Docket Number: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2005-0018 

 

Cost Assessment for the Final Rule on Exports and Imports of Hazardous 

Waste Destined for Recovery Among OECD Countries, Exports of Spent 

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

 

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

May 2009
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

The Agency recognizes DPRA, Inc. for the overall organization and development of this report. Project 

supervision and coordination was provided by Industrial Economics, Incorporated. Lyn D. Luben, Laura 

Coughlan, Christina Kager, and Frank McAlister of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Resource Conservation and Recovery, provided technical guidance and review. 
iii 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently developing a final action 

designed to amend the existing regulations governing shipments (export/import/transit) of 

hazardous wastes destined for recovery between the U.S. and the Organization for Economic 

Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. This action integrates into the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) various OECD Council Decisions revising the rules governing 

transboundary movement of hazardous wastes among OECD countries, which the U.S, as a 

signing party, is obligated to implement. Under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA), these regulations are under 40 CFR 262, Subpart H. 

As part of this rule, EPA is also regulating exports of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries (SLAB) 

to OECD countries (except for Canada and Mexico) under the same rule above (49 CFR 262, 

Subpart H) while regulating SLAB exports to other countries under 40 CFR 262, Subpart E 

requirements. Currently, SLABs are exempt from any export requirements when managed under 

40 CFR 266 Subpart G ("SLAB Regulations"). SLABs may also be managed as Universal 

Wastes under 40 CFR 273 ("Universal Waste Regulations"), under which export requirements 

apply. 

 The Agency is combining the OECD and SLAB revisions into a single rulemaking under 

the current action. Also incorporated into this final rule is a requirement for documentation 

necessary to confirm EPA’s consent to import. Finally, this action presents a revision to the 

current language in 262.55 and 262.87(b) that will require exception reports to be submitted 

directly to the Director, International Compliance and Assurance Division (ICAD), of the Office 

of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), EPA Headquarters, rather than to the EPA 

“Administrator.” 

 

 This economic assessment considers the impacts of the OECD, SLAB and import consent 

documentation requirements separately, and in aggregate. There is no discernable cost impact 

associated with the address change requirement. 

OECD Rule

The OECD has adopted Council Decision C(2001)107/FINAL, and the amendment 

C(2004)20, concerning the control of transboundary movements of wastes destined for recovery 

operations. In order to implement this legally-binding Decision, EPA is taking action to amend 

the existing regulations at 40 CFR 262, Subpart H. EPA is also taking this opportunity to make 

technical corrections and clarifications to the regulations at 40 CFR part 262; §262.58(a); 

§262.58(b); §262.12(a)(2); and §265.12(a)(2). The Agency’s regulatory changes do not increase 

the scope of hazardous wastes subject to U.S. export and import controls. However, they modify 

the procedural controls governing their export and import when shipped for recovery among 

OECD Countries. The regulatory changes apply only to U.S. exports and imports of hazardous 

waste destined for recovery operations among OECD Countries, except for Canada and Mexico. 

Hazardous waste shipments to Canada and Mexico will continue to move under the current 

bilateral agreements and regulations. 

This economic assessment examines the incremental cost impacts associated with the 

final rule. For purposes of this analysis, the cost impacts were categorized as follows: 
iv 

• Reading the Rule. Although not actually required by the rule, affected entities 

are expected to incur first year incremental costs associated with reading the rule 

in order to understand and comply with the new requirements. This is considered 

a default requirement of the rule. 

• Exemption for Wastes Destined for Laboratory Analysis. Under the rule, 

shipments of amber-list wastes are exempt from the amber control procedure if 

they are explicitly destined for laboratory analysis to assess their 

physical/chemical characteristics or to determine their suitability for recovery 

operations. As a result, the affected entities will experience cost savings, since 

they will no longer need to comply with the information collection requirements 

under the existing regulations. 

• Certificate of Recovery. Under the rule, recovery facilities must provide a 

certificate of recovery to the exporter and to the competent authorities of the 

countries of export and import. This certificate of recovery must be provided as 

soon as possible, but no later than 30 days after the completion of recovery and no 

later than one calendar year following receipt of waste. 

• Exchange and Accumulation Recovery Operations. Under the rule, shipments 

of hazardous wastes destined for exchange (R12) or accumulation (R13) recovery 

operations need to comply with additional information collection requirements. 

These requirements include: (1) indicating the subsequent R1-R11 recovery 

facility (e.g., facility that conducts solvent reclamation, acid regeneration) in the 

notification, (2) providing and maintaining a signed copy of the 

movement/tracking document, (3) preparing and providing a certificate of 

recovery for R12/R13 recovery operations, and (4) providing and maintaining a 

copy of the certificate of recovery for R1-R11 recovery operations. 

• Return of Wastes. Under the rule, when a shipment of hazardous wastes to which 

concerned countries have given consent cannot be completed in accordance with 

the terms of the contract and alternative arrangements cannot be made to recover 

these wastes in an environmentally sound manner in the U.S., the U.S. importer 

must inform EPA of the need to return the shipment and EPA must inform the 

competent authorities of the countries of export and transit the reason for 

returning the waste. 

Total OECD Rule Impact: 

 The costs and cost savings associated with the OECD Rule are presented in Exhibit ES-1. 

 As shown in the exhibit, the total incremental cost of the rule during the first year of 

implementation (i.e., including reading the rule) is estimated to be $14,494. This is a net impact 

estimate that includes a total incremental cost to the regulated community of $13,656 and to EPA 

of $838. The total incremental annual net cost after the first year of implementation (i.e., 

excluding reading the rule) is estimated to be $9,700 (i.e., $14,494 - $4,794). This includes a 

cost of $278 for export shipments and a cost of $9,426 for import shipments (See exhibits 7 and 

8). The impact after the first year includes a total incremental cost to the regulated community of 

$8,862 and to EPA of $838. 
v 

Exhibit ES-1 

First Year Incremental Costs to Affected Entities under OECD Final Rule a, b

Regulatory Change U.S. 

Exporter

U.S. 

Importer

U.S. 

Transporter

EPA Total

Reading the Regulations c $685 $1,712 $2,397 $0 $4,794 

Exemption for Wastes 

Destined for Laboratory 

Analysis 

($2,060) ($99) ($66) ($1,667) ($3,892) 

Certificate of Recovery $1,621 $7,444 $0 $2,306 $11,371 

Exchange and Accumulation 

Recovery Operations 

$74 $1,926 $0 $170 $2,170 

Return of Wastes $0 $22 $0 $29 $51 

Total: $320 $11,005 $2,331 $838 $14,494 

Notes: 

Costs presented in 2007 dollars. 

Assumes 6 exporters, 15 importers, and 21 transporters. 

a

 Exhibit contains rounding error. 

b

 Numbers in parentheses indicate cost savings rather than costs. 

c

 Activity to be conducted in the first year of rule implementation only. 

SLAB Rule

Currently, spent lead-acid battery (SLAB) exporters are exempt from any export 

requirements when managed under 40 CFR 266 Subpart G, which contains the SLAB 

regulations. Although SLABs may also be managed under 40 CFR 273 as Universal Waste and 

thus be required to comply with specific export requirements, very few exporters have chosen to 

do so. For the purpose of this analysis, we assume the regulatory baseline to be that all SLAB 

exporters are managing their exports under 40 CFR 266 Subpart G. 

The final rule prescribes specific export requirements for SLAB exports to two groups of 

countries, i.e., OECD countries (except for Canada and Mexico), and non-OECD countries 

(including Canada and Mexico). Specifically, the SLAB exports going to OECD countries will 

fall under the revised 40 CFR 262 Subpart H, as discussed in the section above, while those 

going to non-OECD countries will be governed under 40 CFR 262 Subpart E, consistent with 

Universal Waste requirements.1

 While Subparts E and H are different regulations, except for the 

exception report requirements, the requirements for SLAB exports are largely similar. 

Furthermore, based on the data EPA has collected to date on the amount of SLAB exports to 

different countries, we find that only about 0.03% of exports have gone to countries that will fall 

under 40 CFR 262 Subpart H, i.e., OECD countries except for Canada and Mexico.2

 As such, 

we assume that the categories of regulatory costs for the SLAB rule are essentially those under 

40 CFR 262 Subpart E requirements. This assumption essentially excludes requirements for the 

exception report. 

 

1

 Exports going to OECD countries are subject to 40 CFR 262 subpart H; exports going to non-OECD countries 

(including Canada and Mexico) are subject to 262.53, 262.56 (a) (1) through (4) (6) and (b), and 262.57. 

2

 In 2006 only 90 metric tons (0.03%) out of 269,171 metric tons of SLAB exports from the U.S. went to OECD 

countries other than Canada and Mexico, and 4,838 metric tons (1.8%) went to all other countries except Canada 

and Mexico. Please see Attachment E for further details. 
vi 

 

• Reading the Rule. Although not actually required by the rule, affected entities 

are expected to incur first year incremental costs associated with reading the rule 

in order to understand and comply with the new requirements. 

• Notification. Under the rule, exporters must notify EPA of their intent to export 

SLABs and seek an Acknowledgement of Consent. The notification must contain 

detailed information with regard to the identity of the exporter, waste type, means 

of transport, ultimate destination facility, methods of treatment, recovery, and 

disposal, and destination and transit countries. 

• Renotification. Under the rule, when the conditions specified on the original 

notification change, the primary exporter must provide EPA with a Renotification 

of the change. Also, where a shipment cannot be delivered for any reason, the 

export must renotify EPA of a change in the conditions and obtain a new EPA 

Acknowledgement of Consent. Based on the 2004 ICR3, we assume only a 

fraction of exporters will be subject to this requirement. 

• Annual Report. Under the rule, exporters must file detailed annual reports on 

SLAB exports containing information such as waste types, quantities, frequency, 

and ultimate destination of all exports, among others. 

• Additional Report. Upon request by EPA, an exporter shall furnish to EPA any 

additional information which a receiving country requests in order to respond to a 

notification. Based on the 2004 ICR, we assume only a fraction of exporters will 

be subject to this requirement. 

• Provide Acknowledgment of Consent to Transporter. An exporter must provide 

a copy of the EPA Acknowledgement of Consent for the shipment to the 

transporter transporting the shipment for export. 

• Exception Report. An exporter must file an exception report if any of the 

following occurs: (1) it has not received a copy of the movement documentation 

signed by a transporter stating point of departure from the U.S., within 45 days of 

acceptance of waste, (2) within 90 days from the acceptance of waste, the 

exporter has not received written confirmation from the recovery facility that the 

waste was received, or (3) the waste is returned to the U.S. This requirement 

appears only in Subpart H (262.87(b)). 

• Recordkeeping. Under the rule, the exporter must keep a copy of each 

notification, EPA Acknowledgment of Consent, each confirmation of delivery 

and each annual report, all for a period of at least three years. 

3 Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request (ICR) Number 820.09, Hazardous Waste Generator 

Standards, October 2004.
vii 

• Movement/Tracking Document. All U.S. parties subject to the contract 

provisions under 262.85 must accompany a movement document with the waste 

until it reaches the final recovery facility. This movement document must include 

all the information required under 262.83 (for notification) and additional 

information regarding the shipment of the waste such as transport requirements 

and transporter information. 

• Certificate of Recovery. Under the rule, recovery facilities must provide a 

certificate of recovery to the exporter and to the competent authorities of the 

countries of export and import. This certificate of recovery must be provided as 

soon as possible, but no later than 30 days after the completion of recovery and no 

later than one calendar year following receipt of waste. [not in current Subpart H] 

Total SLAB Rule Impact:

 The costs associated with the SLAB final rule are presented in Exhibit ES-2. As shown in 

the exhibit, the total incremental cost of the rule during the first year of implementation (i.e., 

including reading the rule) is estimated to be $0.85 million. This includes $0.78 million for the 

regulated community and $0.07 million for EPA. The total incremental annual cost after the first 

year of implementation (i.e., excluding reading the rule) is estimated to be $0.40 million (i.e., 

$0.85 million – $0.45 million). Of this total, approximately $0.33 million is attributable to the 

regulated community and $0.07 million to EPA. 

Exhibit ES-2 

First Year Incremental Costs to Affected Entities under Final SLAB Rule a 

 U.S. 

Exporter 

Importer Transporter EPA Total 

Reading the Regulations b $297,385 $0 $148,823 $0 $446,207

Notification $65,120 $0 $0 $55,880 $121,000

Renotification $2,562 $0 $0 $2,493 $5,056

Annual Report $118,011 $0 $0 $12,808 $130,820

Additional Report $107 $0 $0 $50 $157

Acknowledgment of 

Consent to Transporter 

$141,898 $0 $0 $0 $141,898

Recordkeeping $5,416 $0 $0 $0 $5,416

Total $630,499 $0 $148,823 $71,232 $850,553

Notes: 

Costs presented in 2007 dollars. 

Assumes 1,141 exporters, zero importers, and 571 transporters (see data limitations) 

a

 Exhibit may contain rounding error. 

b

 Activity to be conducted in the first year of rule implementation only.
viii 

Combined Costs of OECD/SLAB and Import Consent Documentation 

 

 The separate cost impact analyses for the OECD rule and the SLAB rule are combined in 

Exhibit ES-3 which shows the aggregate impacts for the regulatory changes and impacted 

parties. Also incorporated into Exhibit ES-3 is the estimated total cost for the documentation 

necessary to confirm EPA’s consent to import. This is apart from the final OECD/SLAB 

requirements. Finally, this action revises the current language in 262.55 and 262.87(b) to require 

exception reports to be submitted directly to the Director, ICAD, of OECA, EPA Headquarters, 

rather than to the EPA “Administrator.” There is no discernable cost impact associated with this 

requirement. 

 As mentioned above, the rule also includes new import shipment requirements that will 

require receiving facilities to include EPA’s import consent documentation with the manifest for 

each import. Specifically, upon receipt of the hazardous waste, the receiving facility will match 

the manifest to the relevant import consent document and submit the documentation confirming 

EPA’s consent to the import along with a copy of the manifest to EPA’s International 

Compliance Assurance Division within thirty (30) days of shipment delivery. These changes 

will modify the language in 40 CFR sections 264.71(a)(3), and 265.71(a)(3). These changes will 

apply to all imports of hazardous waste required to have a RCRA hazardous waste manifest. 

The total first year cost impact of the OECD/SLAB and Import Consent rulemaking is 

estimated at $0.91 million. Approximately 93.3% of this total is attributable to the SLAB 

portion, followed by the import consent documentation requirements, accounting for 5.1%. The 

OECD portion of today’s rule accounts for approximately 1.6% of the total. After the first year, 

the total incremental cost of the rulemaking, omitting the cost of reading the rule, is estimated at 

$0.46 million. 

Qualitative Benefits of the OECD/SLAB Rule and Import Consent Documentation 

The qualitative benefits of the OECD/SLAB Rule, include: (1) the U.S. would meet its 

legal obligations to implement the Amended 2001 OECD Decision; (2) increased regulatory 

efficiency; (3) reduced storage cost for hazardous wastes destined for recovery; (4) reduction of 

risks associated with treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes; (5) improved ability to acquire 

information regarding the quantities of SLABs exported from the U.S. and the destination 

facilities to which the SLABs are exported; (6) better tracking of returns and compliance with 

exception reporting requirements; and (7) better tracking of compliance with terms of import 

notices. 
ix 

Exhibit ES-3 

Incremental Costs to Affected Entities under the OECD/SLAB and Import Consent 

Documentation Final Rule a, b

 Exporter ImporterTransporter EPA Total 

Reading the Regulations c $298,069 $1,712 $151,220 $0 $451,001

Exemption for Wastes Destined 

for Laboratory Analysis 

($2,060) ($99) ($66) ($1,667) ($3,892)

Certificate of Recovery $1,621 $7,444 $0 $2,306 $11,371

Exchange and Accumulation 

Recovery Operations 

$74 $1,926 $0 $170 $2,170

Return of Wastes $0 $22 $0 $29 $51

Notification $65,120 $0 $0 $55,880 $121,000

Renotification $2,562 $0 $0 $2,493 $5,056

Annual Report $118,011 $0 $0 $12,808 $130,820

Additional Report $107 $0 $0 $50 $157

Acknowledgment of Consent to 

Transporter 

$141,898 $0 $0 $0 $141,898

Recordkeeping $5,416 $0 $0 $0 $5,416

Sub Total-OECD/SLAB $630,818 $11,005 $151,154 $72,069 $865,048

EPA Import Consent 

Documentation 

$0 $39,429 $0 $6,699 $46,127

First Year Grand Total: $630,818 $50,434 $151,154 $78,768 $911,176

Annual Total After First 

Year: 

$332,749 $48,721 ($66) $78,768 $460,173

Costs presented in 2007 dollars. 

a

 Exhibit contains rounding error. 

b

 Numbers in parentheses indicate cost savings rather than costs. 

c

 Activity to be conducted in the first year of rule implementation only. 

Alternative Cost Bounding Analysis for SLABs 

In addition to our assessment of the final rule, we have developed a cost bounding 

analysis designed to estimate total costs assuming all of the SLABs currently exported to Canada 

and Mexico were required to comply with 40 CFR 262 Subpart H. In addition, this bounding 

assessment applies the high-end SLAB export data for Mexico, as presented by the International 

Trade Commission (ITC)4

. While this high-end scenario is not likely to occur under expected 

practices, we have assessed this scenario to demonstrate what total costs may be under a “worst 

case” cost assumption. 

The cost factors for SLAB exports to Mexico and Canada necessary to comply with the 

additional requirements of 40 CFR 262 Subpart H are described below. 

 

4

 For 2006, the ITC estimated total (all categories) U.S. SLAB exports to Mexico at 1,086,446 metric tons.
x 

• Movement/Tracking Document. Each time a U.S. Exporter ships SLABs to an 

OECD member country other than Canada and Mexico, the exporter is required to 

complete and submit to the carrier a movement/tracking document. 

• Exception Report. An exporter must file an exception report if they do not receive 

the necessary documentation required by the rule to confirm transfer of the waste and 

receipt by the recovery facility within the allotted period of time, or if the waste is 

returned to the U.S. This requirement appears only in Subpart H (262.87(b)). 

• Certificate of Recovery. Under the OECD rule, recovery facilities must provide a 

certificate of recovery to the exporter and to the competent authorities of the countries 

of export and import. This certificate of recovery must be provided as soon as 

possible, but no later than 30 days after the completion of recovery and no later than 

one calendar year following receipt of waste. 

The costs associated with complying with the requirements of 40 CFR 262 Subpart H for 

all SLABs currently exported to Canada and Mexico, plus costs associated with the higher SLAB 

quantities exported to Mexico, as reported by the ITC, are presented in Exhibit ES-4. As shown 

in the exhibit, the total incremental cost of this bounding analysis during the first year of 

implementation (i.e., including reading the rule) is estimated to be $5.59 million. This estimate 

includes a cost impact of $4.54 million to the regulated community and $1.05 million to EPA. 

The total incremental annual cost after the first year of implementation (i.e., excluding reading 

the rule) is estimated to be $3.65 million (i.e., $5.59 million – $1.94 million), with $2.60 million 

attributed to the regulated community and $1.05 million for EPA. 

Exhibit ES-4 

First Year Incremental Costs to Affected Entities under Final SLAB Rule Assuming all 

Exports to Canada and Mexico Must Meet full OECD Requirementsa 

Exporter Importer Transporter EPA Total 

Reading the Regulations b $1,293,532 $0 $646,766 $0 $1,940,297 

Notification $283,681 $0 $0 $243,431 $527,112 

Renotification $11,143 $0 $0 $10,844 $21,986 

Annual Report $513,421 $0 $0 $55,736 $569,157 

Additional Report $535 $0 $0 $248 $783 

Recordkeeping $23,568 $0 $0 $0 $23,568

Movement/Tracking 

Document 

$1,518,550 $0 $0 $523,783 $2,042,333

Exception Report $15,734c $0 $0 $2,619 $18,353

Certificate of Recovery $238,307 $0 $0 $209,513 $447,821

Total $3,898,470 $0 $646,766 $1,046,174 $5,591,410

Costs presented in 2007 dollars. 

a

 Exhibit contains rounding error. 

b

 Activity to be conducted in the first year of rule implementation only. C Total impact attributable to; (1) exporter does not received a copy of the movement documentation signed by a transporter 

stating point of departure from the U.S., within 45 days of acceptance of waste, or, (2) within 90 days from the acceptance of 

waste, the exporter does not received written confirmation from the recovery facility that the waste was received. No exception 

reports assumed due to returns only. Available data do not indicate any return shipments to the U.S. of previously exported 

SLABs.
xi 

Combined Costs of OECD/SLAB and Import Consent Documentation 

Final Rulemaking – Alternative Cost Bounding Analysis 

 

The alternative bounding analysis cost impacts including the OECD, SLAB, and Import 

Consent Documentation requirements are combined in Exhibit ES-5. This exhibit presents 

aggregate impacts for all impacted parties. The costs presented in Exhibit ES-5 apply the worst 

case scenario assumption that all SLABs currently exported to Canada and Mexico would meet 

40 CFR 262 Subpart H requirements. In addition, the high-end ITC export data for Mexico are 

included, as described above. 

The total cost impacts for the OECD, SLAB, and Import Consent Documentation 

requirements under this cost bounding analysis are estimated at $5.65 million for the first year 

(includes reading the regulation). Of this total, approximately $0.014 million is attributable to the 

OECD portion, $5.59 million is attributable to the SLAB portion, and $0.046 million is 

attributable to the Import Consent Documentation requirements. The total incremental first year 

cost to the regulated community is expected to be about $4.60 million, while the total Federal 

cost is estimated at $1.05 million. After the first year, the total annual incremental cost is 

estimated at $3.71 million, with about $2.66 million attributable to the regulated community and 

$1.05 million of Federal costs. 

Exhibit ES-5 

Annual Total Incremental Costs to Affected Entities for the OECD/SLAB and Import 

Consent Documentation Requirements – Cost Bounding Scenario a, b

 Exporter Importer Transporter EPA Total 

Reading the Regulations c $1,294,216 $1,712 $649,163 $0 $1,945,091 

Exemption for Wastes Destined 

for Laboratory Analysis 

($2,060) ($99) ($66) ($1,667) ($3,892)

Certificate of Recovery $239,929 $7,444 $0 $211,820 $459,193

Exchange and Accumulation 

Recovery Operations 

$74 $1,926 $0 $170 $2,169 

Return of Wastes $0 $22 $0 $29 $51

Notification $283,681 $0 $0 $243,431 $527,112 

Renotification $11,143 $0 $0 $10,844 $21,986 

Annual Report $513,421 $0 $0 $55,736 $569,157 

Additional Report $535 $0 $0 $248 $783 

Recordkeeping $23,568 $0 $0 $0 $23,568 

Movement/Tracking Document $1,518,550 $0 $0 $523,783 $2,042,333

Exception Report $15,734 $0 $0 $2,619 $18,353

Sub Total OECD/SLAB $3,898,790 $11,005 $649,097 $1,047,012 $5,605,903

EPA Import Consent 

Documentation 

$0 $39,429 $0 $6,699 $46,127

Grand Total: $3,898,790 $50,434 $649,097 $1,053,711 $5,652,031

Costs presented in 2007 dollars. 

a

 Exhibit contains rounding error. 

b

 Numbers in parentheses indicate cost savings rather than costs. 

c

 Activity to be conducted in the first year of rule implementation only.
Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1 

1.1 Background on OECD .................................................................................................. 1 

1.2 Need for Regulatory Action on OECD Rule ................................................................ 2 

1.3 Background on SLAB Rule .......................................................................................... 3 

1.4 Need for Regulatory Action on SLAB Rule ................................................................. 3 

1.5 Background on Import Consent Documentation Requirements................................... 4 

1.6 Need for Import Consent Documentation Requirements.............................................. 4 

1.7 Organization of Document............................................................................................ 4 

2. OVERVIEW OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ........................................................... 5 

2.1 Requirements under the Existing Regulations for Hazardous Wastes Destined for 

Recovery among OECD Countries............................................................................... 5 

2.1.1 Green-List Wastes.......................................................................................... 5 

2.1.2 Amber-List Wastes........................................................................................ 5 

2.1.3 Red-List Wastes............................................................................................. 7 

2.1.4 Wastes Not Listed in the OECD Waste Lists................................................ 8 

2.1.5 Mixtures of Wastes........................................................................................ 8 

2.2 Requirements under Final OECD Rule......................................................................... 9 

2.3 Differences in the Requirements under the Existing Regulations and Final OECD 

Rule............................................................................................................................. 11 

2.4 Existing Regulations for the Export of SLABs........................................................... 11 

2.5 Requirements under the Final SLAB Rule ................................................................. 17 

2.6 Differences in the Requirements under the Existing Regulations and Final SLAB 

Rule............................................................................................................................. 19 

2.7 Current Import Documentation Requirements............................................................ 19 

2.8 Final Import Consent Documentation Requirements ................................................. 19 

2.9 Differences in the Requirements under the Existing Regulations and the Final 

Requirements .............................................................................................................. 19 

3. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS........................................................................ 23 

3.1 Labor Rate Assumptions............................................................................................. 23 

3.2 Materials Costs Assumptions...................................................................................... 24 

3.3 Methodology used in Assessing the OECD Rule ....................................................... 25 

3.3.1 Hourly Burden Assumptions ....................................................................... 26 

3.3.2 Universe Assumptions................................................................................. 26 

3.4 Methodology used in Assessing the SLAB Rule........................................................ 28 

3.4.1 Hourly Burden Assumptions ....................................................................... 29 

3.4.2 Universe Assumptions................................................................................. 30 

3.5 Methodology used in Assessing Import Consent Documentation Requirements....... 31 

3.5.1 Hourly Burden Assumptions ....................................................................... 31 

3.5.2 Universe Assumptions................................................................................. 32 

4. COSTS AND BENEFITS....................................................................................................... 33 

4.1 Analysis of Costs to Affected Entities from the Final OECD Rule............................ 33 

4.1.1 Reading the Rule.......................................................................................... 33 

4.1.2 Exemption for Wastes Destined for Laboratory Analysis........................... 33 

4.1.3 Certificate of Recovery................................................................................ 34 

4.1.4 Exchange and Accumulation Recovery Operations .................................... 35 

4.1.5 Return of Wastes.......................................................................................... 36 
4.1.6 Summary of Cost to Affected Entities under the Final OECD Rule ........... 36 

4.2 Analysis of Costs to Affected Entities from the Final SLAB Rule ............................ 40 

4.2.1 Reading the Rule.......................................................................................... 40 

4.2.2 Notification .................................................................................................. 40 

4.2.3 Renotification............................................................................................... 41 

4.2.4 Annual Report.............................................................................................. 41 

4.2.5 Additional Report......................................................................................... 42 

4.2.6 Provide Acknowledgment of Consent to Transporter ................................. 42 

4.2.7 Recordkeeping ............................................................................................. 43 

4.2.8 Summary of Cost to Affected Entities under the Final SLAB Rule............ 43 

4.3 Analysis of Costs to Affected Entities from the Final Import Consent Documentation 

Provision ..................................................................................................................... 44 

4.3.1 U.S. Importer Submission to Transporter.................................................... 44 

4.3.2 U.S. Receiving Facility Submission to EPA................................................ 45 

4.3.3 Summary of Costs to Affected Entities under the Final Import Consent 

Documentation Provision............................................................................. 45 

4.4 Alternative Option Analysis for SLABs..................................................................... 46 

4.4.1 Movement/Tracking Document................................................................... 46 

4.4.2 Exception Report ......................................................................................... 47 

4.4.3 Certificate of Recovery................................................................................ 47 

4.4.4 Summary of Costs to Affected Entities Under the Alternative Option 

Analysis for SLABs..................................................................................... 48 

4.5 Combined Costs of OECD/SLAB and Import Consent Documentation.................... 50 

4.6 Qualitative Benefits of the Final Rule ........................................................................ 53 

4.7 Limitations of Analysis............................................................................................... 54 

5. OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS ................................................................ 56 

5.1 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review....................................... 56 

5.2 Paperwork Reduction Act........................................................................................... 57 

5.3 Regulatory Flexibility Act .......................................................................................... 57 

5.4 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act................................................................................ 58 

5.5 Executive Order 13132: Federalism .......................................................................... 60 

5.6 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments............................................................................................................... 60 

5.7 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks 

and Safety Risks.......................................................................................................... 61 

5.8 Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice ......................................................... 61 

5.9 Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use........................................................................... 61 

5.10 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act ............................................... 62 

Attachment A 

Attachment B 

Attachment C 

Attachment D 

Attachment E
 1 

1. INTRODUCTION

The final rule consists of four parts. First, this rule will amend the existing regulation 

under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regarding the transboundary 

movement of hazardous waste among countries belonging to the Organization for Economic 

Cooperation and Development (OECD). Recently, the OECD adopted Council Decision 

C(2001)107/FINAL, and the amendment C(2004)20, concerning the control of transboundary 

movements of wastes destined for recovery operations. To implement this legally-binding 

Decision in the U.S., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must modify certain 

regulations promulgated under the authority of the RCRA, as amended. In order to do so, EPA is 

amending the existing regulations at 40 CFR part 262, Subpart H; 262.58(a); 262.58(b); 

262.12(a)(2); and 265.12(a)(2). These regulations apply to the procedural controls governing the 

U.S. export and import of hazardous wastes destined for recovery among OECD Countries. 

 Second, this rule amends the regulations under RCRA regarding the management of 

spent lead-acid batteries being reclaimed to require appropriate notice and consent for those 

batteries intended for reclamation in a foreign country. This rule regulates exports of spent leadacid batteries (SLABs) to OECD countries (except for Canada and Mexico) under the OECD 

export requirements (49 CFR 262, Subpart H) while regulating SLAB exports to other countries 

under 40 CFR 262, Subpart E requirements. Under 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart G, generators of 

SLABs are currently exempt from Part 262 hazardous waste manifesting and export 

requirements. SLABs may also be managed as Universal Wastes under 40 CFR 272 (“Universal 

Waste Regulations”), under which export requirements apply. 

Third, this rule revises the current language in 262.55 and 262.87(b) that will require 

exception reports to be submitted directly to the Director, International Compliance and 

Assurance Division (ICAD), of the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), 

EPA Headquarters, rather than to the EPA “Administrator.” 

Fourth, this rule amends the hazardous waste import requirements to require that upon 

import shipment delivery, U.S. receiving facilities match the RCRA hazardous waste manifest to 

the relevant import notice consent documentations. This documentation must then be submitted 

to EPA by the U.S. receiving facility along with the RCRA manifest within thirty days of import 

shipment delivery. 

This economic assessment examines the incremental cost impacts of the final rules 

separately and together. That is, we will aggregate the economic impacts of the rules after 

assessing their impacts as separate rulemakings. This assessment also characterizes the expected 

benefits of the rules, as well as other administrative requirements established by statute or 

executive order. There is no discernable cost impact associated with the address change 

requirement for exception reports; therefore, this change is not discussed further in this 

assessment. 

1.1 Background on OECD Rule

The OECD was charted to assist Member Countries in achieving high economic growth, 

employment, and a rising standard of living while ensuring that human health and the 

environment are protected. Presently, there are 30 Member Countries of the OECD, including 
 2 

 

the U.S.5

On March 30, 1992, the OECD adopted Council Decision C(92)39/FINAL on the control 

of transboundary movements of wastes destined for recovery operations. The U.S. supported 

this Decision and therefore, it is legally binding upon the U.S. Government. 

To implement this legally-binding OECD Council Decision in the U.S., EPA, under the 

authority of RCRA, promulgated the Imports and Exports of Hazardous Waste Final Rule on 

April 12, 1996 (61 FR 16290). This rule codified the requirements of Council Decision 

C(92)39/FINAL, as implemented in the U.S., at 40 CFR part 262, Subpart H. 

Recently, Council Decision C(92)39/FINAL was revised to improve some of its 

provisions and enhance harmonization with the Basel Convention. This revision resulted in the 

adoption of Council Decision C(2001)107/FINAL.6

 Finally, in 2003, C(2004)20 amended the 

2001 decision by updating the OECD waste lists in Appendices 3 and 4. 

1.2 Need for Regulatory Action on OECD Rule

In order to implement OECD Council Decision C(2001)107/FINAL, EPA needs to 

amend the regulations at 40 CFR part 262, Subpart H. In addition, EPA is taking this 

opportunity to make technical corrections and clarifications to the regulations at 40 CFR part 

262; 262.58(a); 262.58(b); 262.12(a)(2); and 265.12(a)(2). EPA's regulatory changes do not 

increase the scope of hazardous wastes subject to U.S. export and import controls. However, 

they modify the procedural controls governing their export and import when shipped for 

recovery among OECD Countries. The regulatory changes apply only to U.S. exports and 

imports of hazardous waste destined for recovery operations among OECD Countries, except for 

Canada and Mexico. Hazardous waste shipments to Canada and Mexico will continue to move 

under the current bilateral agreements and regulations. 

The U.S. Government has entered into a legally-binding commitment with the other 

OECD Countries to implement the Council Decision virtually as written. Deviation from the 

regulatory scheme articulated in the Decision might preclude the U.S. from implementing the 

Decision and, therefore, from satisfying its international commitments. Modifications to the rule 

could defeat the goal of achieving an internationally consistent regime to control the import and 

export of hazardous wastes destined for recovery. 

EPA believes that the continued movement and recovery of hazardous wastes is 

environmentally and economically beneficial. The U.S., therefore, encourages environmentally 

sound recovery of waste, particularly hazardous wastes, as an alternative to disposal. The 

Agency believes that the import and export of wastes among OECD Countries for purposes of 

recovery serves the public interest by making waste management facilities in the OECD 

available to waste generators in the U.S. and other OECD Countries, thereby providing 

additional assurance that wastes amenable to recovery operations will be managed in an 

environmentally sound manner. Failure of the U.S. to implement the Decision in the form 

5

 OECD Member Countries consist of: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, 

France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, The Netherlands, 

New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, 

and U.S. 

6

 Available at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/internat/5-21-02.pdf. 
 3 

approved by the OECD Countries could thwart this objective. 

1.3 Background on SLAB Rule

Currently, spent lead acid battery exporters are exempt from any export requirements 

when managed under 40 CFR 266 Subpart G, which contains the SLAB regulations. Although 

SLABs may also be managed under 40 CFR 273 as Universal Waste and thus be required to 

comply with specific export requirements, very few exporters have chosen to do so. 

There are two major international agreements that expressly address the export of 

SLABs, the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous 

Wastes and Their Disposal (Basel Convention) and OECD’s Amended 2001 Decision. The 

Basel Convention is a multilateral international agreement that governs the transboundary 

movement of hazardous waste. The Basel Convention includes a requirement for notice and 

written consent for transboundary movements of hazardous waste between trading countries. 

SLABs are identified as a hazardous waste under the Basel Convention and are therefore, subject 

to the notification and consent requirements. The OECD’s Amended 2001 Decision regulates 

the transboundary movements of hazardous wastes destined for recycling within OECD member 

countries. Whole and crushed SLABs are subject to the OECD’s Amended 2001 Decision 

hazardous waste requirements. 

The final rule prescribes specific export requirements for SLAB exports to two groups of 

countries, i.e., OECD countries (except for Canada and Mexico), and non-OECD countries 

(including Canada and Mexico). Specifically, the SLAB exports going to OECD countries will 

fall under the revised 40 CFR 262 Subpart H, while those going to non-OECD countries will be 

governed under 40 CFR 262 Subpart E, consistent with Universal Waste requirements. While 

Subparts E and H are different regulations, the requirements for SLAB exports are generally 

similar. Furthermore, based on the data EPA has collected to date on the amount of SLAB 

exports to different countries, we estimate that about 0.03% of exports have gone to countries 

that will fall under 40 CFR 262 Subpart H, i.e., OECD countries except for Canada and Mexico 

(see Attachment E). 

1.4 Need for Regulatory Action on SLAB Rule 

EPA has developed this final rule in order to ensure that SLABs are sent to countries, and 

reclamation facilities in those countries, that can manage the SLABs in an environmentally 

sound manner. These changes to SLAB requirements are needed to: (1) reduce potential risk to 

human health and the environment, including potential risk from the transboundary movement of 

pollution from other countries to the U.S.; and (2) harmonize them with international practice 

and with RCRA universal waste regulations for the export of SLABs, thus resulting in a more 

uniform practice for notification and consent for SLABs. 

 EPA believes that the risks to human health and the environment derived from improper 

recycling of SLABs are of a major concern. There are inherent human health and environmental 

hazards associated with SLABs being exported without the knowledge and consent of the 

receiving countries and/or SLABs being exported to countries with substandard smelting 

infrastructures. The notification and consent requirements will help ensure that SLABs are 

exported to countries with the capacity to handle them in an environmentally sound manner and 
 4 

to aid countries with tracking the movements and life-cycle management of SLABs inside their 

borders. 

 1.5 Background on Import Consent Documentation Requirements 

Under the current regulations, imports of hazardous waste are required to be 

accompanied by a hazardous waste manifest from the initial point of import to the destination 

facility. The destination facility is required to submit a copy of the completed manifest to EPA. 

However, there is currently no requirement to include any verification of EPA’s consent to the 

import with the manifest during transit, or with the submission to EPA. 

1.6 Need for the Import Consent Documentation Requirements 

EPA currently requires that U.S. receiving facilities submit a copy of the hazardous waste 

manifest to document individual import shipments. This requirement was established, at least in 

part, to confirm that the import shipment complied with the terms specified in the foreign notice 

to which EPA consented. However, it has proven difficult for EPA to match an individual 

manifest against approved notices of intent to export from a foreign country. This has occurred 

in part because a given destination facility in the U.S. could be receiving the same waste from 

the same foreign exporter under more than one approved notice. Adding the requirement that the 

import consent documentation be sent along with the manifest will enable EPA to clearly match 

the individual import shipments against the approved foreign notice. In addition, notices can 

cover up to twelve months of imports, so several import shipments may be matched to the same 

notice. This requirement will help EPA facilitate the oversight of such imports and verify that 

the actual management of the import shipment complies with the terms specified in the foreign 

notice to which EPA consented from entry into the United States to receipt at the destination 

facility. 

1.7 Organization of Document

This remainder of this document is organized as follows: 

• Each Chapter first discusses the OECD Rule, then the SLAB Rule, and then the 

import consent documentation requirements. 

• Chapter 2 presents an overview of the regulatory requirements under the existing 

regulations. It also identifies the differences in the requirements under the 

existing regulations and the final rules. 

• Chapter 3 describes the cost methodologies and assumptions. 

• Chapter 4 examines the cost impacts and benefits of the final rules. 

• Chapter 5 briefly discusses other administrative requirements established by 

statute or executive order (e.g., Regulatory Flexibility Act, environmental justice), 

within the context of the final rules. 
 5 

 

2. OVERVIEW OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

This chapter provides an overview of the applicable regulatory requirements. Sections 

2.1 through 2.3 discuss the regulatory requirements under the existing regulations for hazardous 

wastes destined for recovery among OECD countries, the regulatory requirements under the final 

OECD rule, and the differences between the two, respectively. Sections 2.4 through 2.6 discuss 

the regulatory requirements under the existing regulations for the export of SLABs, the 

regulatory requirements under the final SLAB rule, and the differences between the two, 

respectively. Sections 2.6 through 2.8 discuss the existing import documentation requirements, 

the final import consent documentation requirements, and the differences between the two, 

respectively. 

2.1 Requirements under the Existing Regulations for Hazardous Wastes 

Destined for Recovery among OECD Countries

The existing regulations at 40 CFR part 262, Subpart H codify the requirements of OECD 

Council Decision C(92)39/FINAL, as implemented in the U.S. In particular, they establish a 

three-tiered system for the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes destined for recovery 

operations among OECD Countries, except Canada and Mexico.7 Under this system, the level of 

control applied to movements of hazardous wastes is indicated by assignment of the waste to a 

green, amber, or red list and by U.S. national procedures.8 The waste lists are those in 

Appendices 3, 4, and 5 to the OECD Council Decision, and are incorporated by reference in 40 

CFR 262.89(e). 

2.1.1 Green-List Wastes

The wastes on the green list do not typically exhibit hazardous characteristics and are 

deemed to pose negligible risks to human health and the environment. These wastes are subject 

to existing controls normally applied to commercial transactions. Such controls may include 

bills of lading, customs declarations, international insurance, or other controls. Note, however, 

that green-list wastes that are considered hazardous under U.S. national procedures are subject to 

the amber control procedure. 

2.1.2 Amber-List Wastes 

The wastes on the amber list usually exhibit one or more hazardous characteristic(s) and 

may pose a risk to human health and the environment. These wastes are subject to the amber 

control procedure requirements described in the following paragraphs. 

7

 Note that, for purposes of 40 CFR part 262, subpart H, Canada and Mexico are considered OECD Countries only

for the purpose of transit. Exports and imports of hazardous wastes destined for recovery to or from Canada and 

Mexico are subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 262, subparts E and F. 

8

 As provided in 40 CFR 262.80, a waste is considered hazardous under U.S. national procedures if it meets the 

Federal definition of hazardous waste in 40 CFR 261.3 and is subject to either the Federal manifesting requirements 

at 40 CFR part 262, subpart B; the universal waste management standards of 40 CFR part 273; or State requirements 

analogous to 40 CFR part 273. 
 6 

 

Contracts 

Transboundary movements of hazardous wastes subject to amber control procedures may 

only occur under the terms of a valid written contract, chain of contracts, or an equivalent 

arrangement between facilities controlled by the same legal entity. Such contracts or equivalent 

arrangements must be executed by the exporter and the owner or operator of the recovery 

facility, and must specify responsibilities for each. 

Contracts or equivalent arrangements must include information specified at 40 CFR

262.85, including provisions for alternate management or re-export of the waste if it cannot be 

managed as planned and financial guarantees for such alternate management if so required by the 

competent authorities of any concerned country, in accordance with applicable national or 

international laws.9

Notification and Consent

Prior to commencement of each transboundary movement, the exporter must provide 

written notification to the competent authority of the country of export, who in turn will notify 

the competent authorities of all other concerned OECD Countries, to allow for consent or 

objection of the proposed movement. This notification must include all of the information 

identified in 40 CFR 262.83(e). Upon receipt of the complete notification, the competent 

authority of the importing country must issue an Acknowledgment of Receipt to the competent 

authorities of the countries of export and transit.10 

The competent authorities of the importing and transit countries must consent or object to 

the shipment within a specified time frame. If the competent authorities of all the relevant 

OECD importing and transit countries provide written consent within this time frame, the 

shipment may proceed, as specified in the notification, immediately after all necessary consents 

are received. However, if the competent authorities of the importing and transit countries do not 

notify in writing within the specified time frame that the request has been denied, then tacit 

consent is deemed to be granted, and the shipment may proceed as specified in the notification. 

If a transit country denies consent, the proposed shipment must be re-routed and a new 

notification must be submitted to the competent authority of the new transit country. The 

shipment may not commence until that OECD Country tacitly or expressly consents to the 

shipment. 

9

 Note that the U.S. does not require such financial guarantees. However, some OECD Countries do. It is the 

responsibility of the exporter to ascertain and comply with such requirements. 

10 In this context, "transit country" refers only to a transit country that is a member of the OECD, including Canada 

and Mexico. 
 7 

 

Movement/Tracking Document 

Each shipment of wastes must be accompanied by a movement/tracking document from 

initiation of the shipment until it reaches the final recovery facility, including cases in which the 

waste is stored and/or exchanged by the consignee prior to shipment to the final recovery facility, 

as specified. This movement/tracking document must include all information required under 40 

CFR 262.84(b). Each person that has physical custody of the waste from the time the shipment 

commences until it arrives at the recovery facility (e.g., transporter, consignee, owner/operator of 

recovery facility) must sign the movement/tracking document. 

Within three working days of the receipt of the wastes by the recovery facility, the owner 

or operator of the recovery facility must send a signed copy of the completed movement/tracking 

document to the exporter and to the competent authorities of the countries of export, transit, and 

import. The recovery facility must retain the original movement/tracking document for three 

years. 

Exchange and Accumulation Recovery Operations

For transboundary movements of wastes destined for exchange (R12) or accumulation 

(R13) recovery operations prior to submission to R1-R11 recovery operations (e.g., solvent 

reclamation, regeneration of acids)11, the notification of intent to export must indicate that 

exchange or storage of the waste will take place prior to delivery of the waste to the R1-R11 

recovery facility (i.e., the final recovery facility). Note that the R1-R11 recovery facility, not the 

R12/R13 recovery facility, is the entity responsible for sending a signed copy of the completed 

movement/tracking document to the exporter and to the competent authorities of the countries of 

export, transit, and import. 

Re-Export to a Third Country

Re-export of wastes subject to the amber control procedures from the importing country 

to a third country may occur only after an exporter in the country of import provides notification 

to and obtains consent of the competent authorities in the third country, the initial exporting 

country, and new transit countries. The competent authorities of the initial exporting country, as 

well as the competent authorities of all other concerned countries, must consent or object to the 

shipment within a specified time frame. If the competent authorities of all the relevant OECD 

importing and transit countries provide written consent within this time frame, the shipment may 

proceed, as specified in the notification, immediately after all necessary consents are received. 

However, if the competent authorities of the importing and transit countries do not notify in 

writing within the specified time frame that the request has been denied, then tacit consent is 

deemed to be granted, and the shipment may proceed as specified in the notification. 

2.1.3 Red-List Wastes

The wastes on the red list usually exhibit one or more hazardous characteristic(s) and 

may pose a risk to human health and the environment. These wastes are subject to red-list 

control procedures. 

11 Refer to 40 CFR 262.81(k) for the definitions of recovery operations R1 through R11. 
 8 

The red control procedure requirements are similar to the amber control procedure 

requirements: 

• A written contract, chain of contracts, or equivalent arrangement between 

facilities controlled by the same legal entity. 

• Written notification to the competent authorities of all concerned OECD 

Countries. 

• Prior consent of the importing and transit countries. 

• A movement/tracking document accompanying the shipment. 

However, unlike amber-list wastes, red-list wastes cannot be shipped unless all necessary 

consents are obtained in writing. That is, tacit consent is not permissible. 

2.1.4 Wastes Not Listed in the OECD Waste Lists

Wastes not yet assigned to a list are eligible for transboundary movement under the 

following conditions: 

• Wastes that are considered hazardous under U.S. national procedures are subject 

to the red control procedure. 

• Wastes that are not considered hazardous under U.S. national procedures may 

move as though they appeared on the green list. 

2.1.5 Mixtures of Wastes

In instances in which a waste is sufficiently contaminated or mixed with another waste, 

the following rules apply: 

• Green-list wastes that are sufficiently contaminated or mixed with amber-list 

wastes, such that the waste or waste mixture is considered hazardous under U.S. 

national procedures, are subject to the amber control procedure. 

• Green-list wastes that are sufficiently contaminated or mixed with red-list wastes, 

such that the waste or waste mixture is considered hazardous under U.S. national 

procedures, are subject to the red control procedure. 

• Amber-list wastes that are sufficiently contaminated or mixed with red-list 

wastes, such that the waste or waste mixture is considered hazardous under U.S. 

national procedures, are subject to the red control procedure. 
 9 

2.2 Requirements under the Final OECD Rule

The final rule amends the regulations at 40 CFR part 262, Subpart H in order to 

implement OECD Council Decision C(2001)107/FINAL and the amendment, C(2004)20, in the 

U.S. A description of the regulatory changes under the final rule is provided in the following 

paragraphs. 

Number of Control Levels

Consistent with OECD Council Decision C(2001)107/FINAL, the final rule reduces the 

number of control levels from three (i.e., green, amber, and red) to two (i.e., green and amber). 

The level of control applied to transboundary movements of hazardous wastes is indicated by 

assignment of the waste to a green or amber list and by U.S. national procedures. The waste lists 

are those in Appendices 3 and 4 to the OECD Decision, and are incorporated by reference under 

the rule. 

 

OECD Waste Lists 

The final rule incorporates, by reference, the “List of Wastes Subject to the Green 

Control Procedure" and the "List of Wastes Subject to the Amber Control Procedure," as set 

forth in Appendix 3 and Appendix 4, respectively, to OECD Council Decision amendment to 

C(2001)107/FINAL, C(2004)20. These waste lists are harmonized with the Basel Convention. 

Specifically, the “List of Wastes Subject to the Green Control Procedure" is harmonized with the 

list of wastes in Annex IX of the Basel Convention. The “List of Wastes Subject to the Amber 

Control Procedure" is harmonized with the list of wastes in Annexes II and VIII of the Basel 

Convention. 

Wastes Not Listed in the OECD Waste Lists

The final rule incorporates new provisions to clarify that wastes destined for recovery 

operations that have not yet been assigned to Appendices 3 or 4 to OECD Council Decision 

C(2001)107/FINAL, and the amendment C(2004)20, are eligible for transboundary movements 

under the following conditions: 

• Wastes that are considered hazardous under U.S. national procedures are subject 

to the amber control procedure. 

• Wastes that are not considered hazardous under U.S. national procedures may 

move as though they appeared on the green list. 

Mixtures of Wastes

The final rule incorporates new provisions to clarify the status of mixtures of wastes for 

which no individual entry exists in the OECD Waste Lists: 

• A mixture of two or more green-list wastes is subject to the green control 

procedure. 
 10 

• A mixture of a green-list waste and more than a de minimis amount of an amberlist waste, or a mixture of two or more amber-list wastes, is subject to the amber 

control procedure when the resulting mixture is considered hazardous under U.S. 

national procedures. 

Exemption for Wastes Destined for Laboratory Analysis

Under the final rule, shipments of amber-list wastes are exempt from the amber control 

procedure if they are explicitly destined for laboratory analysis to assess their physical or 

chemical characteristics or to determine their suitability for recovery operations. The amount of 

such waste must be determined by the minimum quantity reasonably needed to adequately 

perform the analysis in each particular case, but not more than 25 kg. Analytical samples must 

be appropriately packaged and labeled. These shipments must be carried out under the terms of 

applicable international transport agreements. In addition, any transit of such wastes through a 

non-OECD Country is subject to international law and to all applicable national laws and 

regulations. Where a competent authority of a country of import or country of export is required 

to be informed under its domestic legislation, the exporter must inform that authority of a 

transboundary shipment of a laboratory sample. 

Certificate of Recovery

Under the final rule, recovery facilities must provide a certificate of recovery to the 

exporter and to the competent authorities of the countries of export and import. This certificate 

of recovery must be provided as soon as possible, but no later than 30 days after the completion 

of recovery and no later than one calendar year following receipt of waste. 

Exchange and Accumulation Recovery Operations

Under the final rule, if wastes are destined for an R12/R13 recovery facility, exporters 

also must indicate in the notification the name, address, and telephone and telefax number of the 

recovery facility or facilities where the subsequent R1-R11 recovery operation takes place or 

may take place. 

Within three days of the receipt of the wastes by the R12/R13 recovery facility, the 

facility must return a signed copy of the movement/tracking document to the exporter and to the 

competent authorities of the countries of export and import. The facility must retain the original 

of the movement/tracking document for three years. 

As soon as possible, but no later than 30 days after the completion of the R12/R13 

recovery operation and no later than one calendar year following the receipt of the waste, the 

R12/R13 recovery facility must send a certificate of recovery to the exporter and to the 

competent authorities of the countries of export and import. 

When an R12/R13 recovery facility delivers wastes for recovery to an R1-R11 recovery 

facility located in the country of import, it must obtain as soon as possible, but no later than one 

calendar year following delivery of the waste, a certification from the R1-R11 facility that 

recovery of the wastes at that facility has been completed. The R12/R13 facility must promptly 

transmit the applicable certification to the competent authorities of the countries of import and 

export, identifying the transboundary shipments to which the certification pertain. 
 11 

When an R12/R13 recovery facility delivers wastes for recovery to an R1-R11 recovery 

facility located in the initial country of export or in a third country other than the initial country 

of export, a new notification is required. 

Return of Wastes

Under the final rule, when a transboundary movement of wastes to which concerned 

OECD Countries have given consent cannot be completed in accordance with the terms of the 

contract, and alternative arrangements cannot be made to recover these wastes in an 

environmentally sound manner in the U.S., the U.S. importer must inform EPA of the need to 

return the shipment. In addition, EPA must inform the competent authorities of the countries of 

export and transit, mentioning in particular the reason for returning the waste. The return should 

take place within 90 days from the time EPA informs the country of export, or such other period 

of time as the concerned OECD Countries agree. 

 

2.3 Differences in the Requirements under the Existing Regulations and the 

Final OECD Rule 

Exhibit 1 summarizes the primary differences in the requirements under the existing 

regulations at 40 CFR part 262, Subpart H and the final rule. It also qualitatively identifies the 

impacts associated with the regulatory changes. These impacts are further examined in Chapters 

3 and 4 of this document.12

2.4 Existing Regulations for the Export of SLABs 

SLABs typically exhibit the toxicity characteristic for lead and are therefore a hazardous 

waste under RCRA. Under 40 CFR Part 266, Subpart G, generators of SLABs are currently 

exempt from Part 262 hazardous waste manifesting and export requirements. Although SLABs 

may also be managed under 40 CFR 273 as Universal Waste and thus be required to comply with 

specific export requirements, very few exporters have chosen to do so. 

 

12 The final rule also clarifies language in 262.(a) and 262(b) of Subpart E to avoid any unintended inconsistencies 

with Subpart H, and to reduce confusion for U.S. exporters and importers. Additionally, the final rule amends 

264.12(a)(2) and 265.12(a)(b) by, among other things, requiring owners or operators of recovery facilities to submit 

a certificate of recovery. Since in the final rule, the same requirement regarding a certificate of recovery is added 

into Subpart H, the certificate of recovery will be discussed in the context of Subpart H. 
Exhibit 1 

Primary Differences in the Requirements under the Existing Regulations and the Final OEC

Existing Regulations Final Rule Qualitative Impa

Number of Control LevelsThe level of control applied to transboundary 

movements of hazardous wastes is indicated by assignment of the waste to a green, amber, or red list and by U.S. national procedures. 

Three levels of control: 

-- Green Control Procedure. Wastes are 

subject to the same level of control as normal transboundary movements. 

-- Amber Control Procedure. Wastes 

are subject to the following requirements: 

- Written contract, chain of contracts, 

or equivalent arrangement 

- Written notification to the competent 

authorities of the concerned countries 

- Prior written or tacit consent of the 

competent authorities of the importing and transit countries 

- A movement/tracking document 

accompanying the shipment 

-- Red Control Procedure. The red 

control procedure requirements are similar to the amber control procedure requirements. However, tacit consent is not permissible. 

The level of control applied to transboundary movements of hazardous wastes is indicated by assignment of the waste to a green or amber list and by U.S. national procedures. The number of levels of control are reduced from three to two: 

-- Green -- Amber §262.89(e) 

Costs associated with readicomply with the change. Under existing requirementred-list waste while waiting final rule, former red-list wcontrol procedure, which alexporters will likely store thof time before export, reduc

12 
Existing Regulations Final Rule Qualitative Impa

OECD Waste ListsThe existing regulations incorporate by reference the waste lists in Appendices 3, 4, and 5 to the OECD Council Decision C(92)39/FINAL. 

The final rule incorporates, by reference, the waste lists in Appendices 3 and 4 to OECD Council Decision amendment C(2001)20/FINAL. These waste lists are harmonized with the Basel Convention. §262.83(c) 

Costs associated with readicomply with the change. This change will not affect and imports because all hazimports are currently subjecprocedures. Under the finaexports and imports will be procedure, which is the samexcept for the tacit consent. experience a savings associlist waste. These savings arof Control Procedures" sect

Wastes Not Listed in the OECD Waste ListsWastes not yet assigned to a list are eligible for transboundary movement under the following conditions: 

-- Wastes that are considered hazardous 

under U.S. national procedures are subject to the red control procedure. 

-- Wastes that are not considered 

hazardous under U.S. national procedures may move as though they appeared on the green list. 

Wastes not yet assigned to a list are eligible for transboundary movements under the following conditions: 

-- Wastes that are considered hazardous under U.S. 

national procedures are subject to the amber control procedure. 

-- Wastes that are not considered hazardous under 

U.S. national procedures may move as though they appeared on the green list. 

(No Red List) 

Costs associated with readicomply with the change. This change will not affect and imports because all hazimports are currently subjecprocedures. Under the finaexports and imports will be procedure, which is the samexcept for the tacit consent. experience a savings associlist waste. These savings arof Control Procedures" sect

13 
Existing Regulations Final Rule Qualitative Impa

Mixtures of WastesIn instances in which a waste is sufficiently contaminated or mixed with another waste, the following rules apply: 

-- A mixture of a green-list waste with 

an amber-list waste is subject to the amber control procedure. 

-- A mixture of a green-list waste with a 

red-list waste is subject to the red control procedure. 

-- A mixture of an amber-list waste with 

a red-list waste is subject to the red control procedure. 

For mixtures of wastes, the following conditions apply: 

-- A mixture of two or more green-list wastes is 

subject to the green control procedure. 

-- A mixture of a green-list waste and more than a 

de minimis amount of an amber-list waste is subject to the amber control procedure. 

-- A mixture of two or more amber-list wastes is 

subject to the amber control procedure. 

§262.82(a)(3) 

Costs associated with readicomply with the change. This change will not affect and imports because all hazimports are currently subjecprocedures. Under the finaexports and imports will be procedure, which is the samexcept for the tacit consent. experience a savings associlist waste. These savings arof Control Procedures" sect

Exemption for Wastes Destined for Laboratory AnalysisAmber-list and red-list wastes destined for laboratory analysis are subject to the amber or red control procedures, as applicable. These procedures include the following requirements: 

-- Contract -- Notification -- Consent -- Movement/Tracking document 

Amber-list wastes explicitly destined for laboratory analysis are exempt from amber control procedures, if specified conditions are met. In such cases, the green control procedure applies. §262.82(g) 

Under the existing regulatiowastes are subject to the infrequirements of the amber oapplicable. Under the final list wastes are exempt from requirements. Thus, U.S. eexperience cost savings. 

Certificate of RecoveryNo existing requirement. Recovery facilities must provide a certificate of recovery to 

the exporter and to the competent authorities of the countries of export and import. §262.83(e) 

Costs associated with prepacertificate of recovery for e

14 
Existing Regulations Final Rule Qualitative Impa

Exchange and Accumulation Recovery OperationsFor amber-list and red-list wastes destined for R12/R13 recovery operations prior to submission to R1-R11 recovery operations, the notification must indicate that exchange or storage of the waste will take place prior to delivery of the waste to the R1-R11 recovery facility (i.e., the final recovery facility). 

The following additional requirements apply to transboundary movements of wastes destined for R12/R13 recovery operations: §262.82(f) 

-- Exporters must indicate in the notification the 

recovery facility where the subsequent R1-R11 recovery operation takes place or may take place. 

-- The R12/R13 recovery facility must return a 

signed copy of the movement/tracking document to the exporter and to the competent authorities of the countries of export and import. The facility must retain the original of the movement/tracking document for three years. 

-- After the completion of the R12/R13 recovery 

operation, the R12/R13 recovery facility must send a certificate of recovery to the exporter and to the competent authorities of the countries of export and import. 

-- When an R12/R13 recovery facility delivers 

wastes for recovery to an R1-R11 recovery facility located in the country of import, it must obtain a certificate of recovery from the R1-R11 facility. The R12/R13 facility must promptly transmit the certificate to the competent authorities of the countries of import and export. 

-- When an R12/R13 recovery facility delivers 

wastes for recovery to an R1-R11 recovery facility located in the initial country of export or in a third country other than the initial country of export, a new notification is required. 

Costs associated with: (1) inR11 recovery facility in the maintaining a signed copy odocument, (3) preparing anrecovery for R12/R13 recovproviding and maintaining recovery for R1-R11 recove

Return of WastesNo existing requirement. When a transboundary movement of wastes subject to the 

Amber control procedures cannot be completed in accordance with the terms of the contract or the consent(s) and alternative arrangements cannot be made to recover the waste in an environmentally sound manner in the country 

Costs associated with informof the countries of export anwastes. 

15 
16 

Existing Regulations Final Rule Qualitative Impa

of import, the waste must be returned to the country of export or re-exported to a third country., The U.S. importer must inform EPA of the need to return the shipment and EPA must inform the competent authorities of the countries of export and transit. §262.82(d) 
17 

 

2.5 Requirements under the Final SLAB Rule 

EPA is amending the RCRA regulations for SLABs specified in 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart 

G by requiring notification and consent for the export of SLABs. This action prescribes specific 

export requirements for SLAB exports to two groups of countries, i.e., OECD countries (except 

for Canada and Mexico), and non-OECD countries (including Canada and Mexico). 

Specifically, the SLAB exports going to OECD countries will fall under the revised 40 CFR 262 

Subpart H, while those going to non-OECD countries will be governed under 40 CFR 262 

Subpart E, consistent with Universal Waste requirements. 

While Subparts E and H are different regulations the requirements for SLAB exports are 

largely similar. Furthermore, based on the data EPA has collected to date on the amount of 

SLAB exports to different countries, we find that only about 0.03% of exports have gone to 

countries that will fall under 40 CFR 262 Subpart H, i.e., OECD countries except for Canada and 

Mexico.13 The small number of shipments going to OECD countries except for Canada and 

Mexico will follow the new requirements described in Section 2.2. 

The vast majority of SLAB exports will be subject to 40 CFR 262 Subpart E, consistent 

with Universal Waste requirements. A description of the regulatory requirements that SLAB 

exports will now be subject to is provided in the following paragraphs. Each paragraph identifies 

whether this requirement is part of 40 CFR 262 Subpart E, 40 CFR 262 Subpart H, or both. 

Notification 

Under the final rule, exporters must notify EPA of their intent to export SLABs and seek 

an Acknowledgement of Consent. The notification must contain detailed information with regard 

to the identity of the exporter, waste type, means of transport, ultimate destination facility, 

methods of treatment, recovery, and disposal, and destination and transit countries. This 

requirement appears both in Subpart E (262.53(a)-(b)) and Subpart H (262.83(b)&(e)) 

Renotification 

Under the final rule, when the conditions specified on the original notification change, 

the primary exporter must provide EPA with a renotification of the change. Also, where a 

shipment cannot be delivered for any reason, the export must renotify EPA of a change in the 

conditions and obtain a new EPA Acknowledgement of Consent. This requirement appears both 

in Subpart E (262.53(c)) and Subpart H (262.83(b)). 

Annual Report 

Under the final rule, exporters must file detailed annual reports on SLAB exports 

containing information such as waste types, quantities, frequency, and ultimate destination of all 

exports, among others. This requirement appears both in 262.83(d)(14) and 262.85(e). 

13 In 2006 only 90 metric tons (0.03%) out of 269,171 metric tons of SLAB exports from the U.S. went to OECD 

countries other than Canada and Mexico, and 4,838 metric tons (1.8%) went to all other countries except Canada 

and Mexico. Please see Attachment E for further details. 
18 

Additional Report 

Upon request by EPA, an exporter shall furnish to EPA any additional information which 

a receiving country requests in order to respond to a notification. This requirement appears both 

in Subpart E (262.53(d)) and Subpart H (262.83(e)(12), 262.85(e)). 

Provide Acknowledgment of Consent to Transporter 

Under the final rule, an exporter must provide a copy of the EPA Acknowledgement of 

Consent for the shipment to the transporter transporting the shipment for export to a non-OECD 

country, Canada, or Mexico. This is consistent with Subpart E (262.52(c)) but is separately 

included in the new Item 6 in the table in Subpart G (266.80(a)). 

Exception Report 

An exporter must file an exception report if any of the following occurs: (1) it has not 

received a copy of the movement documentation signed by a transporter stating point of 

departure from the U.S., within 45 days of acceptance of waste, (2) within 90 days from the 

acceptance of waste, the exporter has not received written confirmation from the recovery 

facility that the waste was received, or (3) the waste is returned to the U.S.. This requirement 

appears only in Subpart H (262.87(b)). 

 

Recordkeeping 

Under the final rule, the exporter must keep a copy of each notification, EPA 

Acknowledgment of Consent, each confirmation of delivery and each annual report, all for a 

period of at least 3 years. This requirement appears both in Subpart E (262.57) and Subpart H 

(262.87(c)). 

Movement/Tracking Document 

All U.S. parties subject to the contract provisions under 262.85 must ensure a movement 

document accompanies the waste shipment until it reaches the final recovery facility. This 

movement document must include all the information required under 262.83 (for notification) 

and additional information regarding the shipment of the waste such as transport requirements 

and transporter information. This requirement appears in Subpart H (262.84). 

Certificate of Recovery 

Under the final rule, recovery facilities must provide a certificate of recovery to the 

exporter and to the competent authorities of the countries of export and import. This certificate 

of recovery must be provided as soon as possible, but no later than 30 days after the completion 

of recovery and no later than one calendar year following receipt of waste. This requirement is 

part of the OECD Rule (262.83(e)) and is not in the current Subpart H. 
19 

2.6 Differences in the Requirements under the Existing Regulations and the 

Final SLAB Rule

It is assumed that the vast majority of all SLAB exports are currently not subject to any 

export requirements. Therefore, the difference between the existing regulations and the final rule 

requirements are simply the final requirements. SLABs exported to non-OECD countries, 

Canada, or Mexico will be subject to Subpart E requirements under the final regulations. SLABs 

exported to OECD countries other than Canada and Mexico would be subject to Subpart H under 

the final regulations. Exhibit 2 compares the requirements for SLABs under Subpart E and 

Subpart H, and summarizes the impacts of the final requirements. 

2.7 Current Import Documentation Requirements 

 U.S. importers must initiate a RCRA hazardous waste manifest and provide an additional 

copy of the manifest to the transporter as required by 40 CFR 262.60. The U.S. receiving facility 

must submit this additional copy of the manifest to EPA within 30 days of import shipment 

delivery as required by 40 CFR 264.71(a)(3) and 265.71(a)(3). 

2.8 Final Import Consent Documentation Requirements 

This rule amends the hazardous waste import requirements to require that upon import 

shipment delivery, the U.S. receiving facility matches the RCRA manifest to the relevant import 

notice consent documentation, and sends a copy of the matched RCRA manifest and import 

consent documentation back to EPA within thirty days of delivery. 

2.9 Differences in the Requirements under the Existing Regulations and the 

Final Requirements 

This final rule requires that the receiving facility match the import consent documentation 

that is provided by EPA to the RCRA manifest for the incoming shipment that the facility 

receives from the transporter. The receiving facility must then copy the import consent 

documentation along with the manifest and then mail the copies of the matched documents to 

EPA. The cost impacts of this rule to the destination facility would be the cost to find the 

consent documentation, match it to the relevant manifest, copy this import consent 

documentation, and include it with the submission of the completed manifest to EPA. 
Exhibit 2 

Final SLAB Regulations and Impacts

40 CFR 262 Subpart E 

SLAB Exports to Non-OECD Countries, 

Canada and Mexico 

40 CFR 262 Subpart H 

SLAB Exports to OECD Countries Other 

than Canada and Mexico 

Qualitative Im

NotificationExporters must notify EPA of their intent to export SLABs at least 60 days before the initial shipment is intended to be shipped off site. This notice may cover export activities extending over a 12 month period. The notification must contain detailed information regarding the exporter, waste details, transporters, means of transport and containers to be used, all points of entry and departure for each foreign country of transit, receiving facility information, and ultimate management method. Notification must be submitted to the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Office of Federal Activities, International Compliance Assurance Division, EPA. “Attention: Notification of Intent to Export.” 

Exporters must provide written notification at least 45 days prior to shipment. This notice may cover export activities over a 12 month period. Notification must be submitted to the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Office of Federal Activities, International Compliance Assurance Division, EPA. “Attention: OECD Export Notification.” The notification must include detailed information regarding the shipment such as exporter details; recovery facility name and method of recovery; names and details of all transporters; details of all countries of import, transit, and import; and waste information including waste description meeting OECD requirements. The notification must include a signed certification/declaration by the exporter with required wording. 

Exporters and transpowith reading the rule tthe change. Current regulations do SLAB exports. Exporand submit notificatioto receive and process to the countries of impfrom countries of impacknowledgement of c

Renotification If the conditions specified on the original notification change the exporter must provide EPA with a written renotification of the change. 

Renotification required after the previous consent has expired. 

Although expected to exporters will experierenotification when thafter the original notiexpires prior to shipmprocess these changes

20 
40 CFR 262 Subpart E 

SLAB Exports to Non-OECD Countries, 

Canada and Mexico 

40 CFR 262 Subpart H 

SLAB Exports to OECD Countries Other 

than Canada and Mexico 

Qualitative Im

Annual Report Exporters must file with the administrator no later than March 1 of each year, a report summarizing the types, quantities, frequency, and ultimate destination of all hazardous waste exported during the previous calendar year. The report must include a signed certification by the exporter with required wording. 

Exporters shall file an annual report no later than March 1 of each year summarizing the types, quantities, frequency, and ultimate destination of all hazardous waste exported during the previous calendar year. The report must include a signed certification by the exporter with required wording. During even numbered years LQGs must include a description of waste reduction efforts and changes in waste generation (except for waste reported in the generators Biennial Report submission) in the annual report. 

Exporters will incur crequired for the annusubmit it to EPA. EPrecord the annual repwho exports waste unmay file one report pin separate sections. 

Additional Report Upon request by EPA, an exporter shall furnish to EPA any additional information which a receiving country requests in order to respond to a notification. 

Upon request by EPA, an exporter shall furnish to EPA any additional information regarding financial assurances or contractual arrangements which a receiving country requests in order to respond to a notification 

Exporters will incur coadditional information incur costs to request tand process the inform

Provide Acknowledgement of Consent to Transporter Exporters must provide a copy of EPA’s Acknowledgement of Consent for the shipment to the transporter. 

None. Exporters will incur co

Acknowledgment of Ctransporter with each s

Exception Report Not Required Exporters must file an exception report with EPA if one of 

the following occurs: (1) Written confirmation of receipt from the recovery facility is not received within 90 days from the date the waste was accepted by the initial transporter. (3) The waste is returned to the U.S. 

Under Subpart H, expand submit and exceptconditions listed occur

21 
22 

40 CFR 262 Subpart E 

SLAB Exports to Non-OECD Countries, 

Canada and Mexico 

40 CFR 262 Subpart H 

SLAB Exports to OECD Countries Other 

than Canada and Mexico 

Qualitative Im

Recordkeeping Exporters must keep a copy of the following for at least three years for all exports: (1) notifications (2) EPA’s Acknowledgement of Consent (3) confirmation of delivery (4) annual reports 

Exporters must keep a copy of the following for at least three years for all exports: (1) notifications, (2) all written consents, (3) confirmation of delivery, (4) exception reports, (5) confirmation of recovery, (6) annual reports 

Exporters will incur corecords. 

Movement/Tracking Document Not Required Exporters must ensure that a movement document 

accompanies all shipments for export. The movement document must include all the information required for notification and additional information regarding the shipment requirements. The document must include a signed certification/declaration by the exporter with required wording. 

Exporters will incur cdocument and provid

Certificate of RecoveryNot Required Recovery facilities must provide a certificate of recovery 

to the exporter and to the competent authorities of the countries of export and import. 

Exporters and EPA wmaintain the certificafacility. 
23 

 

3. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS

This chapter summarizes the methodology and assumptions applied in the development 

of incremental cost impacts associated with the final rules. Sections 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5 describe 

the methodologies, analytical data, and assumptions used in assessing the cost impacts from the 

OECD Rule, the SLAB Rule, and the import consent documentation requirements, respectively. 

 The cost models for each portion of the rule, OECD, SLAB, and import consent 

documentation requirements were developed based on inputs including: 

• Hourly labor rates 

• Materials costs 

• Hourly burden 

• Number of affected entities and/or shipments 

 The hourly labor rates and materials costs were used consistently for each part of the rule 

and are described in section 3.1 and 3.2, respectively. The hourly burden assumptions and 

number of affected entities and/or shipments were unique to each requirement and are discussed 

in the relevant portions of sections 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5. 

 3.1 Labor Rate Assumptions 

Exhibit 3 presents the hourly labor rates used in this analysis. As shown in the exhibit, 

for U.S. exporters, U.S. importers, and U.S. transporters, we estimated an average hourly labor 

rate (including fringe and overhead) of $98.86 for managerial staff, $64.71 for technical staff, 

and $33.85 for clerical staff. These labor rates were obtained from the Cost Assessment in 

Support of the Proposed Rule on Exports and Imports of Hazardous Waste Destined for 

Recovery among OECD Countries14 and updated to 2007 levels using Employment Cost Indices 

developed by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.15

For EPA, we estimated an average hourly labor rate of $60.66 for managerial staff (GS14, Step 1), $51.33 for technical staff (GS-13, Step 1), and $29.76 for clerical staff (GS-9, Step 

1). To derive these hourly estimates, we referred to the General Schedule (GS) Salary Table 

2007. This publication summarizes the unloaded (base) hourly rate for various labor categories 

in the Federal Government. We then applied the standard government overhead factor of 1.6 to 

the unloaded rate to derive loaded hourly labor rates. 

14 U.S. EPA. September 27, 2004 (revised February 24, 2005). Cost Assessment in Support of the Proposed Rule on 

Exports and Imports of Hazardous Waste Destined for Recovery among OECD Countries 

15 To update the hourly rates from 2004 to 2007 levels, EPA referred to Table 9. Employment Cost Index for Wages 

and Salaries, for Private Industry Workers by Occupation Group and Industry (Not seasonally adjusted) of 

Employment Cost Index: Historical Listing (December 2005 = 100), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (July 31, 

2007). This table presents employment cost indices for private industry workers, by annual quarter (i.e., for March, 

June, September, and December). EPA used the June 2004 Index (96.5) and the June 2007 Index (105.1) to develop 

an adjustment factor of 1.089 (i.e., 105.1 / 96.5 = 1.089). Available at: http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/home.htm. 
24 

Exhibit 3 

Average Hourly Labor Rates Used to Assess the Cost Impacts of the Final Rule 

Labor Category Exporters, Importers, 

and Transporters 

(2007 dollars) 

EPA 

(2007 dollars) 

Managerial $98.86 $60.66 

Technical $64.71 $51.33 

Clerical $33.85 $29.76 

 3.2 Materials Cost Assumptions 

Exhibit 4 presents the materials costs used in this analysis. These costs are described 

below: 

• Mailing costs: The Agency estimates that affected entities will incur a cost of $4.24 to 

mail a five-ounce package by certified mail ($1.48 for postage, $2.65 for the 

certified-mail fee, and $0.11 for a 9 x 12 manila envelope). 

Affected entities are estimated to incur a cost of $0.42 for each standard letter 

mailed ($0.41 for first class postage16 and $0.01 for a standard envelope). 

• Copying Costs: The agency estimates that affected entities will incur a cost of $0.11 

per page for copying. 

• Faxing costs: The Agency estimates that affected entities will incur a cost of $0.12 for 

each international fax they send. This cost was derived from the average revenues 

per minute for a telephone call from the U.S. to an OECD Country (excluding Canada 

and Mexico). Revenue figures were obtained from the 2005 International 

Telecommunications Data Report issued by the Federal Communications 

Commission on April 24, 2007. The cost estimate assumes that the fax transmission 

will take one-minute. 

• Domestic telephone call costs: The Agency estimates that affected entities will incur a 

cost of $0.90 for each domestic telephone call they make. This cost was derived by 

averaging the advertised rates of a 15-minute State-to-State telephone call from four 

large U.S. long distance carriers. 

 

16 Note: Since the completion of this analysis U.S. First Class postage has increased form $0.41 to $0.42 per 

standard letter. This change is expected to have a negligible impact on total costs. 
25 

Exhibit 4 

Materials Costs Used to Assess the Cost Impacts of the Final Rule

Materials Cost Category Unit Cost 

(2007 dollars) 

Mailing Costs (9 x 12 package) $4.24 

Mailing Costs (standard letter) $0.42 

Copying Costs $0.11 

Faxing Costs $0.12 

Domestic Telephone Call Costs $0.90 

3.3 Methodology used in Assessing the OECD Rule

In assessing the cost impacts of the final rule, we estimated the incremental annual costs 

and cost savings to U.S. exporters, U.S. importers, U.S. transporters, and EPA. In estimating 

these costs and cost savings, we first reviewed and compared the provisions under the existing 

regulations at 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart H 262.58(a); 262.58(b); 262.12(a)(2); and 265.12(a)(2), 

and the final rule. Based on this comparison, the Agency identified differences in requirements 

(see Exhibit 1), and used this information in the development of a cost model. 

The cost model estimates the costs to U.S. exporters, U.S. importers, U.S. transporters, 

and EPA to complete the activities required by the final rule. It also estimates the cost savings in 

situations where the rule relieves them of existing requirements. The cost model estimates the 

costs or cost savings for each activity based on the following inputs: 

• Hourly burden 

• Hourly labor rates 

• Materials costs 

• Number of affected entities and/or shipments 

 After estimating the costs or cost savings for each activity, the cost model adds up the 

costs and cost savings across all activities to derive the net total costs to U.S. exporters, U.S. 

importers, U.S. transporters, and EPA. 
26 

 

3.3.1 Hourly Burden Assumptions

In estimating the hourly burden for each of the activities, we referred to the most recently 

approved Generator Standards Information Collection Request (ICR)17 and Exports/Imports 

ICR18. The Generator Standards ICR examines the annual hour and cost burden to exporters, 

importers, and EPA in carrying out information collection activities associated with the export 

and import of hazardous wastes (40 CFR part 262, Subparts E and F). The Exports/Imports ICR 

examines the incremental annual hour and cost burden to exporters, importers, and EPA in 

carrying out information collection activities associated with the export and import of hazardous 

wastes destined for recovery among OECD Countries (40 CFR part 262, Subpart H). We 

reviewed these ICRs and incorporated all applicable hourly burden estimates into the cost 

estimate. We then addressed additional data needs through best judgment or consultations. 

3.3.2 Universe Assumptions

In the following paragraphs, we discuss the universe assumptions used in the analysis of 

the final OECD Rule. This information is summarized in Exhibit 5. 

Number of U.S. Exporters and Export Shipments 

In estimating the number of U.S. exporters and export shipments subject to rule 

requirements, we referred to the Export Reports Database. The Export Report Database is a 

database used by EPA's Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) to track exports 

of hazardous waste. The database includes export shipment data reported by exporters in their 

annual export reports (e.g., receiving country, number of shipments). 

Based on Export Report Database data19, we estimate that, on average, six entities export 

a total of 489 shipments of hazardous waste to OECD Countries (except Canada and Mexico) 

each year. 

Based on industry consultations20, we estimate that 2.1 percent (10) of the 489 shipments 

to OECD Countries are samples destined for laboratory analysis. The remaining 479 (i.e., 489 - 

10) shipments are shipments of hazardous wastes destined for recovery. 

17 Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 820.08, Hazardous Waste Generator 

Standards, June 22, 2001. 

18 Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 1647.03, Exports from and Imports to the 

United States under the OECD Decision, January 5, 2001. 

19 For purposes of this analysis, EPA used the average of the data reported in 2003, 2004, and 2005 annual export 

reports. 

20 Consultations with industry were conducted in July 2004. See consultation telephone logs available in the public 

docket. Based on the 2001and 2003 Export Reports Database there were an average of 434 shipments to OECD 

Countries. Of these 434 shipments, consultations with industry indicate nine (2.1%) were samples destined for 

laboratory analysis. 
27 

 

Based on RCRAInfo data for imports discussed in Section 3.5.2, we estimate that, of the 

479 shipments of hazardous wastes destined for recovery, it is estimated that 12 percent (or 57 

shipments) are shipped to R12/R13 recovery facilities in OECD Countries. 

Number of U.S. Importers and Import Shipments 

In estimating the number of U.S. importers and import shipments subject to the 

requirements of the rule, we referred to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

Information (RCRAInfo) System. RCRAInfo is a national program management and inventory 

system used by EPA to track entities regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA (i.e., hazardous waste 

handlers). RCRAInfo includes data on general handler information, waste generation and 

management, permit or closure status, compliance with Federal and State regulations, and 

cleanup activities. We also assessed the information in EPA’s Waste International Tracking 

System (WITS)21 database. 

Based on WITS data22, we estimate that, on average 15 entities import shipments of 

hazardous waste from OECD Countries (except Canada and Mexico) each year. Based on 

RCRAInfo data23, we estimate that, on average, 300 shipments of hazardous waste are imported 

from OECD Countries (except Canada and Mexico) each year. 

Based on industry consultations24, we estimate that 1.4 percent (4) of the 300 shipments 

from OECD Countries are samples destined for laboratory analysis. The remaining 296 (i.e., 300 

- 4) shipments are shipments of hazardous wastes destined for recovery. 

21Data collected through EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) 22 For purposes of this analysis, EPA used the average of the data reported in 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006 in the 

WITS database. 

23 For purposes of this analysis, EPA used the average of the data reported in 2003 and 2005 Biennial Reports. 

These data do not indicate which specific country is importing the waste. Canada and Mexico imports were 

commonly indicated and these records were removed. The estimate only includes records of imports destined for 

metal recovery, solvent recovery, other recovery, and transfer facilities. The number of shipments was estimated by 

dividing the quantity of waste imported by 18 tons. One truck load of waste is estimated to have an 18-ton capacity. 

 The estimate for the number of shipments would be lower if transport by train is assumed. Reuse-as-fuel and 

energy recovery imports were assumed to come from Canada or Mexico given the transport economics for this 

industry and not included. The quantity reported for one 2005 record for spent catalyst waste destined for metals 

recovery was reduced by an order of magnitude assuming there was a misplaced decimal point in the reporting or 

data entry of this waste. Internal U.S. shipments of this waste never were reported at this magnitude. This reduced 

the estimate of the number of 2005 import shipments from 909 to 218. The estimate for the number of 2003 import 

shipments is 381. The average number of import shipments is 300. 

24 Consultations with industry were conducted in July 2004. See consultation telephone logs available in the public 

docket. Based on the 2001and 2003 Export Reports Database there were an average of 345 shipments from OECD 

Countries. Of these 345 shipments, consultations with industry indicate five (1.4%) were samples destined for 

laboratory analysis. 
28 

Based on RCRAInfo Data25, we estimate that, of the 296 shipments of hazardous wastes 

destined for recovery, 36 shipments (or 12 percent) are received at R12/R13 recovery facilities in 

the U.S. 

Number of U.S. Transporters 

Data on the number of U.S. transporters involved in the export and import of hazardous 

wastes destined for recovery among OECD Countries are not generally available. For purposes 

of this analysis, we have assumed that there is one U.S. transporter for each U.S. exporter and 

U.S. importer. No shipments are assumed to transit through Canada and Mexico in this analysis. 

Exhibit 5 

Universe Assumptions Used to Assess the Cost Impacts of the Final OECD Rule

Type of Number of Affected Entities Number of Shipments 

Shipment 

U.S. Exporters/ 

U.S. Importers 

U.S. 

Transporters 

Wastes Destined 

for Laboratory 

Analysis 

Wastes Destined 

for Recovery 

Operations 

Total 

Export 6 6 10 479 489 

Import 15 15 4 296 300 

 

 

 3.4 Methodology used in Assessing the SLAB Rule

 In assessing the cost impacts of the final SLAB rule, we estimated the incremental annual 

costs to U.S. exporters, U.S. transporters, and EPA. In estimating these costs, we first reviewed 

the provisions under the existing regulations at 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart G, and the final rule. 

Based on this comparison, the Agency identified the new requirements under the final rule (see 

Exhibit 2), and used this information in the development of a cost model. 

 The cost model estimates the costs to U.S. exporters, U.S. transporters, and EPA to 

complete the activities required by the final rule. The cost model estimates the costs for each 

activity based on the following inputs: 

• Hourly burden 

• Hourly labor rates 

• Materials costs 

• Number of affected entities, notices, and/or shipments 

 

25 For purposes of this analysis, we used the average of the data reported in 2003 and 2005 Biennial Reports. See 

comments regarding the data in footnote 16. The estimate of the number of 2005 import shipments to storage, 

bulking, and/or transfer facilities is 39. The estimate of the number of 2003 import shipments to storage, bulking, 

and/or transfer facilities is 34. The average is 36 (36/300 x 100% = 12%). 
29 

 

 Section 3.4.1 describes the hourly burden assumptions made in the analysis. Section 

3.4.2 describe the universe assumptions made regarding the number of effected entities including 

exporters and transporters and the number of shipments and notices required to comply with the 

rule. 

 After estimating the costs or cost savings for each activity, the cost model adds up the 

costs and cost savings across all activities to derive the net total costs to U.S. exporters, U.S. 

transporters, and EPA. 

 The vast majority of exported SLABs are exported to Canada or Mexico (see Attachment 

E) and only a negligible amount of SLABs will be regulated under Subpart H. Therefore, in the 

analysis presented in Section 4.2 we assume that all SLABs will be managed under 40 CFR 262 

Subpart E. A worse-case cost scenario is also developed assuming that all SLAB shipments 

currently going to Canada and Mexico would shift to other OECD countries, thereby requiring 

costs associated with the exception report and the movement/tracking document, as required by 

Subpart H. In addition, this bounding assessment applies the high-end SLAB export data for 

Mexico, as presented by the International Trade Commission (ITC)26. This bounding analysis is 

presented in Section 4.4. A certificate of recovery is not required under 40 CFR 262 Subpart E 

or the current Subpart H. However, it is included in the OECD rule, and costs associated with 

the new requirements are included in the analysis in Section 4.4. 

 3.4.1 Hourly Burden Assumptions 

In estimating the hourly burden for each of the activities, we referred to the Generator 

Standards Information Collection Request27, Exports/Imports ICR28, and the Economic Impact 

Analysis (EIA) of the OECD Decision29. The Generator Standards ICR (2004 ICR) examines 

the annual hour and cost burden to exporters, importers, and EPA in carrying out information 

collection activities associated with the export and import of hazardous wastes (40 CFR part 262, 

Subparts E and F). The Exports/Imports ICR and the Economic Impact Analysis of the OECD 

Decision examine the incremental annual hour and cost burden to exporters, importers, and EPA 

in carrying out information collection activities associated with the export and import of 

hazardous wastes destined for recovery among OECD Countries (40 CFR part 262, Subpart H). 

We reviewed these ICRs and the EIA and incorporated all applicable hourly burden estimates 

into the cost estimate. We then addressed additional data needs through best judgment or 

consultations. 

26 For 2006, the ITC estimated total (all categories) U.S. SLAB exports to Mexico at 1,086,446 metric tons. 

27 Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 820.09, Hazardous Waste Generator 

Standards. October 2004. 

28 Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 1647.03, Exports from and Imports to the 

United States under the OECD Decision, January 5, 2001. 

29 Economic Impact Analysis of the Codification of the OECD Decision Covering Transfrontier Shipments of Hazardous 

Waste Destined for Recovery, August 26, 1994. 
30 

3.4.2 Universe Assumptions 

In the following paragraphs, we discuss the universe assumptions used in the analysis of 

the final SLAB Rule. 

Number of U.S. Exporters 

 

 The number of U.S. SLAB exporters needs to be estimated because each exporter will be 

required to submit a detailed annual report and any additional reports requested by EPA under 

the final SLAB rule. These costs are estimated on a per exporter basis. 

It is unlikely that the majority of SLAB generators, for example, automotive repair shops 

and battery retailers, would find it economical to export SLABs because of the relatively small 

quantities typically generated by individual entities. Collectors consolidate large quantities of 

batteries, however, thereby allowing for economically viable export shipment sizes. This 

analysis assumes that the collectors are also the entities deciding whether or not to export. 

Specifically, a subset of battery manufacturers, battery wholesalers and scrap dealers are 

assumed to export SLABs. These establishments are termed “exporters.” 

 

 We received Environment Canada (EC) data on SLAB imports that Canada received 

from the U.S. in multiple years, and identified the number of U.S. exporters that exported SLABs 

to Canada during that period, the average metric tons per notice, and the total metric tons 

exported to Canada in 2006 (see Attachment E). In addition, data from the International Trade 

Commission (ITC) on the metric tons of SLABs exported from the U.S. over several years were 

obtained. The ITC data reported the total SLAB exports from the U.S. to each country but did 

not provide information on the number of notices, entities, or shipments. The total tonnage of 

SLABs exported to Mexico in 2006 was obtained from the Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y 

Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT). The total number of entities exporting SLABs to Canada 

and Mexico was extrapolated by applying a ratio of the average annual number of entities to the 

average annual metric tons obtained from the Canadian import data to the total exports to Canada 

and Mexico obtained from a combination of the SEMARNAT and Environment Canada data. 

The estimated annual total number of SLAB exporting entities is 640 (calculation: 

0.002418*.264,333) [see Attachment E]. 

 Our review of the Environment Canada data indicate that there were two hundred and 

thirty seven (237) unique entities that shipped SLABs from the U.S. to Canada in the five year 

period from 2002 to 2006. Many of these entities were not identified as shipping SLABs to 

Canada in each of the five years. The average annual number of unique exporting entities was 

133. The ratio of 237 to 133 was used to extrapolate an estimated number of entities that would 

be required to read the revised rule. The number of entities used to estimate the cost impact of 

reading the rule is 1,141 (calculation: 640 SLAB exporting entities in any given year * (237/133) 

= 1,141 total unique entities). 

Number of Export Shipments 

In this analysis we assume that each shipment contains 16.4 metric tons of SLABs 

(equivalent to an 18-ton truck). This analysis uses the total weight of all SLAB exports to 
31 

Canada and Mexico from 2006 (264,333 metric tons) from a combination of SEMARNAT and 

EC data (see Appendix E). The estimated number of shipments, based on this assumption, is 

16,154 (calculation: 264,333 metric tons of SLAB export in 2006 divided by 16.36 metric tons of 

slab/shipment = 16,154 shipments). Please note that this assumption may understate the size of 

some container shipments and therefore may overstate costs for these shipments. However, 

some shipments may also be less than 16.4 metric tons. 

Number of U.S. Transporters 

Data on the number of U.S. transporters involved in the export of SLABs destined for 

recovery in Canada and Mexico are not available. For purposes of our analysis we have assumed 

that each transporter services two exporters. 

Number of Notices 

Based on the EC data for Canadian imports of SLABs from the U.S. covering the years 

2002 through 2006, we calculated that, on average each notice contained 396 metric tons of 

SLABs (see Attachment E). Using the total SLAB export weight in 2006 to Canada and Mexico 

(264,333 metric tons), we estimate that there were 668 notices during the year 2006 (calculation: 

264,333 metric tons of SLAB export in 2006 divided by 395.9 metric tons of slab/notice = 668 notices). 

3.5 Methodology used in Assessing Import Consent Documentation 

Requirements

 In assessing the cost impacts of the final import consent documentation requirements, the 

agency estimated the incremental costs to U.S. receivers to complete the activities required by 

the rule. The cost model estimates the costs for each activity based on the following inputs: 

• Hourly burden 

• Hourly labor rates 

• Number of affected shipments 

 After estimating the costs for each activity, the cost model adds up the costs across all 

activities to derive the net total costs to U.S. receivers and EPA. 

 3.5.1 Hourly Burden Assumptions 

 The agency estimated that it would take a total of 25 additional minutes per shipment. 

Once the shipment reaches the destination facility it is assumed that the destination facility will 

require a total of 25 minutes to locate the consent document for each shipment (10 minutes), 

match the consent document to the manifest (10 minutes), and make a copy of the document (5 

minutes). This estimate takes into consideration that the destination facility is currently required 

to mail a copy of the completed manifest to EPA; therefore, no mailing costs are included in this 

estimate of the incremental costs. 

 

3.5.2 Universe Assumptions 
32 

In the following paragraphs, we discuss the universe assumptions used in the analysis of 

the import consent documentation requirements. 

Number of Shipments 

 From September 2006 through January 2008, a 17 month period, OECA reported the 

receipt of 3,841 import manifests. Based on an average of 226 manifests per month (3,841 

manifests/17 months) it was estimated that there is an average of 2,712 import shipments 

requiring manifests per year. 

Number of U.S. Receivers 

 

 Based on OECD import assumptions discussed in section 3.3.2, the ratio of shipments to 

receivers was 20 to 1 (300 shipments/15 receivers). This ratio was used to estimate the number 

of receivers that will be impacted by the import consent documentation requirements. Therefore, 

it is estimated that 136 receivers (2,712 shipments/20 shipments per receiver) will be required to 

submit copies of the import consent documentation to EPA along with the manifest. The number 

of receivers was used to determine the impacts to small entities in section 5.3. 
33 

4. COSTS AND BENEFITS

This chapter examines the costs and benefits of the final rules. Section 4.1 examines the 

cost impacts of the OECD Rule. Section 4.2 examines the cost impacts of the SLAB rule. 

Section 4.3 examines the cost impacts of the import consent documentation requirements. 

Section 4.4 discusses the qualitative benefits of the combined rules. Section 4.5 discusses 

limitations of the analysis. 

4.1 Analysis of Costs to Affected Entities from the Final OECD Rule

Using the analytical data and assumptions discussed in Chapter 3 of this document, 

EPA's cost model estimated the costs and cost savings to U.S. exporters, U.S. importers, U.S. 

transporters, and EPA under the final rule. The results of the cost model are presented in 

Attachment A, and discussed in the following subsections. 

4.1.1 Reading the Rule

The Agency estimates that at total of 42 entities (i.e., six U.S. exporters, 15 U.S. 

importers, and 21 U.S. transporters) will read the rule in order to understand and comply with the 

new requirements. We also estimate that each entity will experience a cost of $114.14 in reading 

the rule (see Exhibit A-1). Thus, collectively, U.S. exporters, U.S. importers, and U.S. 

transporters may experience a one-time cost of approximately $4,794 (i.e., 42 entities x 

$114.14/entity) for this activity. 

4.1.2 Exemption for Wastes Destined for Laboratory Analysis

Under the final rule, shipments of amber-list wastes are exempt from the amber control 

procedure if they are explicitly destined for laboratory analysis to assess their physical/chemical 

characteristics or to determine their suitability for recovery operations. As a result, the affected 

entities will experience cost savings, since they will no longer need to comply with the 

information collection requirements under the existing regulations. 

In the following paragraphs, EPA discusses the cost savings associated with the 

exemption for wastes destined for laboratory analysis. (See Exhibit A-2.) 

U.S. Exporters

We estimate that, each year, ten samples of hazardous waste are exported to OECD 

Countries for laboratory analysis. EPA also estimates that, under the rule, U.S. exporters will 

experience a cost savings of $206.02 per shipment for no longer complying with notification, 

movement/tracking document, and recordkeeping requirements. Thus, EPA estimates that U.S. 

exporters will experience a cost savings of $2,060 per year (i.e., 10 shipments/year x 

$206.02/shipment) under the final rule. 
34 

U.S. Importers

We estimate that, each year, four samples of hazardous waste are imported from OECD 

Countries for laboratory analysis. Under the rule U.S. importers are expected to experience an 

estimated cost savings of $24.83 per shipment for no longer complying with notification and 

movement/tracking document requirements. Thus, we estimate that U.S. importers will 

experience a cost savings of $99 per year (i.e., 4 shipments/year x $24.83/shipment) under the 

final rule. 

U.S. Transporters

We estimate that, each year, a total of 14 samples of hazardous waste are transported to 

or from OECD Countries for laboratory analysis (i.e., ten export and four import shipments). 

Under the final rule, U.S. transporters will experience a cost savings of $4.68 per shipment for no 

longer complying with movement/tracking document requirements. Thus, U.S. transporters may 

experience estimated cost savings of $66 per year (i.e., 14 shipments/year x $4.68/shipment) 

under the rule. 

EPA

We estimate that, each year, ten samples of hazardous waste are exported to OECD 

Countries for laboratory analysis. Under the rule, the Agency is expected to experience a cost 

savings of $91.09 per shipment for no longer conducting activities associated with the 

notification and movement/tracking document requirements. Thus, the Agency will experience 

cost savings of $911 per year (i.e., 10 shipments/year x $91.09shipment). 

Each year and estimated four samples of hazardous waste are imported from OECD 

Countries for laboratory analysis. Under the rule, the Agency is expected to experience a cost 

savings of $189.02 per shipment for no longer conducting activities associated with the 

notification and movement/tracking document requirements. Thus, the Agency is expected to 

experience a cost savings of $756 per year (i.e., 4 shipments/year x $189.02/shipment). 

Based on the above, we estimate that the Agency will experience a total cost savings of 

$1,667 per year (i.e., $911 + $756) under the final rule. 

4.1.3 Certificate of Recovery

Under the rule, recovery facilities must provide a certificate of recovery to the exporter 

and to the competent authorities of the countries of export and import. This certificate of 

recovery must be provided as soon as possible, but no later than 30 days after the completion of 

recovery and no later than one calendar year following receipt of waste. 

In the following paragraphs, we discuss the costs associated with the certificate of 

recovery. (See Exhibit A-3.) 
35 

U.S. Exporters

We estimate that, each year, 479 shipments of hazardous wastes are exported to OECD 

Countries for recovery operations. Under the rule, U.S. exporters will need to maintain a 

certificate of recovery for each export shipment. At a cost of $3.39 per shipment, U.S. exporters 

will experience an incremental cost of $1,621 per year (i.e., 479 shipments/year x 

$3.39/shipment). 

U.S. Importers

We estimate that, each year, 296 shipments of hazardous wastes are imported from 

OECD Countries for recovery operations. Under the final rule, U.S. importers will need to 

prepare and provide a certificate of recovery to the exporter, EPA, and the competent authority 

of the country of export for each import shipment. At a cost of $25.15 per shipment, U.S. 

importers will experience an incremental cost of $7,444 per year (i.e., 296 shipments/year x 

$25.15/shipment). 

EPA

EPA estimates that, each year, a total of 775 shipments of hazardous wastes are exported 

from the U.S. or imported to the U.S. for recovery operations (i.e., 479 export and 296 import 

shipments). Under the rule the Agency will need to maintain a certificate of recovery for each 

shipment. At a cost of $2.98 per shipment, EPA is expected to experience a total incremental 

cost of $2,310 per year (i.e., 775 shipments/year x $2.98/shipment). 

4.1.4 Exchange and Accumulation Recovery Operations

Shipments of hazardous wastes destined for R12/R13 recovery operations will need to 

comply with additional information collection requirements under the final rule. These 

requirements, as well as the associated costs, are discussed in the following paragraphs. (See 

Exhibit A-4.) 

U.S. Exporters

We estimate that, each year, 57 shipments of hazardous wastes are exported to OECD 

Countries for R12/R13 recovery operations. Under the final rule, U.S. exporters will need to 

indicate in the notification paper the recovery facility or facilities where subsequent R1-R11 

recovery will take place. At a cost of $1.29 per shipment, U.S. exporters are estimated to 

experience an incremental aggregate cost of $74 per year (i.e., 57 shipments/year x 

$1.29/shipment), under the final rule. 

U.S. Importers

Each year, an estimated 36 shipments of hazardous wastes are imported from OECD 

Countries for R12/R13 recovery operations. Under the final rule, U.S. importers will need to: 

sign the movement/tracking document; provide a copy to the exporter, EPA, and the competent 

authority of the country of export; maintain a copy of the signed movement/tracking document; 
36 

prepare and provide a certificate of recovery to the exporter, EPA and the competent authority of 

the country of export; obtain a certificate of recovery from the R1-R11 recovery facility; and 

forward the certificate of recovery from the R1-R11 recovery facility to EPA and the competent 

authority of the country of export. At a cost of $53.49 per shipment, U.S. importers are 

estimated to experience an aggregate incremental cost of $1,926 per year (i.e., 36 shipments/year 

x $53.49/shipment) under the rule. 

EPA

The Agency estimates that, each year, 57 shipments of hazardous wastes are exported to 

OECD Countries for R12/R13 recovery operations. Under the rule, EPA will need to maintain a 

certificate of recovery for each export shipment. At a cost of $2.98 per shipment, EPA is 

estimated to experience an aggregate incremental cost of $170 per year (i.e., 57 shipments/year x 

$2.98/shipment) under the final rule. 

4.1.5 Return of Wastes

Under the final rule, when a shipment of hazardous wastes to which concerned countries 

have given consent, cannot be completed in accordance with the terms of the contract, and 

alternative arrangements cannot be made to recover these wastes in an environmentally sound 

manner in the U.S., the U.S. importer must inform EPA in writing of the need to return the 

shipment. In addition, EPA must inform the competent authorities of the countries of export and 

transit the reason for returning the waste. 

Based on our best judgment, we estimate that, each year, one shipment of waste will be 

returned from a country of import or transit to the U.S. (See Exhibit A-5.) Under the rule, EPA 

will need to maintain a notification of the return of the waste for each export shipment. At a cost 

of $2.98 per shipment, the Agency is estimated to experience an aggregate incremental cost of $3 

per year (i.e., 1 shipments/year x $2.98/shipment). 

Based on our best judgment, we also estimate that, each year, one shipment of waste will 

be returned to a country of export. (See Exhibit A-5.) Under the final rule, the U.S. importer 

must inform EPA of the need to return the shipment and EPA needs to inform the competent 

authorities of the countries of export and transit about the return of the wastes. At a cost of 

$21.84 and $25.79 per shipment, the importer and EPA, respectively, are estimated to experience 

an aggregate incremental cost of $48 per year (i.e., one shipment/year x $21.84 per shipment 

plus one shipment/year x $25.79 per shipment). 

Based on the above, the Agency is estimated to experience an incremental cost of $51 per 

year under the final rule. 

4.1.6 Summary of Cost to Affected Entities under the Final OECD Rule

Exhibit 6 summarizes the incremental costs of the final rule during the first year of 

implementation. These costs include the costs associated with: (1) reading the rule, (2) the 

exemption for wastes destined for laboratory analysis, (3) the certificate of recovery, (4) the new 

requirements applicable to R12/R13 recovery operations, and (5) return of wastes. As shown in 
37 

the exhibit, the total incremental cost is estimated to be $14,494 during the first year. 

Exhibits 7 and 8 summarize the incremental annual costs of the final rule after the first 

year of implementation for export and import shipments, respectively. These costs do not 

include the costs associated with reading the rule. As shown in Exhibit 7, the total incremental 

annual cost for export shipments is estimated to be $278. As shown in Exhibit 8, the total 

incremental annual cost for import shipments is estimated to be $9,404. Thus, the total 

incremental annual cost under the rule is estimated to be $9,682 (i.e., $278 + $9,404). The total 

incremental annual cost after the first year of implementation is expected to be $8,840 for the 

regulated community and $842 for EPA. 
Exhibit 6 

Exports and Imports of Hazardous Wastes Destined for Recovery: 

Incremental Costs to Affected Entities during the First Year of Rule Implementation a

Regulatory Change U.S. Exporter U.S. Importer U.S. Transporter EPA 

Reading the Regulations c $685 $1,712 $2,397 $0 Exemption for Wastes Destined for Laboratory Analysis ($2,060) ($99) ($66) ($1,667Certificate of Recovery $1,621 $7,444 $0 $2,306 Exchange and Accumulation Recovery Operations $74 $1,926 $0 $170 Return of Wastes $0 $22 $0 $29 

Total $320 $11,005 $2,331 $838 

Costs presented in 2007 dollars. a Exhibit contains rounding error. b Numbers in parentheses indicate cost savings rather than costs. c Activity to be conducted in the first year of rule implementation only.

Exhibit 7 

Exports to OECD Countries from the U.S.: 

Incremental Annual Costs to Affected Entities under the Rule a, b

Regulatory Change U.S. Exporter U.S. Transporter EPA 

Exemption for Wastes Destined for Laboratory Analysis ($2,060) ($47) ($910) Certificate of Recovery $1,621 $0 $1,427 Exchange and Accumulation Recovery Operations $74 $0 $170 Return of Wastes $0 $0 $3 

Total ($365) ($47) $690 

Costs presented in 2007 dollars. a Exhibit contains rounding error. b Numbers in parentheses indicate cost savings rather than costs. 

38 
39 

Exhibit 8 

Imports from OECD Countries to the U.S.: 

Incremental Annual Costs to Affected Entities under the Rule a, b

Regulatory Change U.S. Importer U.S. Transporter EPA 

Exemption for Wastes Destined for Laboratory Analysis ($99) ($19) ($756) Certificate of Recovery $7,444 $0 $882 Exchange and Accumulation Recovery Operations $1,926 $0 $0 Return of Wastes $22 $0 $26 

Total $9,293 ($19) $152 

Costs presented in 2007 dollars. a Exhibit contains rounding error. b Numbers in parentheses indicate cost savings rather than costs. 
40 

 

4.2 Analysis of Costs to Affected Entities from the Final SLAB Rule 

Using the analytical data and assumptions discussed in Chapter 3 of this document, 

EPA's cost model estimated the costs and cost savings to U.S. exporters, U.S. transporters, and 

EPA under the final rule. Since the SLAB Rule applies only to the export of SLABs, U.S. 

importers will not experience any costs or cost savings from the rule. The results of the cost 

model are presented in Attachment B, and discussed in the following subsections. 

This analysis of costs assumes that all SLABs are exported to Canada and Mexico based 

on the fact that the vast majority of SLABs are exported to these two countries. Therefore, the 

cost impacts associated with requirements that apply only to exports to OECD countries (except 

Canada and Mexico) are not evaluated in this analysis. An alternative option analysis that 

evaluates these additional requirements found in Subpart H is presented in Section 4.4. 

4.2.1 Reading the Rule

The Agency estimates that a total of 1,712 entities (i.e., 1,141 U.S. exporters and 571 

U.S. transporters) will need to read the rule in order to understand and comply with the new 

requirements. We also estimate that each entity will experience a cost of $260.64 in reading the 

rule (see Exhibit B-1). Thus, collectively, U.S. exporters and U.S. transporters may experience a 

one-time cost of approximately $446,207 (i.e., 1,712 entities x $260.64/entity) for this activity.30

4.2.2 Notification 

 Under the final rule, exporters must submit a notification to EPA indicating their intent to 

export SLABs. EPA then must process the notification and seek consent from the countries of 

imports and transit. EPA will undertake the following tasks to complete the notification process 

and issue an Acknowledgment of Consent: 

• Receive and process the notification from the U.S. exporter 

• Prepare and transmit a confirmation of receipt to the U.S. exporter 

• Forward the notification to the competent authorities of the countries of import and 

transit. 

• Receive and process consent or objection from the competent authorities of the countries 

of import and transit. 

• Forward written Acknowledgement of Consent or objection to U.S. exporter. 

In the following paragraphs, we discuss the costs associated with the notification process. 

U.S. Exporters 

 We estimate that U.S. exporters will prepare and submit a total of 668 notices per year to 

EPA for the export of SLABs (See Section 3.4.2 – Number of Notices)31. We also estimate that 

30 Contains rounding error, actual number of transporters is assumed to be half the number of exporters or 570.5. 31 The number of notices is derived from an average of the metric tons per notice for SLABs going to Canada over 

the 2002 to 2006 period (396), divided into the single year total 2006 quantity (264,333 MT) going to Mexico plus 

Canada (See Attachment E). This approach provides a more refined estimate of metric tons per notice while 

avoiding trend distortions that would occur through the averaging of annual quantity data over the same period. 

Furthermore, while we believe that this approach more accurately captures current and near future impacts, we 
41 

 

each notice will cost $97.49 to prepare and submit (see Exhibit B-2). Thus, EPA estimates that 

U.S. exporters will experience an annual cost of $65,120 (i.e., 668 notices/year x $97.49/notice) 

under the final rule. 

EPA 

We estimate that EPA will receive 668 notices per year for the export of SLABs. It is 

estimated that EPA will incur $83.65 to process each notice (see Exhibit B-2). It is assumed that 

SLABs do not travel through transit countries since virtually all shipments of SLABs go directly 

to Canada or Mexico. Therefore, it is assumed that EPA will only have to notify the receiving 

country and no transit countries. Based on the above, we estimate that the Agency will 

experience an annual cost of $55,880 (i.e., $668 notices/year x $83.65/notice) under the final 

rule. 

4.2.3 Renotification 

When the conditions specified under the original notification change, the U.S. exporter 

must provide EPA with a renotification of the change. Also, where a shipment can not be 

delivered for any reason, the export must renotify EPA of a change in the conditions and obtain a 

new EPA Acknowledgement of Consent. Based on the 2004 ICR, it is estimated that only a 

fraction of exporters will be subject to this requirement. The 2004 ICR assumed that 18 

renotifications would be required out of a total of 280 original notices. In the following 

paragraphs, we discuss the costs associated with the renotification requirements. 

U.S. Exporters 

We estimate that U.S. exporters will prepare and submit a total of 43 renotifications per 

year to EPA for the export of SLABs (668 notices/year * (18/280)). We also estimate that each 

renotice will cost $59.59 to prepare and submit (see Exhibit B-3). Thus, EPA estimates that U.S. 

exporters will experience an annual cost of $2,562 (i.e., 43 renotices/year x $59.59/notice) under 

the final rule. 

EPA 

We estimate that EPA will receive 43 renotices per year for the export of SLABs. It is 

estimated that EPA will incur $57.99 to process each notice (see Exhibit B-3). Based on the 

above, we estimate that the Agency will experience an annual cost of $2,493 (i.e., 43 

renotices/year x $57.99/notice) under the final rule. 

4.2.4 Annual Report

Under the final rule, U.S. exporters must submit detailed annual reports on SLAB exports 

to EPA. The following paragraphs discuss the estimated costs associated with the annual report. 

 

recognize that metals market conditions can shift dramatically over short periods of time and such volatility may be 

further exacerbated by uncertain energy prices. 
42 

U.S. Exporters 

We estimate that 640 U.S. exporters of SLABs will be required to prepare and submit an 

annual report under the final rule. Based on the 2004 ICR, 27 of these exporters are assumed to 

be small exporters and the remaining 613 are assumed to be large exporters. The 2004 ICR 

assumed that 12 out of 280 entities were small and the remaining 268 are large entities. We 

estimate that the cost to prepare and submit an annual report is $112.69 for each small exporter 

and $187.55 for each large exporter (see Exhibit B-4). Thus, EPA estimates that U.S. exporters 

will experience an annual cost of $118,011 (i.e., 27 small exporters x $112.69/annual report + 

613 large exporters x $187.55/annual report) to submit the annual report under the final rule. 

 

EPA 

We estimate that EPA will receive 640 annual reports per year. It is estimated that EPA 

will incur $20.01 to receive and record each annual report (see Exhibit B-4). Thus, we estimate 

that the Agency will experience an annual cost of $12,808 (i.e., 640 annual reports/year x 

$20.01/report) under the final rule. 

4.2.5 Additional Report 

 Under the final rule, upon request by EPA, an exporter must submit to EPA any 

additional information which a receiving country requests in order to respond to a notification. 

Based on the 2004 ICR, it is assumed that only a fraction of U.S. exporters will be subject to this 

requirement. The 2004 ICR assumed that one out of 280 entities would be required to submit an 

additional report. In the following paragraphs, we discuss the estimated costs associated with the 

additional report. 

U.S. Exporters 

 We estimate that 2 entities (640 entities * (1/280)) will respond to requests for additional 

reports and submit the report to EPA. We also estimate that each entity will incur $53.52 to 

prepare and submit the additional report (see Exhibit B-5). Thus, EPA estimates that U.S. 

exporters will experience an annual cost of $107 (i.e., 2 requests/year x $53.52/request) under the 

final rule. 

EPA 

 We estimate that EPA will receive requests for additional information from 2 entities per 

year. It is estimated that EPA will incur $24.76 to receive the request, forward it on to the 

exporter, receive and process the additional information, and finally forward the additional report 

to the requesting country (see Exhibit B-5). Therefore, it is estimated that the Agency will 

experience an annual cost of $50 (i.e., 2 requests/year x $24.76/request) under the final rule. 

4.2.6 Provide Acknowledgment of Consent to Transporter 

 Under the final rule, the exporter is required to provide a copy of the EPA 

Acknowledgment of Consent for each shipment to the transporter transporting the shipment for 

export. EPA will not experience any costs associated with this requirement. 

 
43 

U.S. Exporters 

The cost to find the Acknowledgment of Consent and provide a copy to the transporter is 

estimated to be $8.78 per shipment (see Exhibit B-6). Thus, EPA estimates that U.S. exporters 

will experience an annual cost of $141,898 (i.e., 16,154 shipments/year x $8.78/shipment) to 

comply with this requirement of the final rule. 

4.2.7 Recordkeeping 

 Under the final rule, U.S. exporters must keep a copy of each notification, EPA 

Acknowledgement of Consent, each confirmation of delivery, and each annual report for a 

period of at least 3 years. 

U.S. Exporters 

 The annual cost to comply with the recordkeeping requirements is estimated to be $8.46 

per entity (see Exhibit B-7). Thus, EPA estimates that U.S. exporters will experience an annual 

cost of $5,416 (i.e., 640 exporters x $8.46/exporter) for recordkeeping under the final rule. 

4.2.8 Summary of Cost to Affected Entities under the Final SLAB Rule

 Exhibit 9 summarizes the incremental costs of the rule during the first year of 

implementation. These costs include the costs associated with: (1) reading the rule, (2) 

notification, (3) renotification, (4) annual reporting, (5) additional reporting, (6) providing the 

Acknowledgement of Consent to the transporter, and (7) recordkeeping. As shown in the 

exhibit, the total incremental cost is estimated to be $850,553 during the first year. 

Exhibit 10 summarizes the incremental annual costs of the final rule after the first year of 

implementation. These costs do not include the costs associated with reading the rule. As shown 

in the exhibit, the total incremental annual cost for export shipments is estimated to be $404,346. 

 The total incremental annual cost after the first year of implementation is expected to be 

$333,114 for the regulated community and $71,232 for EPA. 
44 

Exhibit 9 

Exports of SLABs: 

Incremental Costs to Affected Entities during the First Year of Rule Implementation a

Regulatory Change U.S. Exporter U.S. Transporter EPA Total 

Reading the Regulations b $297,385 $148,823 $0 $446,207 

Notification $65,120 $0 $55,880 $121,000 

Renotification $2,562 $0 $2,493 $5,056 

Annual Report $118,011 $0 $12,808 $130,820 

Additional Report $107 $0 $50 $157 

Provide Acknowledgement of Consent to Transporter $141,898 $0 $0 $141,898 

Recordkeeping $5,416 $0 $0 $5,416 

Total $630,499 $148,823 $71,232 $850,553 

Costs presented in 2007 dollars. a Exhibit contains rounding error. b

 Activity to be conducted in the first year of rule implementation only.

Exhibit 10 

Exports of SLABs: 

Incremental Annual Costs to Affected Entities Following the First Year of Implementationa

Regulatory Change U.S. Exporter U.S. Transporter EPA Total 

Notification $65,120 $0 $55,880 $121,000 

Renotification $2,562 $0 $2,493 $5,056 

Annual Report $118,011 $0 $12,808 $130,820 

Additional Report $107 $0 $50 $157 

Provide Acknowledgement of Consent to Transporter $141,898 $0 $0 $141,898 

Recordkeeping $5,416 $0 $0 $5,416 

Total $333,114 $0 $71,232 $404,346 

Costs presented in 2007 dollars. 

a

 Exhibit contains rounding error.

 

4.3 Analysis of Costs to Affected Entities from Final Import Consent 

Documentation Provision 

Using the analytical data and assumptions discussed in Chapter 3 of this document, 

EPA's cost model estimated the costs and cost savings to U.S. receivers and EPA under the 

import consent documentation provision of the final rule. The results of the cost model are 

presented in Attachment C, and discussed in the following subsections. 

4.3.1 U.S. Receiving Facility Submission to EPA 

Under the final import consent documentation provision, U.S. receivers will match the 

RCRA manifest to the relevant import notice consent documentation and will be required to 

submit both the import consent documentation with manifest submission to EPA within 30 days. 

 The following paragraphs summarize the costs to U.S. importers and EPA under the final rule. 
45 

U.S. Importers 

EPA estimates that each importer will incur $14.53 to locate the appropriate consent 

documentation, match it to the relevant manifest, and submit a copy to EPA (see Exhibit C-1). 

Thus, U.S. receivers are expected to experience an annual cost of $39,429 (i.e., 2,712 shipments 

x $14.53/shipment) under the final rule. 

EPA 

We estimate that EPA will incur $2.47 to receive and file each consent document (see 

Exhibit C-1). Thus, the Agency is expected to experience an annual cost of $6,699 (i.e., 2,712 

shipments x $2.47/shipment) under the final rule. 

4.3.2 Summary of Costs to Affected Entities under the Final Import Consent 

Documentation Provision 

Exhibit 11 summarizes the incremental annual costs of the import consent documentation 

provision of the final rule. These costs include: (1) matching the import consent documentation 

to the manifest, and (2) submitting the documentation to EPA with manifest submission. As 

shown in the exhibit, the total incremental annual cost for export shipments is estimated to be 

$46,127. The total incremental annual cost is expected to be $39,429 for the regulated 

community and $6,699 for EPA. 

Exhibit 11 

Import Consent Documentation: 

Incremental Annual Costs to Affected Entities under the Final Rule a

Regulatory Change U.S. Importer U.S. Transporter EPA Total 

Receiving Facility Submission to EPA $39,429 $0 $6,699 $46,127 

Costs presented in 2007 dollars. 

a

 Exhibit contains rounding error.

4.4 Alternative Cost Bounding Analysis for SLABs 

 For contextual purposes we developed a worst case cost bounding analysis assuming that 

all SLABs currently exported to Canada and Mexico are diverted to other OECD Countries, or, 

alternatively, if Canada and Mexico exports were to comply with 40 CFR 262 Subpart H. In 

addition, this bounding assessment applies the high-end SLAB export data for Mexico, as 

developed by the International Trade Commission (ITC)32 33. While this high-end cost scenario 

 

32 For 2006, the ITC estimated total (all categories) U.S. SLAB exports to Mexico at 1,086,446 metric tons vs. 

198,775 metric tons for 2006 using the SEMARNAT (Mexican import) data. 

33 In developing our SLAB impact estimates for the final rule, as presented in Section 4.2, we determined that 

import data (e.g., SEMARNAT) are generally more reliable than data from exporting countries (e.g., ITC) because 

importing countries use import information for tariff collection purposes. Thus, we have assumed that Mexican 

government officials will be motivated to record import data more accurately for the purposes of collecting tariffs. 

Further, the Mexican import statistics track precisely the SLAB waste stream that would be controlled under the 
46 

 

is not likely to occur under any actual current or future conditions, we have developed this 

analysis to demonstrate the absolute high-end cost impacts possible under a worst case scenario. 

Costs to comply with the additional requirements of 40 CFR 262 Subpart H, as described in this 

section are presented below. 

Using the analytical data and assumptions discussed in Chapter 3, and substituting the 

ITC data for the Mexican import data, our impacts model estimated the costs and cost savings to 

U.S. exporters, U.S. transporters, and EPA assuming all SLABs were exported to OECD 

countries other than Canada and Mexico or, alternatively, if Canada and Mexico exports were to 

comply with 40 CFR 262 Subpart H. Since the SLAB Rule applies only to the export of SLABs, 

U.S. Importers will not experience any costs or cost savings from the rule. The results of the 

cost model are presented in Attachment D, and discussed in the following subsections. 

4.4.1 Movement/Tracking Document 

 Under Subpart H Section 262.84, each time a U.S. Exporter ships SLABs to an OECD 

member country other than Canada and Mexico, the exporter is required to complete and submit 

to the carrier a movement/tracking document. No incremental costs are expected for 

transporters. In the following paragraphs, EPA discusses the costs associated with the 

movement/tracking document requirements. 

 U.S. Exporters

 It is assumed that all SLABs are currently transported with shipping papers. The 1994 

OECD EIA estimated that the incremental cost between a manifest and a movement/tracking 

document would be equivalent to 15 minutes of clerical labor. Based on the 1994 OECD EIA, it 

is assumed that the incremental cost to complete the additional information required by a 

movement/tracking document as opposed to shipping papers is equivalent to 20 minutes of 

technical labor. 

 It is estimated that U.S. exporters will experience an incremental cost of $21.57 per 

shipment to prepare a movement/tracking document instead of shipping papers (see Exhibit D1). Thus, EPA estimates that U.S. exporters will experience an annual cost of $1,518,549 

 EPA 

 

 We estimate that the Agency will incur $7.44 to receive and maintain each tracking 

document (see Exhibit D-1). Thus, the Agency is expected to experience a total incremental cost 

of $523,783 per year (i.e., 70,401 shipments x $7.44/shipment) under the final rule. 

4.4.2 Exception Report 

 Under Subpart H Section 262.87(b), an exporter must file an exception report if they do 

final rule, while the ITC data may capture other battery shipments and therefore overestimate the waste stream of 

concern. 
47 

not receive the necessary documentation required by the rule to confirm transfer of the waste and 

receipt by the recovery facility within the allotted period of time, or if the waste is returned to the 

U.S. Assumptions regarding the cost to prepare, submit and maintain the exception reports and 

the number of exception reports required was obtained from ICR 801 “Modifications of the 

Hazardous Waste Manifest System – Proposed Rule.” Based on this ICR, it is estimated that 0.5 

percent of all shipments (352) will require an exception report. No incremental costs are 

expected for transporters. In the following paragraphs, we discus the costs associated with the 

movement/tracking document requirements. 

U.S. Exporters 

 It is estimated that the exporter will incur $44.70 to submit and maintain each exception 

report (see Exhibit D-2). Thus, U.S. exporters are expected to incur $15,734 per year (i.e., 

$44.70/shipment x 352 shipments) to file exception reports under the final rule. 

EPA 

 The Agency is estimated to incur $7.44 to receive and maintain each exception report 

(see Exhibit D-2). Therefore, EPA is expected to experience an incremental cost of $2,619 per 

year (i.e., $7.44/shipment x 352 shipments) under the final rule. 

4.4.3 Certificate of Recovery 

 Under the final rule, recovery facilities must provide a certificate of recovery to the 

exporter and to the competent authorities of the countries of export and import. This certificate 

of recovery must be provided as soon as possible, but no later than 30 days after the completion 

of recovery and no later than one calendar year following receipt of waste. This analysis uses the 

same assumptions used to estimate these costs for the OECD rule in Section 4.1.3. 

 U.S. Exporters

 U.S. exporters are estimated to incur $3.39 in costs per shipment to receive and maintain 

the certificate of recovery provided by the recovery facility (see Exhibit D-3). Thus, EPA 

estimates that U.S. exporters will experience an annual cost of $238,397 ($3.39/shipment x 

70,401 shipments) under the final rule. 

 It is estimated that U.S. exporters will experience an incremental cost of $21.57 per 

shipment to prepare a movement/tracking document instead of shipping papers (see Exhibit D1). Thus, EPA estimates that U.S. exporters will experience an annual cost of $1,518,549. 

 EPA 

 

 We estimate that the Agency will incur $2.98 per shipment to receive and maintain the 

certificate of recovery provided by the recovery facility (see Exhibit D-3). Thus, the Agency is 

expected to experience a total incremental cost of $209,513 per year (i.e., $2.98/shipment x 

70,401 shipments) under the final rule. 

4.4.4 Summary of Costs to Affected Entities Under the Alternative Cost Bounding 

Analysis for SLABs 
48 

Exhibit 12 summarizes the incremental costs under the alternative high-end cost 

assumption for SLABs. These costs include the costs associated with: (1) reading the rule, (2) 

notification, (3) renotification, (4) annual reporting, (5) additional reporting, (6) recordkeeping, 

(7) the movement/tracking document, (8) the exception report, and (9) the certificate of recovery. 

As shown in the exhibit, the total incremental cost is estimated to be $5,591,410 during the first 

year. 

Exhibit 13 summarizes the incremental annual costs of this high-end alternative scenario 

after the first year of rule implementation. These costs do not include the costs associated with 

reading the rule. As shown in the exhibit, the total incremental costs under this scenario are 

estimated to be $3,651,113 per year, with costs to the regulated community of $2,604,939 and 

costs to EPA of $1,046,174. 

 
49 

Exhibit 12 

Exports of SLABs Under Alternative Analysis: 

Incremental Costs to Affected Entities during the First Year of Rule Implementation a

Regulatory Change U.S. Exporter U.S. Transporter EPA Total 

Reading the Regulations b $1,293,532 $646,766 $0 $1,940,297 

Notification $283,681 $0 $243,431 $527,112 

Renotification $11,143 $0 $10,844 $21,986 

Annual Report $513,421 $0 $55,736 $569,157 

Additional Report $535 $0 $248 $783 

Recordkeeping $23,568 $0 $0 $23,568 

Tracking Document $1,518,550 $0 $523,783 $2,042,333 

Exception Report $15,734C $0 $2,619 $18,353 

Certificate of Recovery $238,307 $0 $209,513 $447,821 

Total $3,898,470 $646,766 $1,046,174 $5,591,410 

Costs presented in 2007 dollars. 

Assumes all SLAB exports currently going to Canada and Mexico meet 40 CFR 262 Subpart H standards, or go to OECD countries other than 

Canada and Mexico. 

a

 Exhibit contains rounding error. 

b

 Activity to be conducted in the first year of rule implementation only. 

C Total impact attributable to; (1) exporter does not received a copy of the movement documentation signed by a transporter stating point of 

departure from the U.S., within 45 days of acceptance of waste, or, (2) within 90 days from the acceptance of waste, the exporter does not 

received written confirmation from the recovery facility that the waste was received. No exception reports assumed due to returns. Available data 

do not indicate any return shipments to the U.S. of previously exported SLABs.

Exhibit 13 

Exports of SLABs Under Alternative Analysis: 

Incremental Annual Costs to Affected Entities under the Final Rulea

Regulatory Change U.S. Exporter U.S. Transporter EPA Total 

Notification $283,681 $0 $243,431 $527,112 

Renotification $11,143 $0 $10,844 $21,986 

Annual Report $513,421 $0 $55,736 $569,157 

Additional Report $535 $0 $248 $783 

Recordkeeping $23,568 $0 $0 $23,568 

Tracking Document $1,518,550 $0 $523,783 $2,042,333 

Exception Report $15,734C $0 $2,619 $18,353 

Certificate of Recovery $238,307 $0 $209,513 $447,821 

Total $2,604,939 $0 $1,046,174 $3,651,113 

Costs presented in 2007 dollars. 

Assumes all SLAB exports currently going to Canada and Mexico meet 40 CFR 262 Subpart H standards, or go to OECD countries other than 

Canada and Mexico. 

a

 Exhibit contains rounding error. 

C Total impact attributable to; (1) exporter does not received a copy of the movement documentation signed by a transporter stating point of 

departure from the U.S., within 45 days of acceptance of waste, or, (2) within 90 days from the acceptance of waste, the exporter does not 

received written confirmation from the recovery facility that the waste was received. No exception reports assumed due to returns. Available 

data do not indicate any return shipments to the U.S. of previously exported SLABs.
50 

4.5 Combined Costs of OECD/SLAB and Import Consent Documentation 

 The separate costs impact analyses for the OECD rule, the SLAB rule, and the import 

consent documentation requirements are combined in Exhibits 14 and 15 These exhibits show 

the aggregate impacts for the regulatory changes and the impacted parties. Exhibit 14 includes 

the cost impacts for the final SLAB rule, as analyzed in section 4.2, and assumes that all SLABs 

are exported to Canada and Mexico. Exhibit 15 presents the aggregate cost impacts including 

the alternative SLAB analysis, as estimated in section 4.4. This “high end” SLAB scenario uses 

the ITC data for Mexican imports and assumes that all SLAB exports currently going to Canada 

and Mexico would meet 40 CFR 262 Subpart H requirements, or go to OECD countries other 

than Canada and Mexico. 

As shown in Exhibit 14, the total first year cost impact of the final OECD/SLAB and 

Import Consent rulemaking is estimated at $0.91 million. Approximately 93.3% of this total is 

attributable to the SLAB portion of the rule, followed by the import consent documentation 

requirements, accounting for 5.1%. The OECD portion of the final rule accounts for 

approximately 1.6% of the total. After the first year, the total incremental cost, omitting the cost 

of reading the rule, is estimated at $0.46 million, including $0.39 million to the regulated 

community and $0.079 million in Federal costs. 

As shown in Exhibit 15 the total cost impacts of the OECD/SLAB, plus Import Consent 

Documentation alternative “high end” analytical scenario is estimated at $5.65 million for the 

first year. Nearly 99% ($5.59 million) of this total is attributable to the SLAB portion, followed 

by the import consent documentation requirements accounting for approximately 0.9% ($0.05 

million). The OECD portion accounts for about 0.2% ($0.01 million) of the total. After the first 

year, the total annual incremental costs are estimated at $3.71 million, including $2.65 million to 

the regulated community and slightly over $1.05 million in Federal costs. 
Exhibit 14 

Incremental Costs to Affected Entities under the OECD/SLAB and Import Consent Documentation

Exporter Importer Transporter EP

Reading the Regulations c $298,069 $1,712 $151,220 

Exemption for Wastes Destined for Laboratory Analysis ($2,060) ($99) ($66) 

Certificate of Recovery $1,621 $7,444 $0 

Exchange and Accumulation Recovery Operations $74 $1,926 $0 

Return of Wastes $0 $22 $0 

Notification $65,120 $0 $0 

Renotification $2,562 $0 $0 

Annual Report $118,011 $0 $0 

Additional Report $107 $0 $0 

Acknowledgment of Consent to Transporter $141,898 $0 $0 

Recordkeeping $5,416 $0 $0 

Sub Total-OECD/SLAB $630,818 $11,005 $151,154 

EPA Import Consent Documentation $0 $39,429 $0 

First Year Grand Total: $630,818 $50,434 $151,154 

Annual Total After First Year: $332,749 $48,721 ($66) 

Costs presented in 2007 dollars. a Exhibit contains rounding error. b Numbers in parentheses indicate cost savings rather than costs. c Activity to be conducted in the first year of rule implementation only. 

51 
52 

Exhibit 15 

OECD/SLAB Rule and Import Consent Documentation Requirements Using Alternative SLAB 

Incremental Costs to Affected Entities during the First Year of Rule Implementation a

Regulatory Change U.S. Exporter U.S. Importer U.S. 

Transporter 

EPA 

Reading the Regulations c $1,294,216 $1,712 $649,163 

Exemption for Wastes Destined for Laboratory 

Analysis 

($2,060) ($99) ($66) ($1,

Certificate of Recovery $239,929 $7,444 $0 $211

Exchange and Accumulation Recovery 

Operations 

$74 $1,926 $0 $

Return of Wastes $0 $22 $0 

Notification $283,681 $0 $0 $243

Renotification $11,143 $0 $0 $10

Annual Report $513,421 $0 $0 $55

Additional Report $535 $0 $0 $

Acknowledgement of Consent to Transporter $618,406 $0 $0 

Recordkeeping $23,568 $0 $0 

Movement/Tracking Document $1,518,550 $0 $0 $523

Exception Report $15,734C $0 $0 $2

Import Consent Documentation $0 $39,429 $0 $6

Total $3,898,790 $50,434 $649,097 $1,053

Costs presented in 2007 dollars. Assumes all SLAB exports currently going to Canada and Mexico meet 40 CFR 262 Subpart H standards, or go to OECD countries other than Caa Exhibit contains rounding error. b Numbers in parentheses indicate cost savings rather than costs. c Activity to be conducted in the first year of rule implementation only. C Total impact attributable to; (1) exporter does not received a copy of the movement documentation signed by a transporter stating point of depa

within 45 days of acceptance of waste, or, (2) within 90 days from the acceptance of waste, the exporter does not received written confirmation frothat the waste was received. No exception reports assumed due to returns. Available data do not indicate any return shipments to the U.S. of previ
53 

 

4.6 Qualitative Benefits of the Final Rule 

The qualitative benefits of this OECD/SLAB and Import Consent Documentation Final 

Rule include: 

• Consistency with OECD Decision C92001)107/FINAL. This rule is necessary to 

implement the OECD Council Decision C92001)107/FINAL, and thereby enables the 

U.S. to meet its legal obligations as an OECD Member country. 

• Increased regulatory efficiency. The OECD portion of the rule implements 

provisions in the OECD Decision that were meant to clarify the scope of control and 

make the control procedures more precise. In addition, the rule implements technical 

corrections and clarifications to the language contained in the existing regulations. 

• Consistent with OECD Council Decision C(2001)107/FINAL. This rule eliminates 

the red control procedure. As a result, former red-list wastes are now subject to the 

amber control procedure, which allows tacit consent. Exporters will be able to ship 

wastes more quickly and store for shorter periods of time. 

• Reduction of risks associated with treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes. 

Implementation of the OECD Decision allows for the continued shipment and 

recovery of hazardous wastes among OECD Countries. This provides additional 

opportunities for wastes amenable to recovery operations to be managed in an 

environmentally sound manner and provides an alternative to disposal. Thus the rule 

encourages environmentally sound recovery of hazardous wastes, thereby reducing 

the risks associated with treatment and disposal. 

• Improved ability to acquire information regarding the quantities of SLABs exported 

from the U.S. and the destination facilities to which the SLABs are exported. 

Currently there is a lack of data to provide the assurance that SLABs exported to 

other countries (with the exception of Canada) are recycled in properly licensed 

facilities in an environmentally sound manner.34 Notification and tracking 

requirements will ensure that all wastes are managed at facilities with appropriate 

technologies and environmental controls. 

• Revising the exception reporting text to specify submission directly to OECA rather 

than to the EPA Administrator should ensure better tracking of returns and improved 

U.S. exporters’ compliance with the exception report requirements in Subpart E and 

Subpart H. 

• Requiring the inclusion of documentation confirming EPA’s consent to import along 

with the receiving facility’s submission of individual import shipment manifests to 

EPA will enable EPA to better match individual import shipments against a specific 

foreign notice to which EPA consented. This will help EPA identify when import 

34 Practices and Options for Environmentally Sound Management of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries within North 

America, December 2007. Prepared by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 
54 

 

shipments coming in under a specific foreign notice had exceeded the specific 

notice’s total allowable number of shipments and maximum allowable import 

quantity. 

4.7 Limitations of Analysis

 The reader should be aware of the following key data limitations associated with 

this analysis: 

• Universe of SLAB Exporters: In calculating the economic impacts associated with the 

SLAB rulemaking, we assumed the number of entities to be 640, as extrapolated from 

data received from Environment Canada and the Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y 

Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT). The Economic Census of 2002 indicated that 

there were about 240 entities exporting SLABs at the time of the survey. 

Furthermore, extrapolated findings based on Environment Canada and ITC data35

would indicate a total of 2,785 entities. There has been phenomenal growth in the 

SLAB export volume in recent years. As a result, it is possible that the universe of 

exporters is greater than our 640 estimate. Accordingly, our current estimate could 

lead to an underestimation of costs. 

• Universe of Waste Transporters. Data on the number of U.S. transporters involved in 

the export and import of hazardous wastes destined for recovery among OECD 

Countries are not generally available. For purposes of our OECD analysis we 

assumed one U.S. transporter for each U.S. exporter and U.S. importer. For our 

SLAB analysis, we assumed that each transporter serviced two exporters. While these 

are reasonable assumptions, the actual number could potentially fluctuate 

significantly. For example, one transporter could be providing service to many small 

exporters, in which case the 1:2 transporter-to-exporter ratio for the SLAB analysis 

could overestimate the number of transporters. Accordingly, this could lead to an 

overestimation of the total cost. 

• Universe of Hazardous Waste Exporters to OECD Countries: The Exports Report 

Database includes universal wastes and may overstate the number of exporters and 

export shipments subject to the requirements of 40 CFR part 262, Subpart H. 

• Number of Shipments to OECD Countries: The RCRAInfo data used in this analysis 

may not fully reflect the total number of shipments subject to the requirements of 40 

CFR part 262, Subpart H. 

35 In developing our estimate for the Universe of SLAB exporters, we determined that import data (e.g., 

SEMARNAT) are generally more reliable than data from exporting countries (e.g., ITC) because importing 

countries use import information for tariff collection purposes. Thus, we have assumed that Mexican government 

officials will be motivated to record import data more accurately for the purposes of collecting tariffs. Further, the 

Mexican import statistics track precisely the SLAB waste stream that would be controlled under the final rule, while 

the ITC data may capture other battery shipments and therefore overestimate the waste stream of concern. Due to 

these factors, we determined that the ITC SLAB export data could be significantly overstated for 2006 and avoided 

using this source, except under our high-end bounding scenario. 
55 

• Variability in the Number of SLAB Shipments: There seems to be a fair amount of 

variation in the number of shipments of SLABs and the destination countries from 

year to year, perhaps because of the fluctuations in the price of lead over time. This 

analysis is based on data for 2006, and does not try to capture that variability, 

primarily due to: the limited availability of Census data; and inconsistencies in data 

groupings between Census data, International Trade commission data, U.S. 

Geological Survey data, and data from other government sources. 
56 

5. OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

This chapter briefly discusses EPA's analysis and determinations under Federal statutory 

requirements and Executive Orders applicable to Federal rules. These include: 

• Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review; 

• Paperwork Reduction Act; 

• Regulatory Flexibility Act; 

• Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; 

• Executive Order 13132: Federalism; 

• Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments; 

• Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks 

and Safety Risks; 

• Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice; 

• Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use; and 

• National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

 

5.1 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13258, requires EPA to 

determine whether a regulatory action is "significant" and therefore subject to Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. As 

defined in Executive Order 12866, a "significant regulatory action" is any regulatory action that 

is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 

more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, 

competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments 

or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user 

fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal 

or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth 

in the Executive Order. 

Based on our analysis, we believe that this rule is not an economically significant 

regulatory action, as defined under point number one above. As such, this action is not subject to 

the comprehensive cost-benefit assessment under full OMB/OIRA review. The Agency made 

this determination based on several factors. First, the rule will not have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more. Examination of the costs in Chapter 4 of this document 

shows that the annual costs under the rule will total less than one million dollars under the likely 

cost scenario (see Exhibit 14), and approximately $5.6 million under our high-end cost bounding 

scenario. (see Exhibit 15). 

In addition to the question of economic significance, this rule will not create a serious 

inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; will not 

materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs, or the 

rights and obligations of recipients thereof; and is not expected to raise novel legal or policy 

issues. 
57 

 

5.2 Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Agency is required to obtain 

OMB approval before the Agency can collect information from ten or more non-Federal 

respondents. In order to obtain OMB approval, EPA will prepare and submit to OMB an ICR. 

The ICR provides an overview of the collection and includes and estimate of the hour and cost 

burden placed on respondents. The final rule includes new information collection requirements 

subject to OMB review under the PRA. 

Under the PRA, burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by 

persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal 

agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and 

utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying 

information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; 

adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; 

train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete 

and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 

 An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a 

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB 

control number for this supporting ICR36 is: 2308.01. This ICR document is available in the 

docket established in support of today’s action. 

5.3 Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), requires EPA to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis for any rule that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities (i.e., small businesses, small governments, and small non-profit 

organizations). However, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required if the Administrator 

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

small entities. SBREFA further requires EPA to provide a statement of the factual basis for 

certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. 

The Agency has examined the final rule's potential effects on small entities as required by 

the RFA/SBREFA. We have determined that the rule will not result in a significant impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. This determination was made by comparing annual 

compliance costs under the rule to the average annual sales of small business in the industry 

sectors likely affected by the rule. According to the U.S. Small Business Administration's small 

business size standards, firms in most of these industry sectors are classified as a "small 

business" if they have fewer than 750 employees. However, for purposes of this analysis, we 

determined that this threshold may be too high and could mask the potential effects on the 

36 Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 2308.01 - Revisions to the Requirements 

for Transboundary Shipments of Wastes between OECD Countries, to the Requirements for Export Shipments of 

Spent Lead Acid Batteries, to the Requirements on Submitting Exception Reports for Export Shipments of 

Hazardous Wastes, and to the Requirements for Import Shipments of Hazardous Wastes. 
58 

smallest, most vulnerable firms. Therefore, the Agency selected a threshold for firms with fewer 

than 20 employees. As shown in Exhibit 16, for firms with fewer than 20 employees, the annual 

compliance cost as a percentage of annual sales is less than 0.1 percent. Therefore, the final rule 

will not have a significant economic impact on these firms. Based on the above, the Agency has 

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

small entities. 

5.4 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) establishes 

requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, 

and Tribal governments and the private sector. Under Section 202 of the UMRA, EPA must 

prepare a written statement for rules with Federal mandates that may result in the expenditure by 

State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or 

more in any one year. Before promulgating a rule for which a written statement is needed, 

Section 205 of the UMRA requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of 

regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of Section 205 do not apply 

when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, Section 205 allows EPA to adopt an 

alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the 

Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that alternative was not 

adopted. 

Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed, under Section 

203 of the UMRA, a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying 

potentially affected small governments; enabling officials of affected small governments to 

provide meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with 

significant Federal intergovernmental mandates; and informing, educating, and advising small 

governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. 

We have determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, in any one year. In addition, the rule contains no regulatory 

requirements for small governments. Thus, we believe that this final rule is not subject to the 

requirements of Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the UMRA. 
59 

Exhibit 16 

Evaluation of the Economic Impacts on Small Businesses

Industry Sector NAICS 

Code 

Number of 

Firms with 

Fewer than 20 

Employees 

Annual 

Sales Per 

Facility 

(2007$) a

Annual 

Compliance 

Cost ($) b

Annual 

Compliance Cost 

as a Percentage 

of Sales 

SLAB Rule 

Storage Battery 

Manufacturing 

335911 49 1,511,476 620 0.04% 

Motor vehicle supplies and 

new parts merchant 

wholesalers 

423120 12840 3,181,891 620 0.02% 

Recyclable Material 

Wholesaler 

423930 5133 2,636,310 620 0.02% 

Alternative SLAB Rule 

Storage Battery 

Manufacturing 

335911 49 1,511,476 1,210 0.08% 

Motor vehicle supplies and 

new parts merchant 

wholesalers 

423120 12840 3,181,891 1,210 0.04% 

Recyclable Material 

Wholesaler 

423930 5133 2,636,310 1,210 0.05% 

OECD Rule 

Electrometallurgical 

ferroalloy product 

manufacturing 

331112 7 807,629 227 0.03% 

Primary smelting and 

refining of copper 

331411 7 1,606,714 227 0.01% 

Secondary smelting, 

refining, and alloying of 

copper 

331423 13 4,141,681 227 0.01% 

Secondary smelting, 

refining, and alloying of 

nonferrous metal (except 

copper and aluminum) 

331492 137 2,201,797 227 0.01% 

Hazardous waste treatment 

and disposal 

562211 390 1,424,652 227 0.02% 

Materials recovery facility 56292 621 971,543 227 0.02% 

Import Consent Rule 

Recyclable Material 

Wholesaler 

423930 5133 2,636,310 304 0.01% 

Materials Recovery 

Facilities 

562920 621 971,543 304 0.03% 

Recyclable Material 

Collection Services, Solid 

Waste Collection 

562111 5620 1,014,036 304 0.03% 

Hazardous Waste Collectors 562112 388 1,952,166 304 0.02% 

Other Waste Collection 562119 457 423,059 304 0.07% a

 Based on 2002 U.S. Census Bureau data, updated to 2007 dollars using the GDP Implicit Price Deflator (1.15) b

 Based on an annual compliance cost calculated as the aggregate annual costs incurred by all exporters, importers and 

transporters, divided by the total number of affected entities. First year costs were annualized over 10 years using a discount 

factor of seven percent
60 

 5.5 Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure a 

meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 

that have "Federalism implications." As defined in Executive Order 13132, policies that have 

"Federalism implications" include regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and 

other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various levels of government. 

Under Section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 

Federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not 

required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 

compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local 

officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA may not issue a 

regulation that has Federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency 

consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the regulation. 

Today’s final rule does not have Federalism implications because State and local 

governments do not administer the import and export requirements under RCRA. In addition, 

the rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 

the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, Executive Order 

13132 does not apply to this rule. 

5.6 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments

Executive Order 13175 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that 

have "Tribal implications." As defined in Executive Order 13175, policies that have "Tribal 

implications" include regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy 

statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power 

and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. 

The Agency has determined that this rule does not have Tribal implications because no 

Tribal governments are known to own or operate businesses that may be affected by this rule. In 

addition, the rule will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power 

and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. 
61 

5.7 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that may: (1) be "economically significant" 

under Executive Order 12866 (i.e., a rulemaking that has an annual effect on the economy of 

$100 million or more or would adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 

economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, 

local, or Tribal governments or communities), and (2) concern an environmental health or safety 

risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the 

regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or 

safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is 

preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the 

Agency. 

We have determined that this rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is 

not economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866. In addition, the Agency 

does not have reason to believe that this rule presents disproportionate or additional risks to 

children. 

5.8 Executive Order 12898: Environmental Justice

Under Executive Order 12898, as well as through EPA's April 1995, Environmental 

Justice Strategy, OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force Action Agency Report and National 

Environmental Justice Advisory Council, EPA has undertaken to incorporate environmental 

justice into its policies and programs. EPA is committed to addressing environmental justice 

concerns, and is assuming a leadership role in environmental justice initiatives to enhance 

environmental quality for all residents of the U.S. The Agency's goals are to ensure that no 

segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, bears 

disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects as a result of EPA's 

policies, programs, and activities. 

This rule is intended to, among other things: improve the understanding, implementation, 

and enforcement of existing regulations; enhance waste tracking procedures; and increase 

accountability among all parties associated with international shipments. As such, this rule is not 

expected to have any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects 

on minority populations or low-income populations. 

5.9 Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

Executive Order 13211 requires EPA to prepare and submit a Statement of Energy 

Effects to OMB for those matters identified as significant energy actions. As defined in 

Executive Order 13211, a "significant energy action" is any action by an agency (normally 

published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of 

a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, 

and notices of proposed rulemaking that: (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive 

Order 12866 or any successor order and is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) is designated by OMB as a significant energy action. 
62 

This rule does not involve the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Thus, Executive 

Order 13211 does not apply to this rule. 

5.10 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 

(NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its 

regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials 

specifications, test methods, sampling procedures) that are developed or adopted by voluntary 

consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA also directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus 

standards. 

This rule does not involve the use of voluntary consensus standards. Thus, the rule is not 

subject to the requirements of Section 12(d) of the NTTAA. 
ATTACHMENT A 

ESTIMATION OF COSTS AND COST SAVINGS FOR OECD RULE
Exhibit A-1 

Reading the Rule

Cost per Entity Cos

Activity Managerial 

Staff Hours 

Technical Staff 

Hours 

Clerical Staff 

Hours 

Hours Labor Costa Materials 

Costb

Total Cost Numbe

Entitie

Reading the Regulations U.S. Exporters 0.50 1.00 0.00 1.50 $114.14 $0.00 $114.14 6 U.S. Importers 0.50 1.00 0.00 1.50 $114.14 $0.00 $114.14 15 U.S. Transporters 0.50 1.00 0.00 1.50 $114.14 $0.00 $114.14 21 

Total 42 

a Based on hourly rates discussed in Section 3.1 of this document. b Based on materials costs discussed in Section 3.2 of this document. c Based on universe assumptions discussed in Section 3.3 of this document. 

A-1 
Exhibit A-2 

Exemption for Wastes Destined for Laboratory Analysis - Exports

Cost per Shipment 

Activity Managerial 

Staff Hours

Technical 

Staff Hours 

Clerical Staff 

Hours 

Total 

Hours 

Labor 

Costa

Materials 

Costb

To

Co

Exports from the U.S. to OCED CountriesU.S. Exporters Prepare and Submit Notification to EPA 0.10 1.80 1.50 3.40 $177.14 $4.24 $18Complete and Sign Movement/Tracking Document 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.25 $16.18 $0.00 $16Receive and maintain copy of notification of intent to export, Acknowledgment of Receipt, written consent/objection, and signed movement/tracking document provided by the recovery facility 

0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $8.46 $0.00 $8.

Subtotal 0.10 2.05 1.75 3.90 $201.78 $4.24 $206

U.S. Transporters Upon obtaining physical custody of the waste, sign the movement/tracking document 

0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 $0.65 $0.00 $0.

Maintain copy of signed movement/tracking document 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 $3.39 $0.00 $3.Upon delivery of the waste, obtain signed copy of movement/tracking document from the OECD Country recovery facility 

0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 $0.65 $0.00 $0.

Subtotal 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.12 $4.68 $0.00 $4.

EPA Receive and process notification from U.S. exporter 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 $51.33 $0.00 $51Prepare and transmit confirmation of receipt to U.S. exporter 

0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $7.44 $0.12 $7.

Forward notification to the competent authorities of the countries of import and transit 

0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 $4.76 $0.24 $5.

Receive and process Acknowledgement of Receipt from the competent authority of the country of import 

0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $7.44 $0.00 $7.

Receive and process consent/objection from the competent authorities of the countries of import and transit 

0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 $4.76 $0.00 $4.

Forward Acknowledgement of Receipt and written 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $7.44 $0.12 $7.

A-2 
Cost per Shipment 

Activity Managerial 

Staff Hours

Technical 

Staff Hours 

Clerical Staff 

Hours 

Total 

Hours 

Labor 

Costa

Materials 

Costb

To

Co

consent/objection to U.S. exporter Receive and process signed copy of movement/tracking document provided by the OECD Country recovery facility 

0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $7.44 $0.00 $7.

Subtotal 0.00 1.00 1.32 2.32 $90.61 $0.48 $91

Total 0.10 3.07 3.17 6.34 $297.07 $4.72 $30

a Based on hourly rates discussed in Section 3.1 of this document. b Based on materials costs discussed in Section 3.2 of this document. c Based on universe assumptions discussed in Section 3.3 of this document. 

A-3 
Exhibit A-2 (continued) 

Exemption for Wastes Destined for Laboratory Analysis - Imports

Cost per Shipment 

Activity Managerial 

Staff Hours

Technical 

Staff Hours 

Clerical 

Staff Hours

Total 

Hours 

Labor 

Costa

Materials 

Costb

To

C

Imports to the U.S. from OECD Countries U.S. Importers Receive and maintain copy of confirmation of receipt 0 0 0.25 0.25 $8.46 $0.00 $8Sign movement/tracking document and provide copy to OECD Country exporter, EPA and competent authority of the country of export 

0.08 0 0.25 0.33 $16.37 $0.00 $16

Subtotal 0.08 0 0.5 0.58 $24.83 $0.00 $24

U.S. Transporters Upon obtaining physical custody of the waste, sign the movement/tracking document 

0 0.01 0 0.01 $0.65 $0.00 $0

Maintain copy of signed movement/tracking document 0 0 0.1 0.1 $3.39 $0.00 $3Upon delivery of the waste, obtain signed copy of movement/tracking document from the OECD Country recovery facility 

0 0.01 0 0.01 $0.65 $0.00 $0

Subtotal 0 0.02 0.1 0.12 $4.68 $0.00 $4

EPA Receive and process notification from the competent authority of the country of export 

0 1 0 1 $51.33 $0.00 $51

Prepare and transmit Acknowledgment of Receipt to the competent authorities of the countries of export and t it

0 0 0.25 0.25 $7.44 $0.24 $7

Prepare and transmit confirmation of receipt to U.S. importer 

0 0 0.25 0.25 $7.44 $0.12 $7

Review notification to determine if U.S. recovery facility is authorized to handle the waste 

0.5 1.5 0 2 $107.33 $0.00 $10

Prepare and provide written consent/objection to the competent authorities of the countries of export and transit 

0 0 0.25 0.25 $7.44 $0.24 $7

Receive and process signed copy of movement/tracking document provided by the U.S. recovery facility 

0 0 0.25 0.25 $7.44 $0.00 $7

A-4 
Cost per Shipment 

Activity Managerial 

Staff Hours

Technical 

Staff Hours 

Clerical 

Staff Hours

Total 

Hours 

Labor 

Costa

Materials 

Costb

To

C

Subtotal 0.5 2.5 1 4 $188.42 $0.60 $18

Total 0.58 2.52 1.6 4.7 $217.93 $0.60 $21

a Based on hourly rates discussed in Section 3.1 of this document. b Based on materials costs discussed in Section 3.2 of this document. c Based on universe assumptions discussed in Section 3.3 of this document. 

A-5 
Exhibit A-3 

Certificate of Recovery

Cost per Shipment 

Activity Managerial 

Staff Hours 

Technical 

Staff Hours 

Clerical Staff 

Hours 

Total 

Hours 

Labor Costa Materials 

Costb

Total Cost 

Exports from the U.S. to OCED CountriesExporters Receive and maintain the certificate of recovery provided by the OECD Country recovery facility 

0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 $3.39 $0.00 $3.39 

EPA Receive and maintain the certificate of recovery provided by the OECD Country recovery facility 

0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 $2.98 $0.00 $2.98 

Total 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.20 $6.36 $0.00 $6.36 

Imports to the U.S. from OECD CountriesImporters Prepare and provide certificate of recovery to OECD Country exporter, EPA, and the competent authority of the country of export 

0.00 0.20 0.25 0.45 $21.40 $0.36 $21.76 

Maintain copy of certificate of recovery 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 $3.39 $0.00 $3.39 

Subtotal 0.00 0.20 0.35 0.55 $24.79 $0.36 $25.15 

EPA Receive and Maintain the certificate of recovery provided by the U.S. recovery facility 

0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 $2.98 $0.00 $2.98 

Total 0.00 0.20 0.45 0.65 $27.77 $0.36 $28.13 

a Based on hourly rates discussed in Section 3.1 of this document. b Based on materials costs discussed in Section 3.2 of this document. c Based on universe assumptions discussed in Section 3.3 of this document. 

A-6 
Exhibit A-4 

Exchange and Accumulation Recovery Operations 

Cost per Shipment Cost f

Activity Managerial 

Staff Hours 

Technical Staff 

Hours 

Clerical Staff 

Hours 

Total Hours Labor 

Costa

Materials 

Costb

Total 

Cost 

Numb

Shipm

Exports from the U.S. to OCED Countries Exporters Indicate in the notification the recovery facility where subsequent R1-R11 recovery took place 

0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 $1.29 $0.00 $1.29 57 

EPA Receive and maintain the certificate of recovery provided by the OECD Country R12/R13 recovery facility 

0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 $2.98 $0.00 $2.98 57 

Total 0.00 0.02 0.10 0.12 $4.27 $0.00 $4.27 57 

Imports to the U.S. from OECD Countries Importers Sign movement/tracking document and provide copy to OECD Country exporter, EPA, and competent authority of the country of export 

0.08 0.00 0.25 0.33 $16.37 $0.00 $16.37 36 

Maintain copy of signed movement/tracking document 

0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 $3.39 $0.00 $3.39 36 

Prepare and provide certificate of recovery to OECD Country exporter, EPA, and competent authority of the country of export 

0.00 0.20 0.25 0.45 $21.40 $0.36 $21.76 36 

Obtain certificate of recovery from the U.S. R1-R11 facility 

0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 $5.42 $0.90 $6.32 36 

Provide copy of certificate of recovery to EPA and the competent authority of the country of export 

0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 $5.42 $0.24 $5.66 36 

Total 0.08 0.20 0.92 1.20 $51.99 $1.50 $53.49 36 

a Based on hourly rates discussed in Section 3.1 of this document. b Based on materials costs discussed in Section 3.2 of this document. c Based on universe assumptions discussed in Section 3.3 of this document. 

A-7 
A-8 

Exhibit A-5 

Return of Wastes

Cost per Shipment Cost 

Activity Managerial 

Staff Hours

Technical 

Staff Hours 

Clerical Staff 

Hours 

Total 

Hours 

Labor 

Costa

Materials 

Costb

Total Cost Num

Shipm

Exports from the U.S. to OCED CountriesEPA Receive and maintain notification of the return of the waste provided by the competent authority of the country of import 

0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 $2.98 $0.00 $2.98 

Imports to the U.S. from OCED Countries U.S. Importer Prepare and Submit Notification to EPA. (U.S. importer must inform EPA [ ....] of the need to return the shipment. Assumes: importer completes return within 90 days, return shipment does not cross any new transit country.) 

0.00 0.20 0.25 0.45 $21.40 $0.44 

(mailed) 

$21.84 

EPA Inform the competent authorities of the countries of export and transit about the return of the wastes 

0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 $25.67 $0.12 

(FAX) 

$25.79 

Total 0.00 0.50 0.10 0.60 $50.05 $0.56 $50.61 

a Based on hourly rates discussed in Section 3.1 of the source document. b Based on materials costs discussed in Section 3.2 of the source document. Plus, assumes April 2009 first-class postage of $0.42 plus $

and $0.01 for one sheet of paper. 

c Based on universe assumptions discussed in Section 3.3 of the source document. 
ATTACHMENT B 

ESTIMATION OF COSTS FOR THE SLAB RULE 
Exhibit B-1 

Reading the Rule

Cost per Entity 

Activity Managerial 

Staff Hours 

Technical Staff 

Hours 

Clerical Staff 

Hours 

Hours Labor 

Costa

Materials 

Costb

Total Cost 

Reading the Regulations U.S. Exporters 1.00 2.50 0.00 3.50 $260.64 $0.00 $260.64 U.S. Transporters 1.00 2.50 0.00 3.50 $260.64 $0.00 $260.64 

Total 

a Based on hourly rates discussed in Section 3.1 of the Cost Assessment. b Based on materials costs discussed in Section 3.2 of the Cost Assessment. c Based on universe assumptions discussed in Section 3.4 and 4.7 of the Cost Assessment and 

the revisions noted above.

Note: We assume that there is one transporter for every two exporters. 

B-1 
 Exhibit B-2 

Notification

Cost per Notice 

Activity Managerial Staff 

Hours 

Technical 

Staff Hours 

Clerical Staff 

Hours 

Hours Labor Costa Materials 

Costb

Total Cost 

Notification U.S. Exporters Prepare and submit notification 0.00 1.50 0.00 1.50 $97.07 $0.42 $97.49 

Total 0.00 1.50 0.00 1.50 $97.07 $0.42 $97.49 

EPA Receive and process notification 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 $51.33 $0.00 $51.33 Prepare and transmit confirmation of receipt to U.S. exporter 

0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $7.44 $0.12 $7.56 

Forward notification to the competent authorities of the countries of import and transit 

0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 $4.76 $0.24 $5.00 

Receive and process Acknowledgement of Receipt from the competent authority of the country of import

0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $7.44 $0.00 $7.44 

Receive and process consent/objection from the competent authorities of the countries of import and transit 

0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 $4.76 $0.00 $4.76 

Forward written Acknowledgement of Consent or objection to U.S. exporter 

0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $7.44 $0.12 $7.56 

Total 0.00 1.00 1.07 2.07 $83.17 $0.48 $83.65 

a Based on hourly rates discussed in Section 3.1 of the Cost Assessment. b Based on materials costs discussed in Section 3.2 of the Cost Assessment. c Based on universe assumptions discussed in Section 3.4 of the Cost Assessment and the revisions 

noted above. 

B-2 
Exhibit B-3 

Renotification

Cost per Notice 

Activity Managerial 

Staff Hours 

Technical 

Staff Hours 

Clerical Staff 

Hours 

Hours Labor Costa Materials 

Costb

Total Cost 

Renotification U.S. Exporters Collect specific changes 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 $32.36 $0.00 $32.36 Prepare and submit renotification 0.10 0.00 0.50 0.60 $26.81 $0.42 $27.23 

Total 0.10 0.50 0.50 1.10 $59.17 $0.42 $59.59 

EPA Receive and process notification 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 $25.67 $0.00 $25.67 Prepare and transmit confirmation of receipt to U.S. exporter 

0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $7.44 $0.12 $7.56 

Forward notification to the competent authorities of the countries of import and transit 

0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 $4.76 $0.24 $5.00 

Receive and process Acknowledgement of Receipt from the competent authority of the country of import 

0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $7.44 $0.00 $7.44 

Receive and process consent/objection from the competent authorities of the countries of import and transit 

0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 $4.76 $0.00 $4.76 

Forward written Acknowledgement of Consent or objection to U.S. exporter 

0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $7.44 $0.12 $7.56 

Total 0.00 0.50 1.07 1.57 $57.51 $0.48 $57.99 

a Based on hourly rates discussed in Section 3.1 of the Cost Assessment. b Based on materials costs discussed in Section 3.2 of the Cost Assessment. c Based on universe assumptions discussed in Section 3.4 of the Cost Assessment and the 

revisions noted above. 

B-3 
Exhibit B-4 

Annual Report

Cost per Entity Cos

Activity Managerial 

Staff Hours 

Technical Staff 

Hours 

Clerical Staff 

Hours 

Hours Labor Costa Materials 

Costb

Total Cost Numbe

Entiti

Annual Report Large U.S. Exporters Research specific export information 

0.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 $98.56 $0.00 $98.56 613 

Prepare and submit report 0.10 1.00 0.30 1.40 $84.75 $4.24 $88.99 613 Small U.S. Exporters $183.31 $4.24 Research specific export information 

0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 $49.28 $0.00 $49.28 27 

Prepare and submit report 0.10 0.50 0.50 1.10 $59.17 $4.24 $63.41 27 

Total 0.20 3.00 2.30 5.50 $108.45 $4.24 $300.24 640 

EPA Receive and record report 0.00 0.10 0.50 0.60 $20.01 $0.00 $20.01 640 

Total 0.00 0.10 0.50 0.60 $20.01 $0.00 $20.01 640 

a Based on hourly rates discussed in Section 3.1 of the Cost Assessment. b Based on materials costs discussed in Section 3.2 of the Cost Assessment. c Based on universe assumptions discussed in Section 3.4 of the Cost Assessment and 

the revisions noted above. 

B-4 
Exhibit B-5 

Additional Report

Cost per Entity Cos

Activity Managerial 

Staff Hours 

Technical Staff 

Hours 

Clerical Staff 

Hours 

Hours Labor Costa Materials 

Costb

Total Cost Numbe

Repor

Additional Report U.S. Exporters Collect and provide additional information 

0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 $49.28 $4.24 $53.52 2 

Total 0.00 0.50 0.50 1.00 $49.28 $4.24 $53.52 2 

EPA Receive and process Request for Additional Information from the competent authority of the country of import 

0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $7.44 $0.00 $7.44 2 

Forward request for additional information to U.S. Exporter 

0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 $4.76 $0.12 $4.88 2 

Receive and process additional info from U.S. Exporter 

0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $7.44 $0.00 $7.44 2 

Forward additional info to countries of import and transit 

0.00 0.00 0.16 0.16 $4.76 $0.24 $5.00 2 

Total 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.82 $24.40 $0.36 $24.76 2 

a Based on hourly rates discussed in Section 3.1 of the Cost Assessment. b Based on materials costs discussed in Section 3.2 of the Cost Assessment. c Based on universe assumptions discussed in Section 3.4 of the Cost Assessment and 

the revisions noted above. 

B-5 
Exhibit B-6 

Provide Acknowledgement of Consent to Transporter

Cost per Shipment Cost 

Activity Managerial 

Staff Hours 

Technical Staff 

Hours 

Clerical Staff 

Hours 

Hours Labor Costa Materials 

Costb

Total Cost Numbe

Shipme

U.S. Exporter Provides Copy of EPA’s Acknowledgement of Consent to TransporterFind consent document 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 $5.75 $0.00 $5.75 16,15Copy consent document 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 $2.81 $0.22 $3.03 16,15

Total 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $8.56 $0.22 $8.78 16,15

a Based on hourly rates discussed in Section 3.1 of the Cost Assessment. b Based on materials costs discussed in Section 3.2 of the Cost Assessment. c Based on universe assumptions discussed in Section 3.4 of the Cost Assessment and 

the revisions noted above. 

B-6 
B-7 

Exhibit B-7 

Recordkeeping

Cost per Entity Cos

Activity Managerial 

Staff Hours 

Technical Staff 

Hours 

Clerical Staff 

Hours 

Hours Labor Costa Materials 

Costb

Total Cost Numbe

Entiti

U.S. Exporter RecordkeepingFile and maintain necessary documents 

0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $8.46 $0.00 $8.46 640 

Total 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $8.46 $0.00 $8.46 640 

a Based on hourly rates discussed in Section 3.1 of the Cost Assessment. b Based on materials costs discussed in Section 3.2 of the Cost Assessment. c Based on universe assumptions discussed in Section 3.4 of the Cost Assessment and 

the revisions noted above. 
ATTACHMENT C 

ESTIMATION OF COSTS 

FOR THE 

IMPORT CONSENT DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS 
C-1 

Exhibit C-1 

Receiving Facility Submission to EPA

Activity Cost Per Shipment 

Managerial 

Staff Hours 

Technical 

Staff Hours 

Clerical 

Staff Hours 

Total 

Hours 

Labor 

Costa

Materials 

Costb

Total 

Cost 

Receiving Facility Submission to EPA Importers Find Consent Document 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 $5.75 $0.00 $5.75 Match Consent Document to Manifest 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.17 $5.75 $0.00 $5.75 Copy Consent Document 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 $2.81 $0.22 $3.03 Submit Consent to EPA 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 

Total 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.42 $14.31 $0.22 $14.53 

EPA Receive and File Consent Document 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 $2.47 $0.00 $2.47 

Total 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.08 $2.47 $0.00 $2.47 

a Based on hourly rates discussed in Section 3.1 of this document. b Based on materials costs discussed in Section 3.2 of this document. c Based on universe assumptions discussed in Section 3.5 of this document. 
ATTACHMENT D 

ESTIMATION OF COSTS UNDER ALTERNATE SLAB ANALYSIS 
Exhibit D-1 

Movement/Tracking Document

Cost per Shipment Cost 

Activity Managerial 

Staff Hours 

Technical Staff 

Hours 

Clerical Staff 

Hours 

Hours Labor Costa Materials 

Costb

Total Cost Numbe

Shipme

Movement/Tracking Document U.S. Exporters Complete tracking document 

0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 $21.57 $0.00 $21.57 70,40

Total 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.33 $21.57 $0.00 $21.57 70,40

EPA Receive and maintain tracking document 

0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $7.44 $0.00 $7.44 70,40

Total 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $7.44 $0.00 $7.44 70,40

a Based on hourly rates discussed in Section 3.1 of this document. b Based on materials costs discussed in Section 3.2 of this document. c Based on universe assumptions discussed in Section 3.4 and 4.7 of this document 

D-1 
Exhibit D-2 

Exception Report

Cost per Report Cost 

Activity Managerial 

Staff Hours 

Technical Staff 

Hours 

Clerical Staff 

Hours 

Hours Labor Costa Materials 

Costb

Total Cost Numbe

Repor

Preparation of Exception Report U.S. Exporters Prepare and submit exception report 

0.25 0.25 0.00 0.50 $40.89 $0.42 $41.31 352 

Maintain exception report 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 $3.39 $0.00 $3.39 352 

Total 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.60 $44.28 $0.42 $44.70 352 

EPA Receive and maintain exception report 

0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $7.44 $0.00 $7.44 352 

Total 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.25 $7.44 $0.00 $7.44 352 

a Based on hourly rates discussed in Section 3.1 of this document. b Based on materials costs discussed in Section 3.2 of this document. c Based on universe assumptions discussed in Section 3.4 of this document. 

D-2 
D-3 

Exhibit D-3 

Certificate of Recovery

Cost per Shipment Cost 

Activity Managerial 

Staff Hours 

Technical Staff 

Hours 

Clerical Staff 

Hours 

Hours Labor Costa Materials 

Costb

Total Cost Numbe

Shipme

Documentation of Certificate of RecoveryU.S. Exporters Receive and maintain certificate of recovery provided by the OECD country recovery facility 

0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 $3.39 $0.00 $3.39 70,40

Total 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 $3.39 $0.00 $3.39 70,40

EPA Receive and maintain certificate of recovery provided by the OECD country recovery facility 

0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 $2.98 $0.00 $2.98 70,40

Total 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 $2.98 $0.00 $2.98 70,40

a Based on hourly rates discussed in Section 3.1 of this document. b Based on materials costs discussed in Section 3.2 of this document. c Based on universe assumptions discussed in Section 3.4 of this document. 
E-1 

ATTACHMENT E 

2002-2006 Spent Lead Acid Batteries (SLABs) 

Exports from U.S. to Canada 

Year 

Number of 

Potential Notices 

Total Amt. of SLABs exported 

to Canada (metric tonnes) 

Metric Ton 

per Notice 

Number of 

Entities 

2002 125 37,732 301.852812 120 

2003 142 50,082 352.68978 132 

2004 147 46,578 316.857352 142 

2005 141 76,584 543.148732 136 

2006 141 65,558 464.951796 137 

Average 139.2 55,307 395.900094 133.4 

Average Ratio 0.002418 

Source: Environment Canada
E-2 

SLAB Exports From the U.S., 2006 

SLAB Exports Metric Tons Source 

Total Exports to All Countries 269,171 

International Trade 

Commission (ITC) data for all 

countries, except Canada and 

Mexico. Environment Canada 

(EC) data substituted for ITC 

Canada data and SEMARNAT 

data substituted for ITC Mexico 

data. 

Total Exports to OECD 

Countries Excluding Canada 

and Mexico 

90 (0.03% of total) ITC data 

Total Exports to Canada and 

Mexico Only 

264,333 SEMARNAT data for Mexico 

(198,775) plus EC data for 

Canada (65,558) 

Total Exports to all OECD 

Countries, Including Canada 

and Mexico 

264,423 ITC data plus EC data plus 

SEMARNAT data. 

Total Exports to Non OECD 

Countries, Including Canada 

and Mexico 

269,081 ITC data plus EC data plus 

SEMARNAT data 

Total Exports to Non OECD 

Countries Excluding Canada 

and Mexico 

4,748 ITC data