)

26 

(100%) 0 0

Automotive Textile 

Manufacturing (Misc. NAICS 

Codes)

1

(100%) 0 0

Motor Vehicle Seating and 

Trim Manufacturing (NAICS 

336360)

5

(100%) 0 0

HIPS Manufacturing (NAICS 

325211)

8

(100%)

0 0

Total 42

(100%) 0 0

As all small entities are estimated to incur impacts of less than 1%, the proposed rule is not expected to 

significantly impact a substantial number of small entities.
BENEFITS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 5-1

5. Benefits

In enacting the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 and the 

Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990, Congress recognized the significant benefits of providing 

information on the presence, releases and waste management of toxic chemicals. The Toxics Release 

Inventory (TRI) has proven to be one of the most powerful forces in empowering the federal government, 

state and local governments, industry, environmental groups, and the general public to fully participate in 

an informed dialogue about the environmental impacts of toxic chemicals in the United States. The TRI 

database provides several types of information, including quantitative information on toxic chemical 

releases and other waste management practices. Starting in 1987, the collection of this information 

enhanced the ability for the public, government, and the regulated community to understand the breadth 

and magnitude of chemical releases in the United States, and to assess the need to reduce the releases and 

transfers of toxic chemicals. TRI data enable all interested parties to establish credible baselines, to set 

realistic goals for environmental progress, and to measure progress in meeting these goals over time. As 

such, the TRI Program has become a yardstick by which progress can be measured by all interested or 

affected stakeholders. 

The information reported to TRI increases community knowledge and awareness of quantities of toxic 

chemicals released to the environment, and potential pathways of exposure to those chemicals. This 

knowledge:

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

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

 Enhances the ability of corporate leaders and purchasers to more accurately gauge a facility’s 

potential environmental liabilities; 

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

emissions; and,

 Assists federal, state, and local authorities in making better decisions on acceptable levels of toxic 

chemicals in the environment.

The benefits of the proposed rule include improved understanding, awareness, and decision making 

related to the provision and distribution of information on releases and waste management of HBCD. This 

provision of information can lead to follow-on activities that create additional costs and benefits. In 

particular, voluntary initiatives by industry to review production processes, set goals for reductions in 

emissions, and institute “good neighbor” policies may result from information provision. If an individual 

facility owner or operator perceives that the additional information generated to comply with the section 

313 reporting requirements provides them with valuable information about their operations and how they 

might be modified, then changes may be implemented to reduce releases of TRI chemicals. 

Making TRI information available to the public may provide incentives for facilities to reduce TRI 

chemical releases. For example, the public availability of release information may induce facilities to 

reduce releases when such changes would not be in the facility’s interest if release information were not 

in the public domain. Potential social benefits derived from voluntary follow-on activities include 

decreased costs of waste treatment and disposal, lower probability of accidental releases and lower clean-
BENEFITS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 5-2

up costs in the event of such releases, reduced contamination of natural resources, improved air and water 

quality, and reduced risks to human health. Such social benefits are partially offset by the social costs to 

implement the changes, such as installing scrubbers and substituting materials that are less toxic but more 

expensive. The net social benefits of the information provided by the proposed rule and the possible 

follow-on activities equal the difference between the total benefits and the total costs of the activities 

leading to reduced releases.

The potential benefits of additional TRI reporting can be understood by examining the ways in which 

different groups of affected stakeholders—consumers, industry, governments and the general public—use 

TRI data. Consumers may use the data to make more informed decisions about the products they buy and 

to enter into constructive dialogue with firms in their communities that release HBCD. Facilities may find 

opportunities for waste reduction and cost savings through the process of obtaining reporting data. Nonfederal governments may use the data in lieu of, or in support of, their own environmental protection 

activities. Non-users of the TRI data benefit from its public provision whenever others’ use of the data 

results in improvements in environmental quality.

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

 Use of the Data by Community and Public Interest Groups: Communities use TRI data to begin 

dialogues with local facilities and to encourage them to reduce their emissions, develop pollution 

prevention plans, and improve safety measures. Public interest groups use the data to educate the 

public about toxic chemical emissions and potential risk, and in environmental justice activities.

 Use of the Data by Education and Research Institutions: TRI data are being used in many 

environmental education programs, particularly at the high school and university levels. Students 

learn about toxic chemical releases, the potential health and environmental effects of those 

releases, pollution prevention activities and opportunities, and the social and political aspects of 

environmental protection. Some organizations also are conducting educational outreach programs 

using TRI data. 

 Use of the Data by the Financial and Business Communities: Investment analysts use TRI data to 

provide recommendations to clients seeking to make environmentally sound investments. 

Insurance companies look to TRI data as one indication of potential environmental liabilities. 

Consultants and others use the data to identify business opportunities, such as marketing pollution 

prevention and control technologies to TRI reporting facilities. Demand for environmental 

performance information by investors, insurance companies, and the public has led many 

companies to develop environmental annual reports similar to annual reports on financial 

performance traditionally prepared for investors.

 Industry Use of TRI Data: TRI data have been used by industry for activities such as developing 

waste reduction strategies and improving companies’ understanding of their own production 

processes. Industry also uses TRI submission information to show environmental progress and as 

a starting point for engaging with communities. 

 Government Use of TRI Data: Government organizations such as the media-specific and core 

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

routinely use TRI data. TRI data have been used to: develop inspection targeting and enforcement 

tools; analyze and prioritize long-term trends in waste minimization; identify candidates for the 
BENEFITS

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 5-3

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; coordinate environmental data internationally 

through agreements and organizations such as the Commission for Environmental Cooperation; 

and set priorities and allocate increasingly scarce environmental protection resources to the most 

pressing problems.

EPA has not attempted to monetize the benefits of the proposed rule due to the lack of quantitative 

information characterizing the range of users and non-users of TRI data and the substantial analytical 

challenges associated with accurately predicting behavioral responses to the provision of information

(Palm, 1981; Moody et al., 1999). The analysis was not able to consider variations in quality or other 

attributes of TRI data access methods. The potentially large numbers of beneficiaries who are not users or 

who are otherwise unaware of the data (e.g., the general public) further limits EPA’s ability to quantify 

potential benefits.

The experience since the first forms were submitted to TRI in 1987 suggests that reporting under EPCRA 

section 313 has produced real gains in understanding communities’ exposure to toxic chemicals. In its 

report The Toxics Release Inventory in Action: Media, Government, Business, Community and Academic 

Uses of TRI, EPA has documented numerous examples of how multiple stakeholders have used TRI data

(U.S. EPA, 2013b). Moreover, a cursory search on GoogleScholarTM reveals thousands of academic 

articles referencing the Toxics Release Inventory. Listing HBCD, and the subsequent use of the reported 

information, should provide similar gains in understanding of this particular chemical. EPA believes that

HBCD meets the statutory toxicity criteria of section 313, and is at least as toxic as some of the chemicals 

for which Congress initially believed there were net benefits due to reporting (i.e., the initial list of section 

313 chemicals).
REFERENCES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 6-1

6. References

Abt Associates (2004). "Memo to USEPA re: Abt Associates Engineering Study (TRI Reporting Burden 

Estimates)."

Danish Ministry of the Environment (2010). "Inclusion of HBCDD, DEHP, BBP, DBP and additive use 

of TBBPA in Annex IV of the Commission's recast proposal of the RoHS Directive."

EPS Industry Alliance (2012a). "EPS Industry Alliance Newsline: Fall 2012."

EPS Industry Alliance (2012b). "EPS Manufacturers." Retrieved March 1, 2013 from 

http://www.epsindustry.org/eps-manufacturers-map?tid=10

European Chemicals Agency (2008). "Risk Assessment: Hexabromocyclododecane. CAS No. 25637-99-

4; EINECS No. 247-148-4. Final Report."

European Chemicals Agency (2009). "Background document for hexabromocyclododecane and all major 

diastereoisomers identified (HBCDD)."

Extruded Polystyrene Foam Association (2014). "About XPSA." Retrieved March 16, 2014 from 

http://www.xpsa.com/index.html

Heiden Associates (1989). "Final Report: A Study of Industry Compliance costs Under the Final 

Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule, Prepared for the Chemical Manufacturers 

Association."

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

IOM Consulting (2008). "Background document for hexabromocyclododecane and all major 

diastereoisomers identified (HBCDD)."

Moody, D. and P. Walsh (1999). "Measuring the Value of Information: An Asset Valuation Approach." 

European Conference on Information Systems.

Morose, G. (2006). "An Overview of Alternatives to Tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) and 

Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD)." Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, University of 

Massachusetts Lowell.

Palm, R. I. (1981). "Public Response to Earthquake Hazard Information." Annals of the Association of 

American Geographers 71(3): 389-399.

Powell, N. (2013). Personal Communication. Associate Professor of Textile and apparel, North Carolina 

State University.
REFERENCES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 6-2

Stanton, M. (2012). Re: Proposed Significant New Use Rule for Hexabromocyclododecane and 

1,2,5,6,9,10-Hexabromocyclododecane 77 FR 17386. 

The Ecology Center (2012). "Model Year 2011/2012: Guide to New Vehicles."

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (2014). "Table 1.1.9. Implicite Price Deflators for Gross Domestic 

Product." Retrieved February 20, 2014 from 

http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1#reqid=9&step=3&isuri=1&903=13

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014a). "May 2012 National Industry-Specific Occupational 

Employment and Wage Estimates." Retrieved February 11, 2014 from 

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrci.htm

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014b). "Table 4: Compensation (Not Seasonally Adjusted): 

Employment Cost Index for Total Compensation, for Civilian Workers, by Occupational Group 

and Industry." Retrieved February 12, 2014 from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.toc.htm

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2014c). "Table 9: Private Industry, Goods-Producing and ServiceProviding Industries, by Occupational Group." Retrieved March 19, 2014 from 

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.toc.htm

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

Size: 2007." Retrieved January 21, 2014 from 

http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/data/susb2007.html

U.S. Census Bureau (2013). "Number of Firms, Number of Establishments, Employment, and Annual 

Payroll by Enterprise Employment Size for the United States, All Industries, 2011." Retrieved 

March 18, 2014 from http://www2.census.gov/econ/susb/data/2011/us_6digitnaics_2011.xls

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002). "Non-confidential 2002 IUR Database."

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006). "Non-confidential 2006 IUR Database."

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2010). "Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) Action Plan."

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011a). "Economic Analysis of the Final Significant New Use 

Rule for Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD)."

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011b). "Revising TRI Burden to Ratio-Based Methodology."

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012). "Singificant New Use Rule for Hexabromocyclododecane 

and 1,2,5,6,9,10-Hexabromocyclododecane."
REFERENCES

Economic Analysis of Proposed Addition of HBCD ▌pg. 6-3

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013a). "2012 Non-confidential Chemical Data Reporting 

Database."

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2013b). "The Toxics Release Inventory in Action: Media, 

Government, Business, Community and Academic Uses of TRI."

U.S. Small Business Administration (2014). "Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North 

American Industry Classification System Codes."

United Nations Environment Programme (2011). "Risk Management Evaluation on 

Hexabromocyclododecane." Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

United Nations Environment Programme (2013a). "Ammendment to Annex A: Listing of 

Hexabromocyclododecane." Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants.

United Nations Environment Programme (2013b). "Status of Ratifications." Stockholm Convention on 

Persistent Organic Pollutants.

Wilson, A. (2013). Automotive Textiles (3rd Edition): Moving Towards a New Global Equilibrium.