Economic Analysis of the Proposed Toxics Release 

Inventory (TRI) Reporting Rule for Facilities Located in 

Indian Country

DRAFT

Prepared for:

Office of Environmental Information

US Environmental Protection Agency

June 28, 2011
Abt Associates Inc. 2 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

Table of Contents

Table of Contents........................................................................................................................................ 2

Table of Tables............................................................................................................................................ 3

Chapter 1 – Introduction......................................................................................................................... 4

Chapter 2 – Estimated Number of Affected Facilities and Forms ...................................................... 6

Chapter 3 – Cost Estimates..................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 8

3.2 Methodology.................................................................................................................................... 8

3.3 Incremental Burden Estimates......................................................................................................... 9

3.3.1 Rule Familiarization ........................................................................................................... 9

3.3.2 Compliance Determination ............................................................................................... 10

3.3.3 Summary........................................................................................................................... 11

3.4 Unit Cost Estimates........................................................................................................................ 11

3.5 Total Incremental Facility Costs.................................................................................................... 12

3.6 Total Incremental EPA Costs......................................................................................................... 13

Chapter 4 – Small Entity Impacts Associated with the Proposed Rule ............................................ 14

4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 14

4.2 Definitions of Small Entities.......................................................................................................... 14

4.3 Methodology Overview ................................................................................................................. 15

4.4 Impacts on Small Businesses......................................................................................................... 17

4.4.1 Census Sectors.................................................................................................................. 17

4.4.2 Utilities.............................................................................................................................. 20

4.5 Impacts on Small Government Jurisdictions ................................................................................. 22

4.6 Summary........................................................................................................................................ 24

Chapter 5 – Benefits............................................................................................................................... 26

Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................................ 27
Abt Associates Inc. 3 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

Table of Tables

Table 2-1: Number of Facilities Reporting to TRI in RY2009....................................................................6

Table 2-2: Number of Facilities Submitting Forms to TRI in Indian Country (RY2008 and RY2009)......6

Table 2-3: Tribal Lands Containing Facilities Reporting to TRI in RY2008 and/or RY2009 ....................7

Table 3-1: Estimated Rule Familiarization Burden per Facility Associated with the Proposed Rule .......10

Table 3-2: Estimated Compliance Determination Burden per Facility Associated with the Proposed Rule

.....................................................................................................................................................11

Table 3-3: Estimated First and Subsequent Year Burden Associated with the Proposed Rule .................11

Table 3-4: Loaded Hourly Wage Rates by Labor Category ......................................................................12

Table 3-5: Estimated Incremental Costs Associated with the Proposed Rule ...........................................12

Table 4-1: Categorization of Sectors Affected by Proposed Rule .............................................................16

Table 4-2: Sectors with Information in SUSB...........................................................................................17

Table 4-3: Universe of Affected TRI Facilities in Sectors with Data in SUSB.........................................18

Table 4-4: Small Entity Impact for NAICS Sectors in Census Codes.......................................................20

Table 4-5: TRI Utility Universe.................................................................................................................21

Table 4-6: Small Entity Impact for Utility Sectors....................................................................................22

Table 4-7: TRI Government Owned Facility Universe..............................................................................23

Table 4-8: Small Entity Impact for Small Government Jurisdictions........................................................24

Table 4-9: Small Entity Impact for NAICS Sectors in Census Codes, Utilities and Small Government 

Jurisdictions.................................................................................................................................25
Abt Associates Inc. 4 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

Chapter 1 – Introduction

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. 42 U.S.C. §§ 11001-11050. Under section 313 of EPCRA, certain facilities are 

required to submit annual reports to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to 

States on their release, transfer, and waste management activities of 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 pollution 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).1

Since the program began in 1986, facilities that meet TRI reporting requirements have been required to 

submit annual TRI reports to EPA and the State in which they are located. On July 26, 1990, EPA 

finalized regulations in the Federal Register (FR) requiring facilities in Indian country to submit annual 

TRI reports to EPA and the appropriate tribal government (55 FR 30632). These amendments, however, 

were inadvertently omitted from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and the relevant provisions were 

later overwritten by a subsequent final rule, thus resulting in the exclusion of the intended requirement 

from the CFR.

EPA intends to include these provisions in 40 CFR Section 372.30(a), thus requiring facilities that are 

located in Indian country to submit their annual TRI reports to the appropriate tribe, rather than to the 

State in which the facility is geographically located. Given this action, 40 CFR part 372.30(a) needs to be 

revised for facilities located in Indian Country; EPA’s Form R, Form A, and Form R Schedule 1 must 

therefore be submitted to the official designated by the tribal Chairperson or equivalent elected official, as 

well as to EPA. For the purpose of clarity, EPA also intends to amend the definition of “State” to no 

longer include Indian country.

Form R and Form A will be modified to reflect these changes in reporting requirements. On the first page 

of Form R and Form A, under the section “WHERE TO SEND COMPLETED FORMS”, the current text 

“2. APPROPRIATE STATE OFFICE” will be replaced with “2. APPROPRIATE STATE OR TRIBAL 

OFFICE.” A list of contacts for the appropriate tribal government will be included in the TRI Reporting 

Forms and Instructions. 

The proposed rule would also provide tribes with the opportunity to request that EPA require that a 

specific facility or facilities located within the tribe’s Indian country report to TRI. Additionally, they 

would be able to petition for the addition of certain chemicals, which would apply to all facilities 

releasing the particular substance(s). The statute – at sections 313(b)(2) and 313(d) – expressly authorizes 

the Administrator to apply TRI reporting requirements to particular facilities and to add or delete 

chemicals to or from the list of chemicals subject to TRI reporting. Further, the statute provides 

 

1 The term “EPCRA section 313" properly refers to only the statutory requirements, while the term “TRI” properly 

refers to the database that stores the information collected both under EPCRA section 313 and under section 6607 of 

the PPA. 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/or 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.
Abt Associates Inc. 5 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

opportunities for governors of States to request that particular facilities within the States be subject to TRI 

reporting or that specific chemicals be added to or deleted from the TRI reporting list (EPCRA Section 

313(b)(2), (e)(2)). EPA believes that these same opportunities are appropriately available to tribal 

governments under the statute and proposes to explicitly describe these provisions so that it is apparent 

that the tribal Chairperson or equivalent elected official may make similar requests to EPA.2 Ultimately, 

however, it is EPA that determines whether TRI reporting requirements will apply to a particular facility 

or whether a specific chemical will be added to, or deleted from, the TRI chemicals list. 

Under the proposed rule and per the intent of the 1990 regulation, a tribe's only responsibility will be to 

receive TRI reports submitted by facilities located within its Indian country. EPA will ask affected tribes 

(those with facilities located in their Indian country) to identify a point of contact to whom facilities can 

provide their annual report of TRI releases. If no TRI contact is designated, the head representative of the 

Tribal Council or Tribal Environmental Department would serve as the point of contact for report 

submission. 

Although tribes are not required to use the toxics release data received from facilities for any particular 

purpose, TRI data are among the many tools available to help tribes better analyze potential sources of 

toxic chemicals, as well as to assess environmental and health conditions on their lands. Tribes currently 

have and will continue to have access to TRI data across the entire nation, once it is made available to the 

public. The proposed rule would simply accelerate the timeframe within which a tribe would receive data 

from facilities in its Indian country. 

Under EPA’s considered approach, if the facility is located in the Indian country of a tribe that becomes a 

member of the internet-based TRI Data Exchange, then the owner or operator of that facility could meet 

its dual EPA/tribal reporting requirements by submitting its TRI report to EPA via TRI Made Easy (TRIME) web, a web-based application that allows facilities to submit a paperless report. EPA would then 

automatically transmit the report to the appropriate tribe via the TRI State Data Exchange. If the facility is 

located in the Indian country of a tribe that does not become a member of the TRI Data Exchange, or if 

the facility is allowed to submit to the Tribe via paper form, then the facility would be required to submit 

a TRI report to EPA (either electronically or via paper) and also separately to the appropriate tribe. The 

approach described above is the same as for EPA and States when facilities are not located in Indian 

country.

The remainder of this report describes the costs to industry, the impacts to potentially affected small 

entities, and the benefits associated with the proposed rule. In Chapter 2 the number of facilities currently

in Indian country is estimated as well as the number of facilities potentially affected by the proposed rule. 

These estimates are used in Chapter 3 to calculate the costs to current TRI reporters of understanding and 

complying with the proposed rule. In Chapter 4, the impacts of the proposed rule on “small” entities are 

examined. Chapter 5 presents a qualitative assessment of the benefits of the proposed rule.

 

2 Because these same opportunities are already available under existing statutes, no additional burden on Tribal 

governments or TRI reporters is created from this clarification under the proposed rule.
Abt Associates Inc. 6 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

Chapter 2 – Estimated Number of Affected Facilities and Forms

The proposed rule will create reporting burden for all TRI reporters to familiarize themselves with the 

clarified language regarding where forms should be submitted. This rule will not change the total number 

of facilities reporting to TRI nor the number of reports (Form R or Form A) filed. The total number of 

TRI reporters in RY2009 is presented in Table 2-1.

Table 2-1: Number of Facilities Reporting to TRI in RY2009

Facilities Form Rs Form As

Total Unique Number of Forms/Facilities 20,797 69,689 8,894

U.S. EPA 2011b. TRI RY2009: NA2009. Accessed via TRI.NET

Additionally, a subset of current reporters will need to determine whether or not they are located in Indian 

country. Herein, “Indian tribe” refers to a tribe that is “Federally-recognized'” by the Secretary of the 

Interior under 25 CFR 272.2 while “Indian country” refers to lands under the Title 18 U.S.C. 1151 

definition of Indian country as:

a) all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the United States

Government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent, and, including rights-of-way 

running through the reservation;

b) all dependent Indian communities within the borders of the United States whether within the 

original or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and whether within or without the limits 

of a State; and

c) all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished, including rightsof-way running through the same. 

As shown in Table 2-2, 51 facilities located in Indian country submitted a total of 199 forms to TRI in 

RY2008 or RY2009.

3,4

 These facilities will be used as a proxy for estimating the number of facilities 

performing compliance determination (see section 3.3.2). 

Table 2-2: Number of Facilities Submitting Forms to TRI in 

Indian Country (RY2008 and RY2009)

Facilities Form Rs Form As

Total Unique Number of Forms/Facilities 51 188 11

U.S. EPA 2011b. TRI RY2008, RY2009: NA2009. Accessed via TRI.NET

 

3 Note that the two most recent years of TRI reporting are considered when constructing the universe of facilities 

reporting in Indian country to capture the potential number of facilities currently located in Indian country. For the 

44 facilities located in Indian country that reported in RY2009, their RY2009 form count was included in Table 2-2. 

For the seven facilities located in Indian country that did not report in RY2009 but did report in RY2008, their 

RY2008 form count was included in Table 2-2.

4

Facilities located in Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas will not report to their respective Tribal governments 

and are thus excluded from this count.
Abt Associates Inc. 7 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

These 51 facilities were located in 20 distinct tribal lands, listed below in Table 2-3. 

Table 2-3: Tribal Lands Containing 

Facilities Reporting to TRI in RY2008 

and/or RY2009

Reservation State(s)

Coeur d'Alene Reservation Idaho

Colorado River Reservation Arizona

Fort Hall Reservation Idaho

Gila River Reservation Arizona

Hopi Reservation Arizona

Isabella Reservation Michigan

L'Anse Reservation Michigan

Mille Lacs Reservation Minnesota

Navajo Nation Reservation Arizona, New Mexico

Nez Perce Reservation Idaho

Oneida Reservation Wisconsin

Rincon Reservation California

Puyallup Reservation Washington

Salt River Reservation Arizona

Sandia Pueblo New Mexico

Soboba Reservation California

Tohono O'odham Reservation Arizona

Tulalip Reservation Washington

Uintah and Ouray Reservation Utah

Wind River Reservation Wyoming

Yakama Reservation Washington

U.S. EPA 2011b. TRI RY2008, RY2009: NA2009. 

Accessed via TRI.NET
Abt Associates Inc. 8 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

Chapter 3 – Cost Estimates

3.1 Introduction 

This chapter presents the estimated industry costs associated with the proposed rule, which clarifies where 

facilities in Indian country should send their TRI forms. Specifically, facilities that are located in Indian 

country must submit their annual TRI reports to the appropriate tribal government, rather than to the State 

in which the facility is geographically located. The requirement for the facility to report to EPA remains

the same. Incremental reporting burden and cost will be associated with the need for all facilities to 

familiarize themselves with the clarified requirements as well as the need for certain facilities to 

determine whether or not they are located in Indian country. 

Section 3.2 describes the methodology used to estimate industry costs. Section 3.3 provides estimates of 

the incremental burden while Section 3.4 explains how the cost estimates, or unit costs, were developed. 

Section 3.5 summarizes the total estimated incremental costs of the proposed rule for the reporting 

community. Section 3.6 estimates the incremental costs of the proposed rule for EPA.

3.2 Methodology

Industry burden and costs associated with the proposed rule were calculated using the following four-step 

procedure:

Step 1: Identify and describe the new tasks that facilities will have to perform to comply with 

the proposed rule.

Step 2: Estimate the typical number of hours of managerial, technical, and clerical labor 

needed to complete each new task. Based on typical labor rates, calculate the unit 

cost of each new task for the first year of compliance and for subsequent years.

Step 3: Estimate the number of unique facilities that will perform each new task.

Step 4: For each new task, multiply the unit cost by the number of unique facilities and then 

sum the results to estimate the total incremental industry costs for the first year and 

subsequent years.

The set of compliance activities associated with TRI reporting include:

Compliance Determination: Facility staff must determine whether the facility meets the 

criteria for EPCRA section 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. 

Rule Familiarization: Facilities must read the reporting package and become familiar 

with the revised language concerning reporting requirements.

Report Completion: Facilities must gather data and perform calculations to provide the 

information required on Reporting Form R or Reporting Form A. This activity includes 
Abt Associates Inc. 9 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

the time required to search data sources and the time to complete and review the 

information. 

Recordkeeping and Submission: Facilities must maintain recordkeeping systems and 

submit their reports to EPA and the State or tribe in which the facility is located. This 

activity includes the time required to transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

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 section 313 reporting. This activity includes the time 

required to inform customers, either by letter or through the materials safety data sheet 

(MSDS) for the product. 

The new tasks associated with the proposed rule are limited to compliance determination (for facilities 

unsure of their tribal land status) and rule familiarization (for all reporting facilities). Facilities affected by 

the proposed rule are already reporting to TRI. Baseline reporting burden already captures the burden to 

these facilities for form completion, recordkeeping and submission, and supplier notification.

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

requirements associated with section 6607 of the PPA) are expected to vary from facility to facility,

depending upon factors such as: the complexity of the facility's processes and activities; the chemicals 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 or A report (or 

multiple Form R and/or A reports) will 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 will assist reporters in making the necessary 

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

requirements involving managerial and clerical staff are also considered when computing costs.

3.3 Incremental Burden Estimates

In this section, EPA estimates the incremental burden associated with the proposed rule. Since the 

proposed rule simply clarifies where facilities located in Indian country should send their forms, TRI 

reporters are only expected to incur burden due to rule familiarization and compliance determination. 

The following burden estimates are based on considerable experience with the TRI program and 

engineering judgment. 

3.3.1 Rule Familiarization

Under the proposed rule, EPA expects that the entire TRI reporting community -- 20,797 facilities 

reporting to TRI in RY2009 -- may incur rule familiarization burden. The incremental burden estimates 

associated with rule familiarization consist of time to read and interpret the clarified language outlined in 

the proposed rule and are based on the following assumptions:
Abt Associates Inc. 10 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

 The first-year technical burden includes ten minutes per facility to read and interpret the clarified 

language. An additional five minutes per facility will be required to brief management regarding 

the clarified language. It is assumed that facilities will fully comprehend the clarified language by 

the subsequent year of reporting; therefore, no rule familiarization burden is required in 

subsequent years.

 The first-year management burden includes five minutes per facility to be briefed regarding the 

clarified language. It is assumed that facilities will fully comprehend the clarified language by the 

subsequent year of reporting; therefore, no rule familiarization burden is required in subsequent 

years.

 There is no first- or subsequent-year burden on clerical staff associated with rule familiarization.

The incremental burden associated with rule familiarization in the first and subsequent years is presented 

in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Estimated Rule Familiarization Burden 

per Facility Associated with the Proposed Rule

Labor Category First Year Burden

(minutes)

Subsequent Year 

Burden (minutes)

Management 5 0

Technical 15 0

Clerical 0 0

3.3.2 Compliance Determination

Under the proposed rule, EPA assumes that most TRI reporters know whether or not they are located in

Indian country. A subset of facilities, however, will spend time determining whether or not their facility 

resides on Indian country. While the number of facilities that will have to make this determination is not 

known, it is expected to be a small subset of TRI reporters. Therefore, the 51 facilities identified as 

located in Indian country in RY2008 and RY2009 are used as a proxy for the number of facilities 

expected to perform this compliance determination task. 

 The first-year technical burden includes ten minutes to identify facility status in Indian country. It

is assumed that technical staff will obtain this information by calling EPA to inquire. It is further 

assumed that facilities will fully comprehend their status prior to the subsequent-year of 

reporting; therefore, no compliance determination burden is required in subsequent-years.

 There is no first- or subsequent-year burden on managerial staff associated with compliance 

determination.

 There is no first- or subsequent-year burden on clerical staff associated with compliance 

determination.

The incremental burden associated with compliance determination in the first- and subsequent-years is 

presented in Table 3-2.
Abt Associates Inc. 11 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

Table 3-2: Estimated Compliance Determination 

Burden per Facility Associated with the Proposed 

Rule

Labor Category

First-Year Burden 

(minutes)

Subsequent-Year 

Burden (minutes)

Management 0 0

Technical 10 0

Clerical 0 0

3.3.3 Summary

Table 3-3 presents total first- and subsequent-year incremental burden estimates associated with the 

proposed rule.

Table 3-3: Estimated First and Subsequent Year Burden Associated with the Proposed 

Rule

Activity

Number of 

Facilities

Labor Category Total Unit 

Burden

Total 

Managerial Technical Clerical Burden

Incremental First-Year Burden (hours)

Rule Familiarization 20,797 0.083 0.250 0 0.333 6,925

Compliance Determination 51 0 0.167 0 0.167 9

Total 6,934

Incremental Subsequent-Year Burden (hours)

Rule Familiarization 0 0 0 0 0 0

Compliance Determination 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0

3.4 Unit Cost Estimates

This section explains how the cost estimates, or unit costs, were developed for the proposed rule. Each 

cost estimate is made up of two components: the unit time estimates (i.e., number of labor hours required 

of each type of personnel to complete a task) and the hourly wage rates for each level of personnel.

Labor rates are divided into three categories: managerial, technical, and clerical. These rates reflect the 

total cost to employ an individual and include in the estimate the cost of salaries, fringe benefits, such as 

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. Updated 2010

hourly labor rates, including fringe benefits and overhead, were calculated using current data on salaries 

and benefits for these three labor categories from information published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

(BLS) (USDOL, 2010). The general methodology for this calculation was obtained from Wage Rates for 

Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (Rice, 2002). The managerial, technical, and 

clerical wage rates are composites of the BLS rates for ‘Wages and Salaries’ and ‘Total Benefits’ by labor 

category. The sum of ‘Wages and Salaries’ and ‘Total Benefits’ is equal to ‘Total Compensation.’ The 

managerial labor rate is defined as the average hourly wages and salaries for the “Management, Business, 

and Financial” occupational category. The technical labor rate is defined as the average hourly wages and 
Abt Associates Inc. 12 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

salaries for the “Professional and Related” occupational category. The clerical labor rate is defined as the 

average hourly wages and salaries for the “Office and Administrative Support” occupational category. 

Based on information provided by the chemical industry and chemical industry trade associations, an 

additional loading factor of 17 percent is applied to ‘Wages and Salaries’ for general overhead.5 The sum 

of ‘Total Compensation’ and ‘Overhead’ is equal to ‘Total Loaded Hourly Wage Rate’. As shown in 

Table 3-4, the hourly wage rates are $63.99 for managerial personnel, $51.32 for technical personnel, and 

$25.16 for clerical personnel, all in 2010 dollars.

Table 3-4: Loaded Hourly Wage Rates by Labor Category

Wage Type

Labor Category

Managerial Technical Clerical

Wages and Salaries (Dec. 2010) $39.70 $32.75 $15.72

Total Benefits $17.54 $13.00 $6.77

Overhead $6.75 $5.57 $2.67

Total Loaded Hourly Rate $63.99 $51.32 $25.16

U.S.DOL (2010). Employer Costs for Employee Compensation – September 2010. U.S. 

Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Washington D.C., March 9, 2011.

3.5 Total Incremental Facility Costs

Table 3-5 summarizes the total estimated incremental costs of the rule. For the 51 facilities expected to 

have both compliance determination and rule familiarization burden due to the proposed rule, the total 

first-year incremental costs are $26.71 per facility. For the remaining 20,746 facilities in the TRI 

reporting community expected to have only rule familiarization burden due to the proposed rule, the total 

first-year incremental costs are $18.14 per facility. In total for the entire TRI reporting community, the 

total first-year incremental costs are $377,695. There are no subsequent-year costs.

Table 3-5: Estimated Incremental Costs Associated with the Proposed Rule

Activity

Hours Per Labor Category

Total 

Unit 

Cost

Number of 

Facilities Total Cost

Managerial Technical Clerical

$63.99/hr $51.32/hr $25.16/hr

First-Year

Rule Familiarization 0.083 0.250 0 $18.14 20,797 $377,258

Compliance Determination 0 0.167 0 $8.57 51 $437

Annual Total $377,695

Subsequent-Years

Rule Familiarization 0 0 0 $0 0 $0

Compliance Determination 0 0 0 $0 0 $0

Annual Total $0

 

5

Heiden Associates, Final Report: A Study of Industry Compliance Costs Under the Final Comprehensive 

Assessment Information Rule, Prepared for the Chemical Manufacturers Association, December 14, 1989.
Abt Associates Inc. 13 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

3.6 Total Incremental EPA Costs

While rule makings often create Agency burden and cost associated with the need to process additional 

forms or data elements, this rulemaking simply clarifies where reports should be sent. Therefore, EPA 

will not be required to perform additional processing of forms due to the proposed rule. 
Abt Associates Inc. 14 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

Chapter 4 – Small Entity Impacts Associated with the Proposed Rule

4.1 Introduction

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.

Since 1980, the RFA has required Federal agencies to assess the economic impacts of their actions on 

small entities, including businesses, nonprofit agencies, and governments. 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 will 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. 

This chapter summarizes the results of a small entity impact analysis for the proposed rule. Specifically, 

Section 4.2 provides the definitions of small entities for the groups covered under the proposed rule. 

Section 4.3 describes the general methodology used to determine if the proposed rule results in significant 

economic impacts to a substantial number of small entities. In Sections 4.4 and 4.5 this methodology is 

used to estimate the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. The results of the small entity analysis 

are summarized in Section 4.6.

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.6

SBA's small business size standards vary by industry. In establishing size standards, SBA considers a 

number of economic and market characteristics that may allow a business 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.” For 

example, the default SBA size standard for manufacturing industries is 500 employees. According to 

information compiled for SBA by the Bureau of the Census, 282,622 of 286,701 manufacturing firms 

have fewer than 500 employees (USSBA, 2010).7 Therefore, at least 98.6 percent of firms would be 

classified as small businesses according to the SBA definition. In fact, this percentage is actually higher, 

 

6

SBA's size standards can be found at: 

http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf.

7 USSBA. Office of Advocacy - Statistics – All Industries by NAICS Codes, 2007: Employer Firms & Employment 

by Employment Size of Firm by NAICS Codes, 2007. Information from the Small Business Administration on the 

Internet. http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/us07_n6.pdf Downloaded on April 6, 2011.
Abt Associates Inc. 15 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

since for certain industrial classification codes within manufacturing, the SBA size standard is 750, 1,000, 

or 1,500 employees. The small business definitions relevant to this proposed rule are:

 Businesses, where the small business definition is based on annual receipts or number of 

employees;

 Utilities, where the small business definition is based on annual electricity generation;

 Government jurisdictions, where the small definition is based on population; and,

 Small organizations, where the small business definition is based on any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.8

Collectively, this analysis refers to small businesses, small governmental jurisdictions, and small 

organizations as small entities.

4.3 Methodology Overview

As mentioned above, the RFA considers whether a rule will have a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. This analysis uses annual cost impact percentages to measure 

potential impacts on small entities. The cost impact percentage is defined as annual compliance costs 

resulting from the proposed rule as a percentage of annual revenue or sales. For purposes of determining 

small entity impacts, comparing annual compliance costs to annual revenue 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 (i.e., less than one percent), the impacts of the regulation are likely to be minimal. 

The compliance cost associated with the proposed rule in the first year includes the costs of rule 

familiarization and compliance determination (see Table 3-5). There are no costs in subsequent years. In 

Chapter 2, it was estimated that all TRI reporters will incur the costs of rule familiarization, $18.14 per 

facility, and 51 facilities will also incur the costs of compliance determination, $8.57 per facility. Given 

the inability to specifically identify which facilities will undertake compliance determination, the cost 

impact ratios for all parent entities are conservatively calculated using the higher incremental compliance 

cost associated with completing both rule familiarization and compliance determination, totaling $26.71 

per facility. 

The proposed rule affects hundreds of industry sectors (i.e., NAICS codes). This small entity analysis 

considers facilities in all of the industry sectors which reported to TRI in RY2009. In RY2009, facilities 

in a total of 504 industry sectors reported to TRI (U.S. EPA, 2011a). It should be noted that industry 

information is only available at the facility-level; the information reported to TRI does not indicate the 

NAICS code of the parent company. For this reason, this analysis assumes that the NAICS code reported 

by each TRI facility in RY2009 is also the NAICS code of its parent.9

Employment and revenue data (necessary for the small entity analysis) available for each of these sectors 

varies; but fall into the general categories presented in Table 4-1 below. The categories were developed 

based on the small business definition and data sources used. Sector Category #1 includes all NAICS 

codes for which employment and revenue data are readily available from the U.S. Census Statistics of 

U.S Businesses and where the applicable small business threshold is based on either revenue or 

employment. Sector Category #2 includes utilities, where the definition of what constitutes a small 

 

8 No small organizations are expected to incur burden as a result of the proposed rule.

9 Note that if the NAICS code of a facility’s parent does not match the NAICS code of the facility, then its 

associated revenue may not be correctly represented in the analysis.
Abt Associates Inc. 16 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

business is based on the amount of electricity generated, and data from the Energy Information 

Administration data and annual electricity prices are used to estimate small entity impacts. Category #3 is 

government jurisdictions, where the small business threshold is defined in terms of population and data 

from the U.S. Census of Governments was used to estimate revenue. Agricultural sectors are grouped 

together in Sector Category #4 and are not considered in this analysis.10 Finally, Sector Category #5

includes facilities that reported invalid NAICS codes and are not considered in this analysis.11

Table 4-1: Categorization of Sectors Affected by Proposed Rule

Sector 

Category

#

Category Description

# Facilities 

in 

Category

1 Sectors covered by U.S. Census data 19,763

2 Utility sectors with small business definitions based on electricity generation 545

3 Government Jurisdictions 483

4 Agricultural sectors not covered by U.S. Census data 5

5 Facilities reporting invalid NAICS codes 1

Total # of TRI Facilities 20,797

Source: U.S. EPA (2011). TRI RY2009: NA2009. Accessed via TRI.NET

For Sector Categories 1 through 3 in Table 4-1, different data sources were used to estimate relevant 

economic sizes, and then the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. Although the data sources 

varied, the general methodology used to estimate the impacts on small entities across all sectors consisted 

of the following steps:

Step 1: Identify the universe of affected TRI facilities.

Step 2: Characterize the relationships between facilities and their parents in the affected 

universe.

Step 3: Estimate annual revenue of parent entities in the affected universe.

Step 4: Identify small parent entities based on SBA definitions (see Section 4.2).

Step 5: Develop parent entity cost estimates, based on the number of facilities per parent 

estimated in Step 2.

Step 6: Calculate the parent entity cost impact ratio, defined as the cost as a percentage of 

annual revenue, as a measure of regulatory burden. 

Step 7: Estimate the number and percentage of small parent companies with company-level 

impact percentages in each of three categories: (1) less than one percent of annual 

revenue; (2) between one and three percent of annual revenue; and (3) greater than or 

equal to three percent of annual revenue.

 

10 In RY2009, five facilities in two agricultural NAICS codes (112310 Chicken Egg Production and 112320 Broilers 

and Other Meat Type Production) reported to TRI. However, agricultural NAICS codes are not subject to TRI 

reporting; therefore, they are not included in the small entity analysis. Note that if these facilities were included in 

the analysis, they would incur impacts of less than one percent of annual revenue.

11 Facilities reporting an invalid NAICS code make up less than 1% of the TRI facility universe. 
Abt Associates Inc. 17 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

The specific assumptions and calculations used to estimate impacts for each category of facilities are 

described in more detail in the sections that follow. Sections 4.4 considers the impacts of the proposed 

rule on small businesses in sectors for which information is available from the 2007 U.S. Census 

Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) (Section 4.4.1), utility sectors (Section 4.4.2). Potential impacts of 

the proposed rule on small governmental jurisdictions are considered in Section 4.5.

4.4 Impacts on Small Businesses

4.4.1 Census Sectors

The majority of TRI sectors (474 of 504, or 94 percent) have revenue and employment data available 

from the U.S. Census Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010c). The sectors 

with data available from SUSB are summarized in Table 4-2 below.

Table 4-2: Sectors with Information in SUSB

2-Digit 

NAICS NAICS Description # 6-DigitNAICS Codes

21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 15

31-33 Manufacturing 425

42 Wholesale Trade 9

44-45 Retail Trade 2

48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 3

51 Information 3

54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 4

56 Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services 8

71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 2

81 Other Services (Except Public Administration) 3

Total Number of TRI Sectors with Information in SUSB 474

Source: U.S. EPA (2011). TRI RY2009: NA2009. Accessed via TRI.NET

The SUSB provides annual data for U.S. business establishments by geography, industry, and enterprise 

size, covering all business establishments with paid employees. The data provided annually includes 

counts of establishments, firms, employees, and payroll. Data about total receipts are also provided by 

SUSB every five years. The data available from the SUSB can therefore be used to identify the number of 

small parent entities affected under the proposed rule, construct annual revenue, and calculate cost impact 

ratios.

A sector’s small business definition is based on either its annual revenue or the number of its employees, 

depending on the sector. The SUSB provides information tabulated by employment size or revenue size. 

For those sectors with revenue-based small business definitions, profiles were developed for each revenue 

size category. For sectors with employment-based small business definitions, profiles were developed for 

employment size categories. 

Identify Universe of Affected TRI Facilities

The NAICS code of each affected TRI facility is known based on its RY2009 submission. Note that if a 

facility reported multiple primary NAICS codes, the first listed NAICS code is used in this analysis. In 

some cases, facilities submitted NAICS codes that were invalid at the 6-digit level, (e.g., 311000). In 

these cases, the analysis considers the facility at the most applicable NAICS level (e.g., 311). Based on 

information submitted by TRI filers, 19,763 facilities reported to TRI in RY2009 from the 474 sectors 
Abt Associates Inc. 18 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

with data in SUSB.12 The distribution of these facilities across NAICS codes is shown at the 2-digit level 

in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3: Universe of Affected TRI Facilities in Sectors with Data in SUSB

2-Digit 

NAICS NAICS Description # Facilities

21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 177

31-33 Manufacturing 18,392

42 Wholesale Trade 929

44-45 Retail Trade 15

48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 8

51 Information 5

54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 3

56 Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services 229

71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1

81 Other Services (Except Public Administration) 4

Total Number of TRI Facilities in Sectors with Information in SUSB 19,763

Source: U.S. EPA (2011a). TRI RY2009: NA2009. Accessed via TRI.NET

Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships

Compliance costs and impacts are estimated at the parent entity level, where a parent entity may own one 

or more facilities. The average number of facilities filing reports to TRI per parent company for the TRI 

sectors with information in SUSB is estimated by taking the average of the number of RY2009 reporters 

associated with each parent company with a facility in that sector (Abt Associates, Inc., 2011). Note that 

it is not possible to distinguish small parents from large parents in the TRI data; rather, a single average of 

number of facilities per parent is used for each sector. Because these averages contain large parent 

companies as well as small, they are likely to slightly overestimate the number of facilities per small 

parent entity. This inclusion of large parent companies in the average facility numbers leads to more 

conservative estimates of total compliance costs incurred by small parent companies.

Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities

The SUSB data include the total annual receipts (defined as the revenue for goods produced, distributed,

or services provided) for each NAICS/revenue or employment size class combination. For each of the 474 

TRI sectors with data in SUSB, EPA calculates average revenue per “small” entity using the appropriate 

employment size or revenue size tabulation. To do this, the total revenue and total number of firms are 

summed across all “small” revenue or employment size classes for each NAICS code.13,14 The total 

 

12 This count does not include utilities, agricultural facilities, or small governmental jurisdictions, which are 

considered separately in the sections that follow. 

13 In some cases, the employment or revenue tabulations provided in the 2007 Statistics of U.S. Businesses did not 

match the applicable small business definition. In cases where an employment or revenue class straddled the small 

business definition for the NAICS code, data for that employment or revenue class was not included in the average 

revenue per small parent company calculation. This assumption may understate the number of small entities but 

provides a conservative estimate of average revenue for small entities because it avoids including any entities not 

classified as small in the analysis, resulting in a lower average annual revenue estimate.

14 Note that the calculation of average revenue per small parent company includes firms classified in employment 

classes with fewer than ten employees, even though facilities with fewer than ten employees are not required to 

report to TRI. However, there is no parent company employment threshold for a small entity analysis. Because firm 

data are used as a proxy for parent company data, establishments with less than 10 employees are included in the 
Abt Associates Inc. 19 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

revenue of all “small” revenue or employment size classes is then divided by the number of “small” firms 

in each size class to calculate an average revenue per “small” firm by NAICS code.

In some cases, total revenue for a revenue or employment size class was not provided in the SUSB data 

because doing so would disclose the operations of an individual establishment or firm. In these cases, the 

total revenue is interpolated based on the available data. For sectors with revenue-based small business 

definitions, the midpoint of the revenue size class is multiplied by the number of firms in that size class as 

an estimate for the total revenue. For sectors with employment-based small business definitions, the 

following method is used to estimate total revenue for those NAICS/employment size class combinations 

where revenue was not disclosed:

1. Calculate the average revenue per firm for every NAICS/employment size class combination 

where data are available.

2. Calculate the percent difference between average revenue in adjacent employment size 

classes based the on all TRI NAICS codes populated with revenue information in the relevant 

adjacent employment class sizes.

3. For the NAICS/employment size class combination with no average revenue data, multiply 

the average revenue of the adjacent employment size class in that NAICS code by the average 

percent difference between the two adjacent employment size classes across all TRI NAICS 

codes to estimate the average revenue.

4. Where average revenue is available for both adjacent employment size classes, average the 

two estimated average revenues to obtain average revenue for the missing 

NAICS/employment size class combination. Where average revenue is available for only one 

of the adjacent size classes, use the estimated average revenue based on the size class with 

data.

5. Multiply the estimated average revenue by the number of firms to estimate the total revenue 

for that NAICS/employment size class.

6. In the case where no revenue data was available from SUSB for any employment size class, 

the facility is considered at the 5-digit NAICS level rather than the 6-digit NAICS level.

Because the SUSB data reflect 2007 annual revenue, it was necessary to inflate the revenue to current 

dollars using one of several indices. The Industrial Production Index (IPI) measures the amount of 

industrial output from certain industries and is used to inflate annual revenue in mining (NAICS 21) and 

manufacturing (NAICS 31-33) sectors to 2010 dollars (U.S. Federal Reserve, 2011). All other sectors 

(NAICS 42-81) are inflated based on the change in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 2007 to 2010, 

which is a measure of overall economic output (BEA, 2011).

Estimate Number of Small Parent Entities

EPA estimates the number of small parent entities in each NAICS code by distributing the total number of 

TRI facilities in each NAICS code amongst the employment or revenue size classes based on the overall 

distribution of establishments amongst the size classes in the SUSB data.15 The number of TRI facilities 

in “small” revenue or employment size classes is then summed and divided by the average number of TRI 

 

estimation of average revenue per small parent company. Inclusion of these data results in a conservative estimate 

of average parent company revenues.

15As with the average revenue calculations, employment or revenue classes straddling the small business definition 

were not included in counts of small facilities.
Abt Associates Inc. 20 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

facilities per parent in that NAICS code to obtain a count of small parent entities by NAICS code.16

Using this method, a total of 3,026 small parent entities will be potentially affected by the proposed rule. 

Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs

Since it was not possible to predict which facilities would incur compliance determination, all facilities 

were conservatively estimated to incur both compliance determination and rule familiarization costs for 

the small entity analysis. Affected parent entities will incur the compliance cost once for each TRI 

facilities it operates. Therefore, the per-facility compliance cost is multiplied by the average number of 

facilities per parent to calculate the total per parent compliance cost for each NAICS code affected under 

the proposed rule.

Estimate Cost Impact Ratios

To calculate the cost impact ratio, the first-year compliance cost of a parent entity was divided by the 

average revenue per small parent entity for each affected sector. These results are summarized in Table 

4-4. Based on this calculation, no small parent is expected to incur an impact equal to or greater than 1

percent of annual revenue. The maximum impact incurred by any small parent is ~0.13 percent, which is 

incurred by small parent entities in the NAICS sector 213112, Support Activities for Oil and Gas 

Operations. 

Table 4-4: Small Entity Impact 

for NAICS Sectors in Census 

Codes

Facility and Small Parent Entity Count

All Facilities 19,763

Small Parents 3,026

Small Parent Entity Impact Ratio

Impact < 1% 3,026

1% ≤ Impact < 3% 0

3% ≤ Impact 0

Median Impact 0.002%

Max Impact 0.130%

4.4.2 Utilities

For six utility sectors, the small business definition is based on electricity generation rather than 

employment or annual revenue. Therefore, for these sectors, it is necessary to use an alternate method to 

determine the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. The six sectors with small business 

definitions based on electricity generation are:

 221111 Hydroelectric Power Generation

 221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation

 221113 Nuclear Power Generation

 221119 Other Electric Power Generation

 221121 Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control

 221122 Electric Power Distribution

 

16Because it was not possible to distinguish small parents from large parents in the TRI data, these estimates are

likely to overestimate the number of facilities per small parent entity. 
Abt Associates Inc. 21 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) maintains monthly and annual data on electricity 

generation and fuel consumption for U.S. power plants in its EIA-923 database. EPA uses this 

information to identify small entities and to construct annual revenue of small parents operating TRI 

utility facilities. 

Characterize the Universe of Affected TRI Facilities

In RY2009, 649 TRI facilities reported a utility NAICS code. However, some facilities reporting to TRI 

from utility NAICS codes are operated by municipal, state, or federal governments. As these facilities are 

operated by governments, the potential impacts on small entities must be considered using the 

government definition of a small entity. This analysis assumes that 104 utilities are operated by 

governments, identified based on the reported parent and facility name in RY2009 and are considered in 

Section 4.5. 

The remaining 545 TRI utility facilities were found in the Energy Information Administration (EIA) 

databases by querying the Facility Registry System (FRS) for all EPA-regulated facilities with 

information in EIA databases (based on the Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database 

(eGRID)) and the Clean Air Markets Division Business System (CAMDBS) facility linkages) (U.S. EPA, 

2011b). Any facility not matched to an EIA record based on an FRS linkage was then matched based on 

facility name and address. All but six TRI utility facilities were matched to information in EIA databases. 

An additional four facilities were matched to an EIA facility but did not have generation data for RY2009. 

It was assumed that the potential impacts on the ten facilities for which information could not be located 

would follow the distribution of impacts on the 535 facilities for which EIA records were available. The 

TRI utility facility universe is summarized in Table 4-5 below. 

Table 4-5: TRI Utility Universe

Utility Universe # Facilities

TRI Utility Facilities 649

 TRI Utility Facilities not Operated by Governments 545

 TRI Utility Facilities with Information in EIA databases 535

Sources: 

U.S. EPA (2011a). TRI RY2009: NA2009. Accessed via TRI.NET

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy. 

2009b. Form EIA-923 Database. 

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia906_920.html>

Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships

Each utility was matched to its parent based on the TRI data for RY2009 (Abt Associates, 2011). The 535 

TRI utilities correspond to 184 parent companies. Because the parent company of each utility is known 

based on the parent company reported to TRI for RY2009, the actual number of utilities per parent is 

calculated for each parent entity, as opposed to an average by sector as was done in Section 4.4. This 

results in 110 parents operating only one TRI utility, and the largest parent operating 24 TRI utility 

facilities.

Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities

As stated above, the EIA-923 database provides information about the annual electricity generation of 

each power plant in the U.S. The EIA also provides information about the average retail price of 

electricity to ultimate customers by end-use sector, by state, on a monthly basis. Annual electricity 

generation and price were combined to generate an estimate of annual revenue. Specifically, a national 
Abt Associates Inc. 22 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

average of 9.51 cents per kilowatt-hour, or $95.10 per megawatt-hour (December 2010) is multiplied by 

the total electricity generation per parent to construct annual revenue for each parent entity.

Estimate the Number of Small Parent Entities

Small utilities are defined as those businesses primarily engaged in the generation, transmission, and/or 

distribution of electric energy for sale with the total electric output for the fiscal year not exceeding 4 

million megawatt-hours. Based on this definition, and aggregating the individual facility net generation to 

the parent level, 123 of the 184 (~67 percent) utility parent entities meet the definition of being a small 

parent entity. 

Estimate the Parent Entities Compliance Costs

Since it was not possible to predict which facilities would incur compliance determination, all facilities 

were conservatively estimated to incur both compliance determination and rule familiarization costs for 

the small entity analysis. Affected parent entities will incur the compliance cost once for each TRI utility 

it operates. Therefore, the per-facility compliance cost is multiplied by the number of utilities per parent 

to calculate the total compliance cost for each parent entity affected under the proposed rule. 

Estimate Cost Impact Ratios

The cost impact ratios for small parent entities operating TRI utilities is estimated by dividing the total 

compliance cost for each parent entity by their annual revenue. These results are summarized in Table 

4-6. Based on this calculation, no small parent is expected to incur an impact of equal to or greater than 1 

percent of annual revenue. The maximum impact incurred by any small parent is ~0.007 percent, which is 

incurred by a small parent in the NAICS sector 221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation. 

Table 4-6: Small Entity Impact 

for Utility Sectors

Facility and Small Parent Entity Count

All Facilities 535

Small Parents 123

Small Parent Entity Impact Ratio

Impact < 1% 123

1% ≤ Impact < 3% 0

3% ≤ Impact 0

Median Impact 0.000%

Max Impact 0.007%

4.5 Impacts on Small Government Jurisdictions

Some TRI facilities are operated by local, state, or federal governments. The potential impacts of the rule 

on small government parent entities must therefore be estimated. A separate methodology based on 

information from the U.S. Census of Governments is used. The Census of Governments characterizes the 

scope and nature of the nation's state and local governments; provides authoritative benchmark figures of 

public finance and public employment; classifies local government organizations, powers, and activities; 

and measures federal, state, and local fiscal relationships. Information is available by level of government 

and category of governmental activity. The sections that follow discuss the method used to calculate the 

impacts on small local governments operating TRI facilities.
Abt Associates Inc. 23 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

Identify Universe of Affected TRI Facilities

TRI facilities operated by government jurisdictions were identified based on the reported parent and 

facility name in RY2009. This method identified a total of 483 government owned TRI facilities 

reporting in RY2009. However, 419 of these facilities are owned by states or the federal government, and 

do not meet the definition of a small government jurisdiction as they serve a population of greater than 

50,000 people. The remaining 64 government owned TRI facilities are operated by municipalities that 

could be potentially affected under the proposed rule. The universe of government owned TRI facilities is 

summarized in Table 4-7.

Table 4-7: TRI Government Owned Facility Universe

Utility Universe # Facilities

TRI Facilities Owned by a Government Jurisdiction 483

 TRI Facilities Owned by a Municipality 64

Source: U.S. EPA (2011). TRI RY2009: NA2009. Accessed via TRI.NET

In order to use the data available from the Census of Governments to construct municipal revenue and 

identify small municipalities, it is necessary to match each affected TRI facility to a local government on 

the Census list. Each of the TRI facilities owned by a municipality was matched to a city on the Census 

list of municipalities. 

Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships

Compliance costs are estimated at the parent entity level, where a parent entity may own one or more 

facilities. Therefore, it is necessary to consider municipalities operating multiple TRI facilities. Because 

the universe of TRI facilities owned by municipalities is based on a unique list of facilities matched to 

individual local governments, it is possible to determine the number of TRI facilities operated by each 

municipality and calculate the number of facilities per parent based on the known number of facilities 

operated by each municipality. The 64 facilities owned by municipalities correspond to a total of 58 

unique municipalities, with the majority operating only one TRI facility. 

Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities

Because the Census of Governments does not provide revenue data for individual municipalities, it is 

necessary to develop a method to estimate revenue based on available information. The Government 

Finance series in the 2002 Census of Governments provides information at the state level regarding the 

per capita revenue of municipalities by population-size range (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005a; U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2005b).

The 2002 Census of Governments per capita revenues must be inflated to 2010 dollars. The Gross 

Domestic Product (GDP) inflation index, which is a measure of overall economic output, is used to adjust

2002 revenue to 2010 dollars. Note that this method may overstate current revenue because the GDP is a 

measure of overall economic output and does not directly correlate to government revenue; however, it is 

considered the best available index to use in this situation.

To estimate the annual revenue for each affected municipality, the adjusted per capita revenue is 

multiplied by the population of the municipality. Population information was obtained from the U.S. 

Census 2009 Population Estimates (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b). 
Abt Associates Inc. 24 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

Estimate the Number of Small Parent Entities

As discussed in Section 4.5, "small governmental jurisdictions" are defined as the government of a city, 

county, town, school district or special district with a population of fewer than 50,000 people. Therefore, 

any local government operating a TRI facility serving a population of 50,000 or fewer is considered 

“small”, based on the 2009 population of each affected municipality. Based on this method, 36 of the 58 

affected municipalities are small. 

Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs

Since it was not possible to predict which facilities would incur compliance determination, all facilities 

were conservatively estimated to incur both compliance determination and rule familiarization costs for 

the small entity analysis. Affected municipalities would incur the compliance cost once for each TRI 

facilities it operates. Therefore, the per-facility compliance cost is multiplied by the average number of 

facilities per municipality to calculate the total per parent compliance cost for each NAICS code affected 

under the proposed rule.

Estimate Cost Impact Ratios

The cost impact ratios for small municipalities are estimated by dividing the total compliance cost for that 

entity by the annual revenue of the local government. Based on this calculation, no small municipality is 

expected to incur an impact of equal to or greater than 1 percent of annual revenue under any of the 

scenarios considered. These results are summarized in Table 4-8. The maximum impact incurred by any 

municipality is ~0. 011 percent, which is incurred by small municipalities in the NAICS sector 221112,

Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation. 

Table 4-8: Small Entity Impact 

for Small Government 

Jurisdictions

Facility and Small Parent Entity Count

All Facilities 483

Small Parents 36

Small Parent Entity Impact Ratio

Impact < 1% 36

1% ≤ Impact < 3% 0

3% ≤ Impact 0

Median Impact 0.000%

Max Impact 0.011%

4.6 Summary

This chapter estimates small entity impacts for small businesses in sectors for which information is 

available from the 2007 U.S. Census Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB) and utility sectors; as well as 

for small governmental jurisdictions. Of these sectors, no small parent is expected to incur an impact of

greater than 1 percent of annual revenue, as is shown in Table 4-9. 
Abt Associates Inc. 25 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

Table 4-9: Small Entity Impact 

for NAICS Sectors in Census 

Codes, Utilities and Small 

Government Jurisdictions

Facility and Small Parent Entity Count

All Facilities 20,7811

Small Parents 3,185

Small Parent Entity Impact Ratio

Impact < 1% 3,185

1% ≤ Impact < 3% 0

3% ≤ Impact 0

Median Impact 0.002%

Max Impact 0.130%

1 This total excludes Sector Categories 4 

(Agricultural Sectors) and 5 (Invalid NAICS 

Code sectors) from Table 4-1 and the 10 

facilities that did not have RY2009 EIA 

information from Table 4-5.
Abt Associates Inc. 26 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

Chapter 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 influential 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 

hazardous chemical quantity 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 

environmental progress can be measured by all interested or affected stakeholders.

Although EPA has not attempted to quantify the benefits of the proposed rule, the desired outcome of this 

proposed rule is to further encourage tribal engagement and participation in the TRI program. Tribes 

would have the opportunity to request that EPA require that a specific facility or facilities located within 

the tribe’s Indian country report to TRI. The tribes would also be able to petition for the addition or 

deletion of certain chemicals, which apply to all facilities releasing the particular substance(s). These 

types of provisions already apply in the context of requests/petitions by governors of States, and since the 

1990 amendment, by increasing the participation and engagement of tribal governments in the TRI 

program, EPA is helping to increase awareness of toxic releases within these communities, thereby 

increasing the understanding of potential human health impacts from these hazardous chemicals.
Abt Associates Inc. 27 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

Literature Cited

Abt Associates, Inc (2010). List of Corporate Parents Used to Pre-Populate TRI-MEweb for RY2009.

U.S. Census Bureau (2002). 2002 Economic Census.2002 Economic Census: Industry Series Schedule. 

http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/guide/INDSUMM.HTM. Accessed on February 7, 2011.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), U.S. Department of Commerce (2011).National Income and 

Products Accounts Table, Table 1.1.5. Gross Domestic Product. http://www.bea.gov/index.htm

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) (2011). Producer Price Index-Commodities: Farm Products. Series 

ID WPS01. http://www.bls.gov/ppi/data.htm

U.S. Census Bureau. 2005b. 2002 Census of Governments: Government Finance: Finances of Municipal 

and Township Governments: 2002.Vol 4, No. 4, Issued April 2005. 

http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/gc02x43.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010a. Federal, State, & Local Governments: Definitions. 

http://www.census.gov/govs/definitions/index.html

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010b. Population Estimates: Incorporated Places and Minor Civil Divisions: All 

Places: 2000 to 2009. http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/SUB-EST2009-4.html

U.S. Census Bureau.2010c. Statistics of U.S. Businesses (SUSB). http://www.census.gov/econ/susb

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011). Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation, Table 11: Private Industry, by occupational group and full-time and part-time status.

December 2010. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/ecec.t11.htm

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy.2009a. Form EIA-860 

Database Annual Electric Generator Report. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia860.html

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy.2009b. Form EIA-923 

Database. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia906_920.html

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy. 2010. Table 5.6.A. Average 

Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Consumers by End-Use Sector, by State, December 2010 and 2009. 

Released March 2011. http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/epm/table5_6_a.html

U.S. EPA (2011a). TRI RY2008, RY2009: NA2009. Accessed via TRI.NET. Downloaded on March 2, 

2011 (Tribal Universe) and April 11, 2011 (Universe of Current Reporters).

U.S. EPA (2011b). Facility Registry System (FRS). 

http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/fii/fii_query_java.html

U.S. Federal Reserve (2010). Federal Reserve Statistical Release: Industrial Production and Capacity 

Utilization. Release Date April 15, 2011. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/current/default.htm
Abt Associates Inc. 28 3

nd Draft, June 28, 2011

U.S. SBA. Office of Advocacy (2007).Statistics – All Industries by NAICS Codes, 2006: Employer Firms 

& Employment by Employment Size of Firm by NAICS Codes. 

http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/us07_n6.pdf. Accessed on February 8, 2011.

U.S. SBA. (2008). Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry 

Classification System Codes. http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. 

Downloaded on February 8, 2011.