1 October 15, 2011

Economic Analysis of the Electronic Reporting 

Proposed Rule: Community Right-to-Know; 

Toxic Chemical Release Reporting

Office of Environmental Information

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

October 15, 2011
2 October 15, 2011

Table of Contents

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

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

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

Chapter 2 – Estimated Number Facilities Potentially Affected..............................................................6

2.1 Estimated Number of Facilities Incurring Rule Familiarization Burden ......................................... 6

2.2 Estimated Number of Facilities Incurring Costs to Register to use CDX and Establish an 

Electronic Signature Agreement (ESA) ................................................................................................. 6

2.3 Estimated Number of Facilities Incurring Costs to Purchase a Computer and Internet Access...... 7

2.4 Summary of Facilities Potentially Affected under the Proposed Rule ............................................ 8

Chapter 3 – Cost Estimates........................................................................................................................9

3.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Methodology.................................................................................................................................... 9

3.3 Step 1: Identify and Describe the Tasks Facilities Will Have to Perform ...................................... 9

3.4 Step 2: Unit Burden Estimates...................................................................................................... 11

3.4.1 Rule Familiarization ......................................................................................................... 12

3.4.2 Form Completion.............................................................................................................. 13

3.4.3 Summary........................................................................................................................... 14

3.5 Step 3: Unit Labor Cost Estimates................................................................................................ 14

3.6 Step 4: Capital Cost Estimates...................................................................................................... 16

3.7 Step 5: Estimate the Number of Unique Facilities that Will Perform Each Task......................... 17

3.8 Step 6: Estimate Industry Costs.................................................................................................... 17

3.9 Step 7: Annualize Industry Costs.................................................................................................. 19

Chapter 4 – Small Entity Analysis...........................................................................................................20

4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 20

4.2 Definitions of Small Entities.......................................................................................................... 20

4.3 Methodology Overview ................................................................................................................. 21

4.4 Impacts on Small Businesses......................................................................................................... 23

4.4.1 Census Sectors.................................................................................................................. 23

4.4.2 Utilities.............................................................................................................................. 29

4.5 Impacts on Small Government Jurisdictions ................................................................................. 33

4.6 Summary........................................................................................................................................ 38

Chapter 5 – Benefits..................................................................................................................................39

Literature Cited ........................................................................................................................................40
3 October 15, 2011

Table of Tables

Table 1: Estimated Number of Facilities Expected to Incur Rule Familiarization Burden .........................6

Table 2: Estimated Number of Facilities Expected to Incur Costs to Register to use CDX and Establish 

an ESA to Submit Forms Using TRI-MEweb ...............................................................................................7

Table 3: Estimated Number of Facilities Expected to Incur Costs to Purchase a Computer and Internet 

Access...........................................................................................................................................................8

Table 4: Estimated Number of Facilities Potentially Affected under the Proposed Rule............................8

Table 5: Estimated Rule Familiarization Burden Associated with the Proposed Rule ..............................13

Table 6: Estimated Unit Burden of Registering with CDX .......................................................................13

Table 7: Estimated Unit Burden of Establishing an ESA ..........................................................................14

Table 8: Total Unit Burden Associated with the Proposed Rule (hours)...................................................14

Table 9: Loaded Hourly Wage Rates by Labor Category (December 2010).............................................15

Table 10: Unit Labor Costs Associated with the Proposed Rule (2010 Dollars).......................................15

Table 11: Estimated Financial Burden to Obtain Access to a Computer and the Internet.........................17

Table 12: Estimated Number of Facilities Potentially Affected under the Proposed Rule........................17

Table 13: Incremental Labor Costs under the Proposed Rule....................................................................18

Table 14: Incremental Capital Costs under the Proposed Rule..................................................................18

Table 15: Total Incremental Costs under the Proposed Rule (2010 Dollars) ............................................18

Table 16: Annualized Industry Costs (2010 Dollars) ................................................................................19

Table 17: Compliance Costs Incurred under the Proposed Rule ...............................................................21

Table 18: Annualized Compliance Costs (2010 Dollars) ..........................................................................22

Table 19: Categorization of Sectors Affected by Proposed Rule...............................................................23

Table 20: Sectors with Revenue and Employment Information in SUSB.................................................24

Table 21: Universe of Affected TRI Facilities in Sectors with Data in SUSB..........................................25

Table 22: Compliance Costs Incurred by TRI Facilities in Sectors with Data in SUSB...........................27

Table 23: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Parent Entities in Census Sectors....................28

Table 24: Compliance Costs Calculations for Five Most Impacted NAICS Codes...................................29

Table 25: TRI Utility Universe ..................................................................................................................30

Table 26: Compliance Costs Incurred by TRI Facilities in Utility Sectors ...............................................31

Table 27: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Parent Entities in Utility Sectors.....................32

Table 28: Compliance Costs Calculations for Five Most Impacted Small Parent Entities in Utility Sectors

....................................................................................................................................................................33

Table 29: TRI Government Owned Facility Universe...............................................................................33

Table 30: Compliance Costs Incurred by TRI Facilities Operated by Small Government Jurisdictions...35

Table 31: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Government Jurisdictions................................36

Table 32: Compliance Costs Calculations for Five Most Impacted Government Jurisdictions ................37

Table 33: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Parent Entities .................................................38
4 October 15, 2011

Chapter 1 – Introduction

The Environmental Protection Agency‟s (EPA‟s) Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know 

Act (EPCRA), also known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 

(SARA), created a broad range of emergency response planning and reporting requirements for 

manufacturers, processors, and users of toxic chemicals in the United States. 42 U.S.C. §§ 11001-11050. 

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

EPA and to States on their release, transfer, and waste management activities of certain toxic chemicals if 

they are manufactured, processed, or otherwise used above threshold amounts. In addition, the Pollution 

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

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

EPCRA section 313 and the PPA in a database known as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).1

Manufacturing, processing, and otherwise use of a toxic chemical are considered threshold activities that 

trigger reporting to the TRI program. After a regulated facility determines that it has performed a 

threshold activity involving a listed chemical, that facility then calculates quantities of the chemical that 

are manufactured, processed, or otherwise used at the facility to determine if the threshold quantity has 

been exceeded and reporting is required. Facilities that trigger this threshold quantity must report certain 

information to EPA by completing the appropriate TRI reporting forms. EPA provides three types of 

these reporting forms: Form R, Form A, and Schedule 1. 

Since 1987, the Agency has encouraged the submission of TRI data via non-paper sources because it is 

quicker and easier to process non-paper submissions. Initially, EPA provided year-specific Automated 

Form R (AFR) software that allowed a facility to prepare TRI data for a particular Reporting Year (RY) 

and then submit this information to EPA via a printout or a diskette. The AFR tool was widely used, with 

reporters‟ usage increasing from 13 percent to 62 percent between 1990 and 1996. The Agency improved 

upon the AFR each year by incorporating new features. In 1998, EPA renamed the AFR software to 

Automated TRI Reporting Software (ATRS) to reflect the addition of Form A. 

After RY 2000, EPA replaced ATRS with TRI-Made Easy (TRI-ME desktop), which was a computer 

desktop application that assisted a facility in the preparation of TRI forms and, for the first time, allowed 

a user to submit TRI data via the Internet to a central repository know as EPA‟ s Central Data Exchange 

(CDX).

By RY 2005, EPA improved upon TRI-ME desktop by developing a web-based reporting software 

application called TRI-MEweb. TRI-MEweb provides a host of tools to assist facilities in providing TRI 

data, and includes validation features to help facilities report accurate information. Moreover, this 

application is entirely online, meaning a facility can access the program from a computer connected to the 

Internet. 

 

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

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

the PPA. However, the terms are often used interchangeably by the public to refer to the statute, the regulatory 

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

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

make the report simpler and easier to read.
5 October 15, 2011

Recognizing the numerous benefits that TRI-MEweb offers, EPA informed facilities it would discontinue 

TRI-ME desktop for RY 2008. Accordingly, a steadily increasing percentage of facilities have submitted 

TRI data via TRI-MEweb since its release, with nearly 94.6% of submissions arriving electronically via 

TRI-MEweb for RY 2009.2

Due to the longstanding history of electronic reporting of TRI data, the benefits TRI-MEweb provides, 

along with the prevalence and availability of the Internet, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register 

on January 14, 2011 to encourage facilities planning to submit via paper to use TRI-MEweb instead. The 

notice also announced that the Agency was considering a plan to publish a proposed rule to require the 

electronic reporting of all non-confidential TRI data.

EPA proposes to require all facilities submitting non-confidential information to submit TRI data to EPA 

via TRI-MEweb. This requirement would not alter the information regulated facilities must report. 

Rather, this requirement would disallow paper submissions of all non-confidential TRI data. Knowing

that approximately 94% of facilities filed their submissions electronically using TRI-MEweb in RY 2009, 

the proposed rule will require that the remaining 6% of facilities switch to electronic reporting. A onetime rule familiarization burden is anticipated for all TRI reporters to read the language associated with 

the new requirement. In addition, facilities currently submitting their forms by paper would incur costs 

associated with establishing an Electronic Signature Agreement (ESA) with the Agency, registering to use 

the Central Data Exchange (CDX)3to submit their forms via TRI-MEweb and, in some cases, purchasing 

a computer and Internet access. In order to better understand the potential range of impacts on facilities, 

this analysis will consider several scenarios under which facilities might be impacted. Any impact created 

by this rule should be well less than one percent of any affected small business‟s annual revenue. 

The remainder of this report describes the estimated costs to industry, the estimated impact to potentially 

affected small entities, as well as the various benefits associated with the proposed rule. Chapter 2 

estimates the number of facilities potentially affected by the proposed rule. These estimates are used in 

Chapter 3 to calculate the costs to industry for switching to electronic reporting. In Chapter 4, the impacts 

of the proposed rule on “small” entities are examined. Chapter 5 qualitatively evaluates the benefits of the 

proposed rule.

 

2 EPA performed this analysis prior to the release of RY 2010 data. For RY 2010, approximately 97% of 

submissions arrived electronically via TRI-MEweb. 

3 The Central Data exchange is EPA‟s secure Web-based system which allows facilities filling out forms in TRIMEweb to securely submit their information to EPA.
6 October 15, 2011

Chapter 2 – Estimated Number Facilities Potentially Affected

This chapter presents the estimates of the number of TRI facilities that will be impacted under the 

proposed rule. These estimates are used to calculate the costs to the regulated community and to EPA (see 

Chapter 3) and to evaluate the impacts on small entities (see Chapter 4). Requiring that facilities report 

electronically is not expected to change the number of facilities reporting to TRI or the number of forms 

filed. Rather, the proposed rule will create a one-time rule familiarization burden for all TRI facilities. 

Additionally, facilities that submitted by paper in RY 2009 will incur costs associated with switching to 

electronic reporting, which include registering to use TRI-MEweb and purchasing a computer and Internet 

access. These tasks will be described in more detail in Chapter 3. 

Section 2.1 estimates the number of facilities that will incur rule familiarization burden under the 

proposed rule. Section 2.2 estimates the number of facilities with paper filers that will be required to 

register to use TRI-MEweb. Section 2.3 estimates the number of these paper filers that currently lack 

access to a computer on-site and will thus be required to purchase a computer and Internet access. Finally, 

the number of facilities potentially affected under the proposed rule is summarized in Section 2.4.

2.1 Estimated Number of Facilities Incurring Rule Familiarization Burden

As noted above, the proposed rule can be expected to create a one-time rule familiarization burden for all 

TRI facilities. As shown in Table 1, in RY 2009, a total of 20,797 facilities reported release data (U.S. 

EPA, 2011b).

Table 1: Estimated Number of Facilities 

Expected to Incur Rule Familiarization Burden

Facilities

Total Number of RY 2009 Submissions 20,797

Source: U.S. EPA (2011). TRI RY 2009: NA2009. Accessed 

via TRI.NET

2.2 Estimated Number of Facilities Incurring Costs to Register to use CDX and 

Establish an Electronic Signature Agreement (ESA)

Facilities that submitted by paper in RY 2009 will also incur costs to register with CDX, the electronic 

system from which facilities access TRI-MEweb, and to establish an ESA, which is necessary in order to 

certify TRI data to submit to EPA. In RY 2009, a total of 1,214 facilities filed some or all of their forms 

by paper (U.S. EPA, 2011a). Presumably, a facility that could electronically submit a portion of its RY 

2009 filing could have also electronically reported the entire submission. Therefore, it was assumed that 

the 10 facilities (out of the 1,214) that filed a portion of their RY 2009 forms electronically will not incur 

the costs of registering to use CDX since it is assumed that they are already registered if they have filed 

other forms electronically (U.S. EPA, 2011a). Similarly, 6 of the paper filers submitted paper versions of 

forms filled out using TRI-MEweb (U.S. EPA, 2011a). As these facilities already have access to TRIMEweb via CDX, they also will not incur the costs of registering with CDX.4

Finally, because TRIMEweb does not currently support the reporting of trade secret chemicals, forms for trade secret 

chemicals will continue to be filed on paper forms. In RY 2009, 4 facilities submitted 7 forms for trade 

 

4

Facilities that submitted paper forms filled out using TRI-MEweb have already incurred the costs of registering 

with CDX, but it is possible that these facilities may not have submitted an ESA. However, the number of facilities 

affected is small and the cost of establishing an ESA is not accounted for.
7 October 15, 2011

secret chemicals (U.S. EPA, 2011a). As shown in Table 2, 1,196 facilities are expected to incur costs 

associated with registering to use CDX to submit forms via TRI-MEweb under the proposed rule.

Table 2: Estimated Number of Facilities Expected to Incur Costs to Register 

to use CDX and Establish an ESA to Submit Forms Using TRI-MEweb

Facilities

Number of Facilities Submitting Paper Forms 1,214

Number of Facilities Submitting Both Paper Forms and Electronic Forms 10

Number of Facilities Submitting Paper Versions of Forms Filled Out Using 

TRI-MEweb 6

Number of Facilities Submitting Trade Secret Information 4

Number of Facilities That Will Incur Costs to Register with CDX and 

Establish an ESAa 1,196

a Numbers do not sum because some trade secret submissions are captured as facilities that submitted 

a portion of their filings electronically.

Source: U.S. EPA (2011). TRI RY 2009 National Analysis (NA) Files, accessed April 11, 2011.

2.3 Estimated Number of Facilities Incurring Costs to Purchase a Computer and 

Internet Access

Facilities lacking access to a computer on-site will be required to purchase a computer and Internet access 

in order to complete their TRI submissions electronically. In estimating the facilities that will potentially 

incur this cost, three scenarios were considered:

Scenario I - it was conservatively assumed that all 1,196 paper filers will need to purchase a 

computer. 

Scenario II - it was assumed that those facilities that listed a public contact email or technical 

contact email on their paper forms likely have access to a computer. Of the 1,196 paper filers, 

only 72 did not provide a public or technical contact email. For the remaining 1,124 facilities that 

did provide email addresses, the email domain was compared to the facility name and parent 

company name. For 940 facilities, the email domain of one or both of the public or technical 

contact email matched the facility or parent company name. Therefore, in the second scenario, it 

was assumed that the remaining 112 facilities where the domain of email addresses provided did 

not match the facility or parent company name, as well as the 72 facilities that did not provide an 

email address, will incur the costs of purchasing a computer and Internet access. 

Scenario III - it was assumed that only the 72 facilities that did not provide an email address will 

incur the costs of purchasing a computer and Internet access. 

The number of facilities affected in each scenario is shown in Table 3.
8 October 15, 2011

Table 3: Estimated Number of Facilities Expected to Incur Costs to 

Purchase a Computer and Internet Access

Facilities

Scenario I: All Paper Filers 1,196

Scenario II: Paper Filers That Did Not Provide an Email Address and Those 

Whose Email Address Did Not Match the Facility or Parent Company Name 184

Scenario III: Paper Filers That Did Not Provide an Email Address 72

a Multiple chemicals may be submitted on a Form A. This estimate refers to the number of 

chemicals for which Form As were submitted, not the number of Form A responses.

Source: U.S. EPA (2011). TRI RY 2009 National Analysis (NA) Files, accessed April 11, 2011.

2.4 Summary of Facilities Potentially Affected under the Proposed Rule

The number of facilities that are expected to incur costs associated with rule familiarization, registering 

with CDX and establishing an ESA, and purchasing computer and Internet access are summarized in 

Table 4.

Table 4: Estimated Number of Facilities Potentially Affected

under the Proposed Rule

Facilities

Rule Familiarization 20,797

Registering with CDX and Establishing an ESA to Use TRIMEweb to Report TRI Data 1,196

Purchasing a Computer and Internet Access

Scenario I 1,196

Scenario II 184

Scenario III 72
9 October 15, 2011

Chapter 3 – Cost Estimates

3.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the estimated industry costs associated with the proposed rule. Section 3.2 describes 

the methodology used to estimate industry costs. Section 3.3 identifies the tasks facilities will perform to 

comply with the proposed rule. Section 3.4 provides estimates of the incremental burden facilities will 

incur to complete these tasks. The burden estimates are then used in Section 3.5 to develop unit cost 

estimates. Section 3.6 estimates the capital costs of obtaining a computer and Internet access. Section 3.7 

summarizes the number of facilities performing each task, as was estimated in Chapter 2. These estimates 

are used in Section 3.8 to estimate the total incremental costs of the proposed rule. These costs are 

annualized in Section 3.9, to present estimated costs for the first year as well as subsequent years.

3.2 Methodology

Industry burden and costs associated with the proposed rule were calculated using the following sevenstep procedure:

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

EPCRA section 313 requirements.

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

needed to complete each task. 

Step 3: Based on typical labor rates, calculate the unit cost of each task for the first year of 

compliance and for subsequent years.

Step 4: Estimate the capital costs associated with each task, if applicable.

Step 5: Estimate the number of unique facilities that will perform each task.

Step 6: For each task, multiply the unit cost by the number of unique facilities and then sum 

the results for each task to estimate the total industry costs for the first year and 

subsequent years.

Step 7: Annualize the total incremental industry costs over a five year period.

3.3 Step 1: Identify and Describe the Tasks Facilities Will Have to Perform

Facilities engage in a number of facility-level and form-level activities to comply with the EPCRA 

section 313 reporting requirements. In general, TRI reporting requires the following set of compliance 

activities:

Facility-Level:

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

for EPCRA section 313 reporting. This activity includes the time required to become familiar 

with the definitions, exemptions, and threshold requirements under the TRI Program, to review 
10 October 15, 2011

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

facility is required to report. 

Rule Familiarization: Facilities that are reporting under section 313 for the first time must read 

the reporting package and become familiar with TRI reporting requirements. Facilities that 

currently report to TRI must review any new requirements. 

Form-Level:

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

information required on the form. This activity includes the time required to search data sources 

and the time to complete and review the information.

Recordkeeping and Submission: Affected facilities must maintain recordkeeping systems and 

submit their forms to EPA and the state in which the facility is located. This activity includes the 

time required to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 

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

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

factors such as: the complexity of the facility's processes and activities; the chemicals at the facility; and 

the types of use and disposition of TRI chemicals at the facility. Individuals responsible for determining 

whether their facility is required to report and, if so, completing a Form R (or multiple Form Rs) will 

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

an engineering or other similar degree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In addition to the general set of compliance activities associated with TRI reporting, some facilities 

affected under the proposed rule will also incur the capital costs of obtaining access to a computer and the 

Internet. It is assumed that this activity results in financial burden only; no labor burden is estimated for 

purchasing a computer and Internet access.

For this proposed rule, all TRI reporters are expected to incur rule familiarization costs associated with 

reading the new requirements. Additionally, paper filers will incur costs to register to use CDX and 

establish an ESA and, in some cases, to purchase a computer and Internet access. Specific tasks 

associated with the proposed rule are:

Facility-level

Compliance Determination: As this rulemaking addresses facilities that are already reporting to 

TRI, compliance determination has already been made and is not a cost of this rulemaking.
11 October 15, 2011

Rule Familiarization: All TRI reporters must read the reporting package and become familiar 

with the requirement that all facilities submitting non-confidential information must submit TRI 

data to EPA electronically. 

Form Completion: In order to submit their forms electronically, facilities currently submitting 

paper forms must complete the following activities: 

Register with CDX: A TRI-MEweb Certifying Official and a TRI-MEweb Preparing 

Official must register with CDX and add the TRI-MEweb application to CDX.

Establish an Electronic Signature Agreement (ESA): The TRI-MEweb Certifying 

Official must also access, print, complete, and mail an ESA.

Note that the cost to complete and review information is considered to be part of baseline cost 

and is not attributed to this rulemaking. In addition, while form completion is typically considered 

a form-level activity in baseline burden, this analysis characterizes registering with CDX and 

establishing an ESA as facility-level burdens because these two activities are only incurred once 

per facility. 

Form-level

Recordkeeping and Submission: As this rulemaking addresses facilities that are already 

reporting to TRI, recordkeeping is already covered in baseline reporting burden estimates and is 

therefore not considered a cost to be included in this rulemaking.

Capital Cost

Obtain access to a computer and the Internet: EPA stopped mailing paper forms to facilities in 

2007, solely providing the TRI reporting forms online via the TRI Program website. Thus, most 

facilities that would be affected by this proposed rule likely already have access to a computer 

and the Internet, because they somehow retrieved a digital copy of the form which they 

subsequently printed and completed by hand. Regardless, EPA is including in this economic 

analysis the estimated cost burden associated with obtaining access to a computer and the 

Internet.5

3.4 Step 2: Unit Burden Estimates

This section provides the unit burden estimates (per facility) that were developed for each task that 

facilities are expected to perform under the proposed rule. Because all of the tasks performed under the 

proposed rule are facility-specific, the total burden for a task is calculated by multiplying the unit cost by 

the number facilities performing the task (see Section 3.8). 

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

required of each type of personnel to complete a task); and the hourly wage rates for each associated labor 

category: managerial, technical, and clerical. The following burden estimates are based on the 

 

5

For those paper filers that lack access to a computer, an alternative option was considered in which a facility might 

choose to hire a consultant to fill out the electronic form rather than purchase a computer and Internet access. 

However, even if a facility hired a consultant to fill out the form electronically, someone at the facility would still 

need access to a computer to certify and submit the facility‟s data. Given that the Certifying Official at the facility 

would need a computer and Internet access regardless of whether an outside consultant is hired to enter the facility‟s 

data electronically, it was assumed that hiring a consultant is not a feasible option to submit a TRI reporting form 

and that most facilities would instead opt to purchase a computer and Internet access. 
12 October 15, 2011

Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Rule economic analysis and best professional judgment 

(U.S. EPA, 2008). According to feedback from existing TRI filers, the role of each labor category in the 

TRI reporting process at the facility level is as follows:

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

submissions and supporting documentation, including calculations, data sources, and 

assumptions. Managerial staff are briefed by technical staff once annually regarding TRI 

submissions and any changes to TRI reporting requirements. All sections of the Form are 

reviewed by managerial staff at this time. 

Technical staff possess the knowledge and familiarity with the TRI program required to 

understand which operations at the facility must be considered in making threshold 

determinations for TRI chemicals. Technical staff gather the required data, make threshold 

determinations, calculate release and other waste management quantities, and enter the required 

data on the TRI form. Technical staff are also responsible for briefing managerial staff once 

annually regarding TRI submissions and any changes to TRI reporting requirements.

Clerical staff are responsible for organizing, photocopying, and cataloging all TRI submissions 

and supporting documentation in accordance with TRI recordkeeping requirements.6

3.4.1 Rule Familiarization

As noted above, completing tasks required for a TRI submission requires both facility-level and formlevel activities. Facility-level costs apply to the whole facility, regardless of how many Form Rs or As are 

filed by a particular facility. Under the proposed rule, the relevant per facility activity is rule 

familiarization, which will affect all TRI reporters.

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

reporting to TRI in RY 2009 -- may incur rule familiarization burden. The incremental burden estimates 

associated with rule familiarization consist of time to read and interpret language regarding the electronic 

reporting requirement outlined in the proposed rule and are based on the following assumptions:

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

requirement to report electronically. It is assumed that facilities will fully comprehend the 

electronic reporting requirement by the subsequent year of reporting; therefore, no rule 

familiarization burden is required in subsequent years.

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

requirement to report electronically. An additional five minutes will be required to brief 

management regarding the new requirement. It is assumed that facilities will fully comprehend 

the electronic reporting requirement by the subsequent year of reporting; therefore, no rule 

familiarization burden is required in subsequent years.

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

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

5.

 

6 No burden is expected to be incurred by the clerical labor category under the proposed rule.
13 October 15, 2011

Table 5: Estimated Rule Familiarization Burden 

Associated with the Proposed Rule

Labor Category 1st Year Burden

(minutes)

Subsequent Year Burden

(minutes)

Management 5 0

Technical 15 0

Clerical 0 0

Total 20 0

3.4.2 Form Completion

Under the proposed rule, facilities must register with CDX and establish an ESA. Form completion 

activities will create a burden for the 1,196 facilities that exclusively submitted by paper for RY2009 (see 

Chapter 2). Note that although form completion activities are typically considered at the form level, the 

specific form completion activities under this proposed rule need only be undertaken once by the facility 

and will apply to all forms.

Registering with CDX

In order to use TRI-MEweb to submit TRI data, each TRI facility must designate a Certifying Official 

who will need to register with CDX. The Certifying Official certifies and submits the TRI data. The 

Certifying Official may also prepare the TRI data prior to certifying and submitting it, although a facility 

may, in addition, designate a TRI-MEweb Preparing Official to prepare the TRI data. For the purposes of 

this analysis, it is conservatively assumed that both a Certifying Official and a Preparing Official would 

need to register with CDX. 

To register with CDX, a user will need to select a user name and password, provide contact information, 

and identify the facility and their role at the facility. Users will also need to select the TRI-MEweb

application from a list and add it to their CDX account. Based on the guidance presented on the CDX 

FAQ webpage (https://cdx.epa.gov/ssl/cdx/faq.asp#REG2), EPA estimates that TRI facilities will spend 

20 minutes of management time for the TRI-MEweb Certifying Official to register with CDX and 20 

minutes of technical time for the TRI-MEweb Preparing Official to register with CDX. Additionally, as 

CDX registration is considered to be a one-time task, this burden is not incurred in subsequent years. The 

unit burden associated with registering with CDX for the first and subsequent years is presented in Table 

6. 

Table 6: Estimated Unit Burden of Registering 

with CDX

Labor Category 1st Year Burden

(minutes)

Subsequent Year Burden

(minutes)

Management 20 0

Technical 20 0

Clerical 0 0

Total 40 0

Establishing an ESA

To submit forms completed in TRI-MEweb, the Certifying Official must establish an ESA. The burden 

associated with establishing an ESA was estimated in the Premanufacture Notification Electronic 

Reporting Rule economic analysis (U.S. EPA, 2008) based on best professional judgment. It is assumed 

that 11 minutes of managerial time will be spent by the Certifying Official to access, print, fill out, and 
14 October 15, 2011

mail the electronic signature form to EPA.7 Additionally and similar to CDX registration, it is assumed 

that the Certifying Official will not need establish an ESA each year; therefore, this burden is not incurred 

in subsequent years. The unit burden associated with establishing an ESA for the first and subsequent 

years is presented in Table 7.

Table 7: Estimated Unit Burden of Establishing an 

ESA

Labor Category 1st Year Burden

(minutes)

Subsequent Year Burden

(minutes)

Management 11 0

Technical 0 0

Clerical 0 0

Total 11 0

3.4.3 Summary

Table 8 presents total first- and subsequent-year incremental unit burden (in hours) that EPA estimates 

will be associated with the proposed rule. 

Table 8: Total Unit Burden Associated with the Proposed Rule (hours)8

Activity Managerial Technical Clerical Total Unit Burden

First Year

Rule Familiarization 0.08 0.25 0.00 0.33

Form Completion: CDX Registration 0.33 0.33 0.00 0.67

Form Completion: ESA establishment 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.18

Total 0.59 0.58 0.00 1.18

Subsequent Year

Rule Familiarization 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Form Completion: CDX Registration 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Form Completion: ESA establishment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3.5 Step 3: Unit Labor Cost Estimates

This section explains how unit labor costs were developed for the proposed rule. Each cost estimate is 

made up of two components: unit time estimates (i.e., number of labor hours required of each type of 

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

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

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

paid leave, health insurance, retirement savings, and legally required benefits; and other overhead costs, 

such as office space, furniture, equipment and computers, supplies and other business expenses. Updated 

2010 hourly labor rates, including fringe benefits and overhead, were calculated using current data on 

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

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

Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (Rice, 2002). As presented in 

Table 9 below, the managerial, technical, and clerical wage rates are composites of the BLS rates for 

 

7 Note that facilities will also incur capital costs associated with mailing the ESA. These costs are very small (the 

cost of a stamp and an envelope), and are not included in the cost estimates.

8

For the analysis, figures to the ten thousandths place were used. However for clarity and simplicity, this table only 

displays the values to the hundredths place. 
15 October 15, 2011

„Wages and Salaries‟ and „Total Benefits‟ by labor category. The sum of „Wages and Salaries‟ and „Total 

Benefits‟ is equal to „Total Compensation.‟ The managerial labor rate is defined as the average hourly 

wages and salaries for the “Management, Business, and Financial” occupational category. The technical 

labor rate is defined as the average hourly wages and salaries for the “Professional and Related” 

occupational category. The clerical labor rate is defined as the average hourly wages and salaries for the 

“Office and Administrative Support” occupational category. 

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

additional loading factor of 17 percent is applied to „Wages and Salaries‟ for general overhead.9 The sum 

of „Total Compensation‟ and „Overhead‟ is equal to „Total Loaded Hourly Wage Rate.‟ The resulting 

loaded hourly wage rates are $63.99 for managerial personnel, $51.32 for technical personnel, and $25.16

for clerical personnel, all in 2010 dollars, as shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Loaded Hourly Wage Rates by Labor Category (December 2010)

Wage Type Labor Category 

Managerial Technical Clerical

Wages and Salariesa$39.70 $32.75 $15.72

Total Benefitsa$17.54 $13.00 $6.77 

Overheadb$6.75 $5.57 $2.67

Total Loaded Hourly Rate $63.99 $51.32 $25.16

a Wages and salaries and total benefits are based on Table 9 of Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. 

b Overhead is calculated using a loading factor of 17%

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

Table 9: Private industry, goods-producing and service-providing industries, by occupational group. December 2010.

Table 10 below presents total first- and subsequent-year incremental unit labor costs EPA estimates will 

be associated with the proposed rule.

Table 10: Unit Labor Costs Associated with the Proposed Rule (2010 Dollars)10

Activity

Managerial

@$63.99/hr

Technical

@$51.32/hr

Clerical

@$25.16/hr

Total Unit 

Cost

First Year

Rule Familiarization 0.08 0.25 0.00 $18.16 

Form Completion: CDX Registration 0.33 0.33 0.00 $38.43

Form Completion: ESA Establishment 0.18 0.00 0.00 $11.73 

Total 0.60 0.58 0.00 $68.32

Subsequent Year

Rule Familiarization 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0.00

Form Completion: CDX Registration 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0.00

Form Completion: ESA Establishment 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0.00

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 $0.00

 

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

Assessment Information Rule, Prepared for the Chemical Manufacturers Association, December 14, 1989.

10 For the analysis, figures to the ten thousandths place were used. However for clarity and simplicity, this table only 

displays the values to the hundredths place.
16 October 15, 2011

3.6 Step 4: Capital Cost Estimates

In addition to labor costs, some facilities will also incur the capital cost of purchasing a computer and 

Internet access under the proposed rule. It is unclear how many facilities lack a computer on-site. For 

RY2009, TRI lists a technical contact email address for all but 78 of the 1,196 facilities that submitted 

exclusively by paper. Also for RY 2009, EPA has a public contact email address listed for all but 168 of 

the 1,196 facilities. For 72 of the facilities, EPA lacks both a public and a technical contact email 

address. Presumably a large portion of the 1,124 facilities that provided a technical or public contact 

email address for RY 2009 already possess a computer with access to the Internet. Further, EPA stopped 

mailing paper forms to facilities in 2007, solely providing the TRI reporting forms online via the TRI 

Program website. Thus, as discussed in Chapter 2, EPA expects most facilities that would be affected by 

this proposed rule already possess access to a computer and the Internet because they somehow retrieved 

a digital copy of the form which they subsequently printed and completed by hand. 

As presented in Chapter 2, EPA considered the following three scenarios in order to estimate the range of 

potential burden incurred by the TRI reporting community: 

Scenario I - it was conservatively assumed that all 1,196 paper filers will need to purchase a 

computer. 

Scenario II - it was assumed that those facilities that listed a public contact email or technical 

contact email on their paper forms likely have access to a computer. Of the 1,196 paper filers, 

only 72 did not provide a public or technical contact email. For the remaining 1,124 facilities that 

did provide email addresses, the email domain was compared to the facility name and parent 

company name. For 940 facilities, the email domain of one or both of the public or technical 

contact email matched the facility or parent company name. Therefore, in the second scenario, it 

was assumed that the remaining 112 facilities where the domain of email addresses provided did 

not match the facility or parent company name, as well as the 72 facilities that did not provide an 

email address, will incur the costs of purchasing a computer and Internet access. 

Scenario III - it was assumed that only the 72 facilities that did not provide an email address will 

incur the costs of purchasing a computer and Internet access. 

Under each scenario, affected facilities will incur costs associated with purchasing a computer and 

Internet access. Considering commercially-available computers, a facility could purchase a computer 

sufficiently powerful to utilize TRI-MEweb for well under $1,000 (CBS Interactive, 2010; Microsoft, 

2011). EPA conservatively estimates that facilities will spend $1,000 obtain a computer in the first year 

only. To estimate the cost of obtaining Internet for one month (in order for facilities to submit their 

forms), EPA researched the lowest-priced options available to small businesses on two service provider 

websites. Both providers charged less than $50 a month for Internet access, which includes the cost of 

hardware and assumes self-installation (AT&T, 2011; Verizon, 2011). Therefore, EPA conservatively 

assumes that the burden to secure Internet for one month is $50. This cost will be incurred both in the first 

year and subsequent years. Table 11 below presents the financial burden EPA estimates will be 

associated with obtaining access to a computer and the Internet.
17 October 15, 2011

Table 11: Estimated Financial Burden to 

Obtain Access to a Computer and the 

Internet

Activity 1

st Year 

Burden

Subsequent 

Year 

Burden

Obtaining a Computer $1,000 $0

Obtaining Internet Access $50 $50

Total $1,050 $50

3.7 Step 5: Estimate the Number of Unique Facilities that Will Perform Each Task

As indicated in Chapter 2, the proposed rule will create a one-time rule familiarization burden for all TRI 

facilities. Additionally, facilities that submitted by paper in RY 2009 will incur costs associated with 

switching to electronic reporting, which include registering to use CDX to submit forms via TRI-MEweb, 

establishing and ESA, and purchasing a computer and Internet access. The number of facilities that will 

incur costs associated with rule familiarization, registering with CDX, establishing an ESA, and 

purchasing computer and Internet access is summarized in Table 12.

Table 12: Estimated Number of Facilities Potentially Affected under the 

Proposed Rule

Facilities

Rule Familiarization 20,797

Registering with CDX and Establishing an ESA 1,196

Purchasing a Computer and Internet Access

Scenario I 1,196

Scenario II 184

Scenario III 72

3.8 Step 6: Estimate Industry Costs

Total incremental industry costs include the costs of rule familiarization, form completion, and capital 

costs. To compute the industry-wide cost of each compliance activity, the unit cost for each task is 

multiplied by the relevant number of facilities. Table 13 summarizes the incremental labor costs and 

Table 14 summarizes the incremental capital costs of the proposed rule in first and subsequent years (p. 

18). Table 15 summarizes the total incremental costs of the proposed rule in the first and subsequent years

under each of the three scenarios considered.
18 October 15, 2011

Table 13: Incremental Labor Costs under the Proposed Rule11

Activity

Total Unit 

Burden

(hours)

Total Unit 

Cost (2010 

dollars)

Number 

of 

Facilities

Total 

Burden

(hours)a

Total Cost

(2010 

dollars)b

First Year

Rule Familiarization 0.33 $18.16 20,797 6,932 $377,674

Form Completion: CDX Registration 0.66 $38.43 1,196 797 $45,962

Form Completion: ESA

Establishment 0.18 $11.73 1,196 219 $14,029

Total 7,949 $437,665

Subsequent Year

Rule Familiarization 0.00 $0.00 20,797 0 $0

Form Completion: CDX Registration 0.00 $0.00 1,196 0 $0

Form Completion: ESA

Establishment 0.00 $0.00 1,196 0 $0

Total 0 $0

a

Total burden is calculated as total unit burden multiplied by the number of facilities.

b

Total cost is calculated as total unit cost multiplied by the number of facilities.

Table 14: Incremental Capital Costs under 

the Proposed Rule

Capital Cost 

(2010 dollars)

Number of 

Facilities

Total Cost 

(2010 dollars)

First Year

Scenario I $1,050 1,196 $1,255,800

Scenario II $1,050 184 $193,200

Scenario III $1,050 72 $75,600

Subsequent Year

Scenario I $50 1,196 $59,800

Scenario II $50 184 $9,200

Scenario III $50 72 $3,600

Table 15: Total Incremental Costs under the 

Proposed Rule (2010 Dollars)

Labor Costs Capital Costs Total Costs

First Year

Scenario I $437,665 $1,255,800 $1,693,465

Scenario II $437,665 $193,200 $630,865

Scenario III $437,665 $75,600 $513,265

Subsequent Year

Scenario I $0 $59,800 $59,800

Scenario II $0 $9,200 $9,200

Scenario III $0 $3,600 $3,600

 

11 For the analysis, figures to the ten thousandths place were used. However for clarity and simplicity, this table only 

displays the values to the hundredths place.
19 October 15, 2011

3.9 Step 7: Annualize Industry Costs

The total burden to industry associated with the proposed rule is annualized over a 5-year time period. 

The time period of five years was selected based on the typical life of a computer. This analysis uses the 

depreciation period based on the expected life span of the computer. Since the computer has a five year 

life-span the depreciation period of five years is used in this analysis. The annualized cost captures both 

the initial startup costs as well as recurring subsequent year costs. Industry costs are annualized both at a 

3% discount rate and a 7% discount rate.12 Table 16 presents the annualized industry costs for each 

scenario considered.13

Table 16: Annualized Industry Costs (2010 Dollars)

Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III

Initial Cost $1,693,465 $630,865 $513,265

Recurring Cost $59,800 $9,200 $3,600

Annualized Cost (3% Discount Rate) $352,587 $120,615 $94,943

Annualized Cost (7% Discount Rate) $380,114 $131,090 $103,530

 

12 Pursuant to guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), federal agencies should take into 

account when costs and benefits will actually occur. Thus, costs and benefits that will accrue in the future must be 

discounted to present day dollars. Further, OMB‟s guidance recommends federal agencies use discount rates of 3 

and 7 percent to estimate a range of average potential returns on investments. More information is available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf.

13 Please note the annualization method used includes a payment at the start of the first year and then includes the 

present day cost for each of the five additional years. Thus, a five-year annualization includes a sixth payment 

representing the initial cost.
20 October 15, 2011

Chapter 4 – Small Entity Analysis

4.1 Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

small entities.

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

small entities, including businesses, nonprofit agencies, and governments. Section 604 of the RFA, as 

amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires an 

agency to perform a regulatory flexibility analysis for a rule unless the Agency certifies under section 

605(b) that the regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

small entities. The RFA does not specifically define “a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number” of small entities. 

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

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

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

significant economic impacts to a substantial number of small entities. Section 4.4 uses this methodology 

to estimate the impacts of the proposed rule on small businesses, and Section 4.5 uses the methodology to 

estimate the impacts of the proposed rule on small government jurisdictions. The results of the small 

entity analysis are summarized in Section 4.6.

4.2 Definitions of Small Entities

The RFA uses the definition of “small business” found in the Small Business Act, which authorizes the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) to define “small business” by regulation. This analysis uses the 

SBA‟s definition of a small business for each industry.14

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

number of economic and market characteristics that may allow a business concern to exercise dominance 

in an industry. Size standards are based on criteria, such as annual receipts or number of employees that 

represent a measure of these characteristics. These standards represent the largest size that a for-profit 

enterprise (together with its affiliates) may be and still qualify as a small business. 

The SBA small business size standards are expansive, classifying most businesses as “small.” For 

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

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

have fewer than 500 employees (USSBA, 2009).15 Therefore, at least 98.6 percent of firms would be 

 

14 SBA's size standards can be found at: http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/ 

serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf.

15USSBA. Office of Advocacy - Statistics – All Industries by NAICS Codes, 2006: Employer Firms & Employment 

by Employment Size of Firm by NAICS Codes, 2006. Information from the Small Business Administration on the 

Internet. Available at http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/us07_n6.pdf. Downloaded on March 6, 2009.
21 October 15, 2011

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

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

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

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

employees;

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

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

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

which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.16

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

organizations as small entities.

4.3 Methodology Overview

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

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

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

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

determining small entity impacts, comparing annual compliance costs to annual revenue provides a 

reasonable indication of the magnitude of the regulatory burden relative to a commonly available and 

objective measure of a parent entity‟s income. Where regulatory costs represent a small fraction of a 

typical parent entity‟s revenue (i.e., less than one percent), the impacts of the regulation are likely to be 

minimal. 

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

familiarization, CDX registration, submitting an electronic signature agreement (ESA), and purchasing a 

computer and Internet access (see Chapter 3). In subsequent years, the compliance costs associated with 

the proposed rule are limited to the cost of purchasing Internet access. The actual compliance costs a 

facility incurs will vary depending on whether the facility already submits information to TRI via CDX 

and TRI-MEweb and whether the facility has access to a computer. Table 17 presents the compliance 

costs associated with each of the individual components of the total costs incurred under the proposed rule 

(e.g., the cost associated with rule familiarization), and then aggregates these costs to calculate the total 

compliance cost for each type of facility potentially affected under the proposed rule (e.g., electronic 

filers will incur only the cost of rule familiarization).

Table 17: Compliance Costs Incurred under the Proposed Rule

Components of Compliance Costs

First 

Year

Subsequent 

Year

Rule Familiarization $18.16 $0.00

CDX Registration $38.43 $0.00

ESA Establishment $11.73 $0.00

Purchase Computer and Internet Access $1,050.00 $50.00

Per-Facility Total Compliance Costs

First 

Year

Subsequent 

Year

Electronic Filer (Rule Familiarization only) $18.16 $0.00

Paper Filer with Computer and Internet Access (Rule Familiarization, CDX 

Registration, and ESA Establishment only) $68.32 $0.00

Paper Filer without Computer and Internet Access (Rule Familiarization, CDX 

Registration, ESA Establishment, and Computer and Internet Access) $1,118.32 $50.00

 

16 No small organizations are expected to incur burden as a result of the proposed rule.
22 October 15, 2011

The compliance costs are annualized over a 5-year time period at a 3% and 7% discount rate, as discussed 

in Chapter 3. The annualized compliance costs to electronic filers, paper filers with computer access, and 

paper filers without computer access are shown in Table 18.

Table 18: Annualized Compliance Costs (2010 Dollars)

Electronic 

Filers

Paper Filers 

with Computer 

and Internet 

Access

Paper Filers 

without 

Computer and 

Internet Access

Initial Cost $18.16 $68.32 $1,118.32

Recurring Cost $0.00 $0.00 $50.00

Annualized Cost (3% Discount Rate) $3.25 $12.24 $241.46

Annualized Cost (7% Discount Rate) $3.56 $13.40 $259.46

The proposed rule affects many industry sectors (i.e., NAICS codes) as well as several government 

jurisdictions. The compliance activities and costs will vary among sectors depending on whether facilities 

filed electronically or by paper in RY2009, and whether those who filed by paper have computer and 

Internet access. This small entity analysis considers facilities in all of the industry sectors which reported 

to TRI in RY 2009. In RY 2009, facilities in a total of 504 6-digit NAICS code industry sub-sectors 

reported to TRI (U.S. EPA, 2011a). It should be noted that industry information is only available at the 

facility-level; the information reported to TRI does not indicate the NAICS code of the parent company. 

For this reason, this analysis assumes that the NAICS code reported by each TRI facility in RY 2009 is 

also the NAICS code of its parent.17

Employment and revenue data (necessary for the small entity analysis) available for each of these 6-digit 

NAICS code sectors vary but fall into the general categories presented in Table 19 (p. 22). The categories 

were developed based on the small business definition in Section 4.2 and data sources used. Sector 

Category #1 includes all NAICS codes for which employment and revenue data are readily available from 

the U.S. Census‟ Statistics of U.S Businesses (SUSB) and where the applicable small business threshold 

is based on either revenue or employment. Sector Category #2 includes utilities, where the definition of 

what constitutes a small business is based on the amount of electricity generated, and data from the 

Energy Information Administration (EIA) data and annual electricity prices are used to estimate small 

entity impacts. Sector Category #3 is government jurisdictions, where the small business threshold is 

defined in terms of population and data from the U.S. Census of Governments was used to estimate

revenue. Agricultural sectors are grouped together in Sector Category #4 and are not considered in this 

analysis.18 Finally, Sector Category #5 includes facilities that reported invalid NAICS codes and are not 

considered in this analysis.19

 

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

associated revenue may not be correctly represented in the analysis.

18 In RY 2009, five facilities in two agricultural NAICS codes (112310 Chicken Egg Production and 112320 

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

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

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

19 Facilities reporting an invalid NAICS code make up less than 1% of the TRI facility universe. 
23 October 15, 2011

Table 19: Categorization of Sectors Affected by Proposed Rule

Sector 

Category 

#

Category Description

# Facilities 

in 

Category

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

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

3 Government Jurisdictions 483

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

5 Facilities reporting invalid NAICS codes 1

Total # of TRI Facilities 20,797

Source: U.S. EPA (2011). TRI RY 2009: NA2009. Accessed via TRI.NET

For Sector Categories 1 through 3 in Table 19,

20 different data sources were used to estimate relevant 

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

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

of the following steps:

Step 1: Identify the universe of affected TRI facilities.

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

universe.

Step 3: Identify small parent entities based on SBA definitions (see Section 4.2).

Step 4: Estimate annual revenue of parent entities in the affected universe.

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

parent estimated in Step 2.

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

percentage of annual revenue, as a measure of regulatory burden. 

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

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

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

equal to three percent of annual revenue.

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

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

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

U.S. Businesses (SUSB) (Section 4.4.1) and utility sectors (Section 4.4.2). Potential impacts of the 

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

4.4 Impacts on Small Businesses

4.4.1 Census Sectors

 

20 This analysis excludes Sector Categories 4 and 5 because TRI does not cover agricultural sectors and invalid 

NAICS codes are outside the boundaries of the SUSB. 
24 October 15, 2011

The majority of affected 6-Digit NAICS codes (474 of 504) have revenue and employment data available 

from the SUSB (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010c). The sectors with data available from SUSB are summarized 

in Table 20.

Table 20: Sectors with Revenue and Employment Information in SUSB

2-Digit 

NAICS NAICS Description

6-Digit NAICS 

Codes within 

the 2-Digit 

NAICS

21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 15

31-33 Manufacturing 425

42 Wholesale Trade 9

44-45 Retail Trade 2

48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 3

51 Information 3

54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 4

56 Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services 8

71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 2

81 Other Services (Except Public Administration) 3

Total Number of TRI Sectors (6-Digit NAICS Codes) with Information in SUSB 474

Source: U.S. EPA (2011). TRI RY 2009: NA2009. Accessed via TRI.NET

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

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

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

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

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

ratios.

A 6-digit NAICS code sector‟s small business definition is based on either its annual revenue or the 

number of its employees, depending on the sector. The SUSB provides information tabulated by 

employment size or revenue size. For those sectors with revenue-based small business definitions, 

profiles were developed for each revenue size category. For sectors with employment-based small 

business definitions, profiles were developed for employment size categories. 

Identify Universe of Affected TRI Facilities

The NAICS code of each affected TRI facility is known based on its RY 2009 submission. Note that if a 

facility reported multiple NAICS codes (e.g., a facility includes multiple establishments that fall within 

different NAICS codes), the first listed NAICS code is used in this analysis. In some cases, facilities 

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

considers the facility at the most applicable NAICS level (e.g., 311). Based on information submitted by 

TRI filers, 19,763 facilities reported to TRI in RY 2009 from the 474 6-digit NAICS codes with data in 

SUSB.21 The distribution of these facilities across NAICS codes is shown at the 2-digit level in Table 21.

 

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

considered separately in the sections that follow. 
25 October 15, 2011

Table 21: Universe of Affected TRI Facilities in Sectors with Data in SUSB

2-Digit 

NAICS NAICS Description # Facilities

21 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 177

31-33 Manufacturing 18,392

42 Wholesale Trade 929

44-45 Retail Trade 15

48-49 Transportation and Warehousing 8

51 Information 5

54 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 3

56 Administrative and Support and Waste Management and Remediation Services 229

71 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1

81 Other Services (Except Public Administration) 4

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

Source: U.S. EPA (2011). TRI RY 2009: NA2009. Accessed via TRI.NET

Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships

For this analysis, compliance costs and impacts are estimated at the parent entity level, where a parent 

entity may own one or more facilities. The average number of facilities filing reports to TRI per parent 

company for the TRI sectors with information in SUSB is estimated by taking the average of the number 

of RY 2009 reporters associated with each parent company with a facility in that sector (Abt Associates, 

Inc., 2011). Note that it is not possible to distinguish small parents from large parents in the TRI data; 

rather, a single average of number of facilities per parent is used for each sector. The average number of 

facilities per parent in each sector is used to calculate the number of parent entities of the facilities 

presented in Table 21 above. Because these averages contain large parent companies as well as small, 

they are likely to overestimate the number of facilities per small parent entity, which will provide a 

conservative estimate of the cost to small parent companies by increasing the estimated cost.

Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities

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

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

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

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

summed across all “small” revenue or employment size classes for each NAICS code.22,23 The total 

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

in each size class to calculate an average revenue per “small” firm by 6-digit NAICS code.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

data are used as a proxy for parent company data, establishments with less than 10 employees are included in the 

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

of average parent company revenues.
26 October 15, 2011

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

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

the total revenue is interpolated based on the available data. For example, for 6-digit NAICS code sectors 

with missing revenue information that have revenue-based small business definitions, the midpoint of the 

revenue size class is multiplied by the number of firms in that size class as an estimate for the total 

revenue within that particular size class. For 6-digit NAICS code sectors with employment-based small 

business definitions, the following method is used to estimate total revenue for those NAICS/employment 

size class combinations where revenue was not disclosed:

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

where data are available.

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

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

adjacent employment class sizes.

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

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

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

codes to estimate the average revenue.24

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

two estimated average revenues to obtain average revenue for the missing 

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

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

data.

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

for that NAICS/employment size class.25

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

the facility is considered at the 5-digit or 4-digit NAICS level rather than the 6-digit NAICS 

level.26

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

2010 dollars using one of several indices. The Industrial Production Index (IPI) measures the amount of 

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

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

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

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

Estimate Number of Small Parent Entities

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

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

distribution of establishments amongst the size classes in the SUSB data.27 In order to obtain a count of 

 

24 126 out of 452 6-digit NAICS codes were missing average revenue data for at least one employment class. 

25 Ultimately, 368 out of 3,234 values were interpolated (versus the entire dataset). For the employment sector only, 

234 out of 2,712 values were interpolated, and for the revenue sectors only 368 out of 3,234 values were 

interpolated. 

26 NAICS codes 541711, 325182, and 312210 fell into this scenario. To assess the potential accuracy of this 

method, other 6-digit NAICS codes, if present, in the parent NAICS codes were also analyzed using this method. 

No other 6-digit NAICS code exists under NAICS code 54171 so no such analysis was conducted for this NAICS 

code. The average percent difference obtained for the other 6-digit codes under NAICS codes 32518 and 3122 were 

12% and 73% respectively.

27As with the average revenue calculations, this analysis did not include in the counts of small facilities any 

employment or revenue classes that straddled the small business definition. 
27 October 15, 2011

small parent entities by NAICS code, the number of TRI facilities in “small” revenue or employment size 

classes is then summed and divided by the average number of TRI facilities per parent in that NAICS 

code.28 Using this method, a total of 3,026 small parent entities will be potentially affected by the 

proposed rule. 

Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs

Of the 3,026 small parent entities potentially impacted by the proposed rule, 213 operate TRI facilities 

that submitted paper forms in RY 2009. Of these 213 small parent entities, 16 operate TRI facilities that 

did not report an email address and 28 operate TRI facilities where the email address domain does not 

match the company name. Under the three scenarios considered in Chapter 2, the 2,813 small parents 

operating facilities that filed electronically are assumed to incur the costs of rule familiarization only. 

Under Scenario I, in addition to the cost of rule familiarization, the 213 small parent entities operating 

TRI facilities that filed by paper are assumed to incur the additional costs of CDX registration, 

establishing an ESA, and purchasing a computer and Internet access. In Scenario II, in addition to rule 

familiarization, the 44 small parent entities operating TRI facilities that did not report an email address or 

whose email address domain does not match the company name are assumed to incur the additional costs 

of purchasing a computer and Internet access, and the remaining 169 parent entities will incur only the 

costs of rule familiarization, CDX registration, and establishing an ESA. In Scenario III, only the 16 small 

parent entities operating TRI facilities that did not submit an email address are assumed to incur the costs 

of purchasing computer and Internet access. This cost breakdown is summarized in Table 22 below. 

Table 22: Compliance Costs Incurred by TRI Facilities in Sectors with Data in SUSB

Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III

Number of small parent entities incurring costs for rule 

familiarization only 2,813 2,813 2,813

Number of small parent entities incurring costs for rule 

familiarization, CDX registration, and establishing an ESA 0 169 197

Number of small parent entities incurring costs for rule 

familiarization, CDX registration, establishing an ESA, and 

purchasing a computer and Internet access

213 44 16

Affected parent entities will incur the annualized cost for each TRI facility it operates. Therefore, the 

annualized per-facility compliance cost is multiplied by the average number of facilities per parent to 

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

proposed rule.29 This approach is applied for each of the scenarios (I, II, and III) at both a 3% and 7% 

discount rate, as further discussed in the proceeding chapter.

Estimate Cost Impact Ratios

To calculate the cost impact ratio for a parent entity, the annualized compliance cost per parent entity is 

divided by the average revenue per small parent entity for each affected sector. For each sector, this 

calculation is conducted separately for each case within each scenario outlined in Table 22 (parents 

operating facilities incurring rule familiarization costs only, parents operating facilities incurring 

additional CDX registration and ESA costs, and parents operating facilities incurring additional CDX 

registration, ESA, and computer and Internet costs). This calculation is performed under the three 

scenarios and at a 3% and 7% discount rate, as is shown in Table 23. Based on the calculations, no small 

parent is expected to incur an impact of greater than 1% of annual revenue under any of the scenarios 

considered. 

 

28Because it was not possible to distinguish small parents from large parents in the TRI data, these estimates likely 

overestimate the number of facilities per small parent entity. 

29 Note that under each scenario, facilities owned by the parent company may be filing using different methods. This 

analysis assumes the most conservative cost for all facilities operated by each parent.
28 October 15, 2011

Table 23: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Parent Entities in Census Sectors

Scenario

Cost Impact 

of

<1%

Cost 

Impact 

Between 

1 and 3%

Cost 

Impact of 

>3%

# % # % # %

3% Discount Rate

Scenario I 3,026 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 2,813 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA costs 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 213 100 0 0 0 0

Scenario II 3,026 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 2,813 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA costs 169 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 44 100 0 0 0 0

Scenario III 3,026 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 2,813 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA costs 197 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 16 100 0 0 0 0

7% Discount Rate

Scenario I 3,026 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 2,813 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA costs 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 213 100 0 0 0 0

Scenario II 3,026 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 2,813 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA costs 169 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 44 100 0 0 0 0

Scenario III 3,026 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 2,813 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA costs 197 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 16 100 0 0 0 0

The maximum impact incurred by any small parent across all of the scenarios is 0.34%, which is 

incurred by small parents of paper filers in the Other Pressed and Blown Glass and Glassware 

Manufacturing industry (NAICS 327212). Impact calculations for the five NAICS codes with the highest 

impacts are shown in Table 24. 
29 October 15, 2011

Table 24: Compliance Costs Calculations for Five Most Impacted NAICS Codes

NAICS Unit Cost

Average 

Number of 

TRI Facilities 

per Parent 

Entity

Total 

Cost per 

Parent 

Entity

Average 

Revenue 

per Small 

Parent 

Entity

Cost 

Impact 

Ratio 

(%)

3% Discount Rate

327212 Other Pressed and Blown Glass and 

Glassware Manufacturing $241.46 18 $4,346 $1,356,821 0.32%

314999 All Other Miscellaneous Textile Product 

Mills $241.46 17 $4,105 $1,472,375 0.28%

562112 Hazardous Waste Collection $241.46 17 $4,105 $1,539,876 0.27%

327123 Other Structural Clay Product 

Manufacturing $241.46 30 $7,244 $2,768,168 0.26%

327390 Other Concrete Product Manufacturing $241.46 29 $7,002 $3,138,468 0.22%

7% Discount Rate

327212 Other Pressed and Blown Glass and 

Glassware Manufacturing $259.46 18 $4,670 $1,356,821 0.34%

314999 All Other Miscellaneous Textile Product 

Mills $259.46 17 $4,411 $1,472,375 0.30%

562112 Hazardous Waste Collection $259.46 17 $4,411 $1,539,876 0.29%

327123 Other Structural Clay Product 

Manufacturing $259.46 30 $7,784 $2,768,168 0.28%

327390 Other Concrete Product Manufacturing $259.46 29 $7,524 $3,138,468 0.24%

4.4.2 Utilities

For six of the 6-digit NAICS codes for utilities, the small business definition is based on electricity 

generation rather than employment or annual revenue. Therefore, for these sectors, it is necessary to use 

an alternate method to determine the impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. The six 6-digit 

NAICS code sectors with small business definitions based on electricity generation are:

221111 Hydroelectric Power Generation

221112 Fossil Fuel Electric Power Generation

221113 Nuclear Power Generation

221119 Other Electric Power Generation

221121 Electric Bulk Power Transmission and Control

221122 Electric Power Distribution

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

generation and fuel consumption for U.S. power plants in its EIA-923 database.30 EPA uses this 

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

utility facilities that are classified within the sectors discussed above. 

Characterize the Universe of Affected TRI Facilities

In RY 2009, 649 TRI facilities reported a utility NAICS code. However, some facilities reporting to TRI 

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

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

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

governments, identified based on the reported parent and facility name in RY 2009 (see Section 4.5). 

 

30 Accessible at http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia906_920.html.
30 October 15, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2009. It was assumed that the potential impacts on the ten facilities for which information could not be 

located would follow the distribution of impacts on the 535 facilities for which EIA records were 

available. The TRI utility facility universe is summarized in Table 25 below. 

Table 25: TRI Utility Universe

Utility Universe # 

Facilities

TRI Utility Facilities 649

 TRI Utility Facilities not Operated by Governments 545

 TRI Utility Facilities with Information in EIA databases 535

Sources: 

U.S. EPA (2011). TRI RY 2009: NA2009. Accessed via TRI.NET

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

Energy. 2009b. Form EIA-923 Database. 

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

Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships

Each utility was matched to its parent based on the TRI data for RY 2009 (Abt Associates, 2011). The 

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

known based on the parent company reported to TRI for RY 2009, the actual number of utilities per 

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

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

utility facilities.

Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities

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

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

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

generation and price were combined to generate an estimate of annual revenue. Specifically, the national 

average price of 9.51 cents per kilowatt-hour, or $95.10 per megawatt-hour from the month of December, 

2010, is multiplied by the total electricity generation per parent to construct annual revenue for each 

parent entity (EIA, 2010).

Estimate the Number of Small Parent Entities

Small utilities are defined as those businesses which are primarily engaged in the generation, 

transmission, and/or distribution of electric energy for sale with the total electric output for the fiscal year 

not exceeding 4 million megawatt-hours.31 Based on this definition, and aggregating the individual 

facility net generation to the parent level, 123 of the 184 (67%) utility parent entities meet the definition 

of being a small parent entity. 

 

31 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (accessible at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf).
31 October 15, 2011

Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs

Of the 123 small parent entities operating TRI utilities potentially impacted by the proposed rule, two 

operate utilities that submitted exclusively using paper forms in RY 2009. The two facilities in question 

reported email addresses with domains that match the company name. Therefore, under scenarios II and 

III the small utility parents will incur only the costs of rule familiarization, CDX registration, and 

establishing an ESA. Under scenario I, these facilities will also incur the cost of purchasing computer and 

Internet access. The remaining 121 small parent entities operate utility facilities that already report 

electronically and will only incur the costs of rule familiarization under all scenarios. The number of 

utilities under each scenario is summarized in Table 26. 

Table 26: Compliance Costs Incurred by TRI Facilities in Utility Sectors

Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III

Number of small parent entities incurring costs for rule 

familiarization only 121 121 121

Number of small parent entities incurring costs for rule 

familiarization, CDX registration, and establishing an ESA 0 2 2

Number of small parent entities incurring costs for rule 

familiarization, CDX registration, establishing an ESA, and 

purchasing a computer and Internet access

2 0 0

Affected parent entities will incur the annualized compliance cost once for each TRI utility it operates. 

Therefore, the annualized per-facility compliance cost is multiplied by the number of utilities per parent 

under each scenario to calculate the total annualized compliance cost for each parent entity affected under 

the proposed rule. 

Estimate Cost Impact Ratios

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

annualized compliance cost for each parent entity by their annual revenue. Based on this calculation, no 

small parent is expected to incur an impact of greater than 1% of annual revenue under any of the 

scenarios considered. These results are summarized in Table 27.
32 October 15, 2011

Table 27: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Parent Entities in Utility Sectors

Scenario

Cost 

Impact of

<1%

Cost 

Impact 

Between 

1 and 

3%

Cost Impact 

of >3%

# % # % # %

3% Discount Rate

Scenario I

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 121 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA costs 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 2 100 0 0 0 0

Scenario II

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 121 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA costs 2 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a

Scenario III

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 121 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA costs 2 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a

7% Discount Rate

Scenario I

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 121 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA costs 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 2 100 0 0 0 0

Scenario II

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 121 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA costs 2 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a

Scenario III

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 121 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA costs 2 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a

The maximum impact incurred by any small parent entity under all of the scenarios is 0.0009%. 

Impact calculations for the five small utility parents with the highest impacts are shown in Table 28 

below. Because the impact incurred by any small utility parent is less than one percent, there are is no 

significant impact to small utilities.
33 October 15, 2011

Table 28: Compliance Costs Calculations for Five Most Impacted Small 

Parent Entities in Utility Sectors 

Parent Entity Unit Cost

Number of TRI 

Facilities per 

Parent Entity

Total Cost 

per Parent 

Entity

Estimated Average 

Revenue per Small 

Parent Entity

Cost 

Impact 

Ratio (%)

3% Discount Rate

Parent Entity 1 $3.25 2 $6.50 $803,310 0.0008%

Parent Entity 2 $241.46 1 $241.46 $36,147,225 0.0007%

Parent Entity 3 $3.25 1 $3.25 $1,009,201 0.0003%

Parent Entity 4 $241.46 1 $241.46 $75,435,222 0.0003%

Parent Entity 5 $3.25 1 $3.25 $1,389,601 0.0002%

7% Discount Rate

Parent Entity 1 $3.56 2 $7.12 $803,310 0.0009%

Parent Entity 2 $259.46 1 $259.46 $36,147,225 0.0007%

Parent Entity 3 $3.56 1 $3.56 $1,009,201 0.0004%

Parent Entity 4 $259.46 1 $259.46 $75,435,222 0.0003%

Parent Entity 5 $3.56 1 $3.56 $1,389,601 0.0003%

4.5 Impacts on Small Government Jurisdictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

impacts on small local governments operating TRI facilities.

Identify Universe of Affected TRI Facilities

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

facility name in RY 2009. This method identified a total of 483 government owned TRI facilities 

reporting in RY 2009. However, 419 of these facilities are owned by states or the federal government, and 

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

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

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

summarized in Table 29.

Table 29: TRI Government Owned Facility Universe

Utility Universe # 

Facilities

TRI Facilities Owned by a Government Jurisdiction 483

 TRI Facilities Owned by a Municipality 64

Source: U.S. EPA (2011). TRI RY 2009: NA2009. Accessed via TRI.NET
34 October 15, 2011

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

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

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

list of municipalities. 

Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Estimate Annual Revenue of Parent Entities

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

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

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

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

Bureau, 2005b).

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

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

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

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

considered the best available index to use in this situation.

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

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

Census 2009 Population Estimates (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b). 

Estimate the Number of Small Parent Entities

As discussed in Section 4.2, "small governmental jurisdictions" are defined as the government of a city, 

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

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

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

affected municipalities are classified as “small.” 

Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs

Of the 36 small municipalities potentially impacted by the proposed rule, four operate facilities that 

submitted exclusively using paper forms in RY 2009. The four facilities in question reported email 

addresses with domains that match the municipality name. Therefore, under scenarios II and III the four 

small municipalities will incur the costs of rule familiarization, CDX registration, and establishing an 

ESA. Under scenario I, these facilities will incur the additional cost of purchasing computer and Internet 

access. The remaining 32 small municipalities operate TRI facilities that already report electronically and 

will incur the costs of rule familiarization only. Table 30 summarizes this information. 
35 October 15, 2011

Table 30: Compliance Costs Incurred by TRI Facilities Operated by Small 

Government Jurisdictions

Scenario I Scenario II Scenario III

Number of small parent entities incurring costs for rule 

familiarization only 32 32 32

Number of small parent entities incurring costs for rule 

familiarization, CDX registration, and establishing an ESA 0 4 4

Number of small parent entities incurring costs for rule 

familiarization, CDX registration, establishing an ESA, and 

purchasing a computer and Internet access

4 0 0

Affected parent entities will incur the annualized compliance cost once for each TRI facility it operates. 

Therefore, the annualized per-facility compliance cost was multiplied by the number of facilities operated 

by each municipality to calculate the total annualized compliance cost for each parent entity affected 

under the proposed rule. This calculation is performed under the three scenarios and at a 3% and 7% 

discount rate. 

Estimate Cost Impact Ratios

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

cost for that entity by the annual revenue of the local government. Based on this calculation, no small

municipality is expected to incur an impact of greater than 1% of annual revenue under any of the 

scenarios considered. These results are summarized in Table 31. Because this impact incurred by any 

small municipality is less than one percent, there is likely no significant impact to any small municipality.
36 October 15, 2011

Table 31: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Government Jurisdictions

Scenario

Cost 

Impact of

<1%

Cost 

Impact 

Between 

1 and 3%

Cost Impact 

of >3%

# % # % # %

3% Discount Rate

Scenario I

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 32 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA 

costs 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 4 100 0 0 0 0

Scenario II

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 32 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA 

costs 4 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a

Scenario III

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 32 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA 

costs 4 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a

7% Discount Rate

Scenario I

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 32 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA 

costs 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 4 100 0 0 0 0

Scenario II

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 32 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA 

costs 4 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a

Scenario III

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 32 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA 

costs 4 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a

The maximum impact incurred by any small government jurisdiction under all of the scenarios is 

0.0040%. Impact calculations for the five small government jurisdictions with the highest impacts are 

shown in Table 32 below. Because the impact incurred by any small government jurisdiction is less than 

one percent, there is likely no significant impact to any small government jurisdiction.
37 October 15, 2011

Table 32: Compliance Costs Calculations for Five Most Impacted 

Government Jurisdictions 

Parent Entity Unit 

Cost

Number of 

TRI 

Facilities 

per Parent 

Entity

Total 

Cost per 

Parent 

Entity

Estimated 

Average 

Revenue per 

Small Parent 

Entity

Cost 

Impact 

Ratio 

(%)

3% Discount Rate

Government Jurisdiction 1 $241.46 1 $241.46 $6,416,142 0.0038%

Government Jurisdiction 2 $241.46 1 $241.46 $17,530,565 0.0014%

Government Jurisdiction 3 $3.25 1 $3.25 $249,733 0.0013%

Government Jurisdiction 4 $3.25 1 $3.25 $1,913,987 0.0002%

Government Jurisdiction 5 $3.25 1 $3.25 $4,228,521 0.0001%

7% Discount Rate

Government Jurisdiction 1 $259.46 1 $259.46 $6,416,142 0.0040%

Government Jurisdiction 2 $259.46 1 $259.46 $17,530,565 0.0015%

Government Jurisdiction 3 $3.56 1 $3.56 $249,733 0.0014%

Government Jurisdiction 4 $3.56 1 $3.56 $1,913,987 0.0002%

Government Jurisdiction 5 $3.56 1 $3.56 $4,228,521 0.0001%
38 October 15, 2011

4.6 Summary

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

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

for small governmental jurisdictions. Of these sectors, no entities are expected to incur a cost impact of 

1% or greater associated with the annualized compliance costs resulting from the proposed rule under any 

of the scenarios, as is shown in Table 33 below. 

Table 33: Estimated Impacts of Proposed Rule on Small Parent Entities

Category of Sector Description

Cost Impact 

of

<1%

Cost 

Impact 

Between 

1 and 3%

Cost 

Impact 

of >3%

# % # % # %

3% Discount Rate

Scenario I

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 2,966 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA costs 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 219 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a

Scenario II

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 2,966 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA costs 175 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 44 100 0 0 0 0

Scenario III

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 2,966 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA costs 203 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 16 100 0 0 0 0

7% Discount Rate

Scenario I

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 2,966 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA costs 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 219 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a

Scenario II

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 2,966 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA costs 175 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 44 100 0 0 0 0

Scenario III

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization costs 2,966 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, and ESA costs 203 100 0 0 0 0

# Small parent entities incurring rule familiarization, CDX registration, ESA, and 

computer and Internet costs 16 100 0 0 0 0
39 October 15, 2011

Chapter 5 – Benefits

In enacting the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 and the 

Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990, Congress recognized the significant benefits of providing 

information on the presence, releases and waste management of toxic chemicals. The Toxics Release 

Inventory (TRI) has proven to be one of the most influential forces in empowering the federal 

government, state and local governments, industry, environmental groups, and the general public to fully 

participate in an informed dialogue about the environmental impacts of toxic chemicals in the United 

States. The TRI database provides several types of information, including quantitative information on 

toxic chemical releases and other waste management practices. Starting in 1987, the collection of this 

information enhanced the ability for the public, government, and the regulated community to understand 

the breadth and magnitude of chemical releases in the United States, and to assess the need to reduce the 

releases and transfers of toxic chemicals. TRI data enable all interested parties to establish credible 

hazardous chemical quantity baselines, to set realistic goals for environmental progress, and to measure 

progress in meeting these goals over time. As such, the TRI Program has become a yardstick by which 

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

Although EPA has not attempted to quantify the benefits of the proposed rule, it is expected that 

electronic reporting of TRI forms will provide numerous benefits to both facilities and EPA. Through the 

requirement for electronic reporting, EPA will save the costs of data entry and processing paper forms 

since TRI-MEweb submissions will already be in electronic form. As was noted in Chapter 3, TRI-MEweb

will pre-populate forms based on the prior year‟s submission, which should expedite the data preparation 

process. TRI-MEweb provides other tools to assist facilities in providing TRI data, such as validation 

features to help facilities report accurate information. Facilities will also avoid paper and mailing costs as 

a result of switching to electronic reporting, and instead be able to submit data securely via the Internet. In 

RY 2009, nearly 94.6% of forms were submitted electronically via TRI-MEweb, despite the fact that 

electronic reporting, though encouraged, is not currently required, indicating the general usefulness of the 

tool to reporters.32 By requiring electronic reporting, the benefits associated with using TRI-MEweb will 

be extended to all TRI reporters. 

 

32U.S. EPA (2011). TRI National Analysis Files, accessed April 11, 2011.
40 October 15, 2011

Literature Cited

Abt Associates, Inc (2011). List of Corporate Parents Used to Pre-Populate TRI-MEweb for RY2010.

AT&T (2011). AT&T Small Office/Home Office DSL. 

http://businessesales.att.com/products/merch_internet.jhtml. Accessed April 22, 2011.

CBS Interactive (2010). Desktop Buying Guide. Cnet Reviews, March 24, 2010. 

http://reviews.cnet.com/desktop-computer-buying-guide. Accessed April 15, 2011.

Microsoft (2011). Windows 7 PC Buying Guide.

http://www.staples.com/sbd/cre/marketing/windows_7/pdf/windows_7_buying_guide.pdf. Accessed 

April 15, 2011.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compensation. Table 9: Private industry, goods-producing and service-providing industries, by 

occupational group. December 2010.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. EPA (2008). Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Proposed 

Rule. June 5, 2008.
41 October 15, 2011

U.S. EPA (2010). CDX Frequently Asked Questions. https://cdx.epa.gov/ssl/cdx/faq.asp#REG2. Updated 

May 18, 2010, Accessed April 22, 2011.

U.S. EPA (2011a). TRI RY 2009 National Analysis (NA) Files. Accessed April 11, 2011.

U.S. EPA (2011b). TRI RY 2009: NA2009. Accessed via TRI.NET.

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

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

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

Utilization. Release Date April 15, 2011. http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/current/default.htm

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

& Employment by Employment Size of Firm by NAICS Codes. 

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

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

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

February 8, 2011.

Verizon (2011). Verizon Small Business High Speed Internet Plans. 

http://smallbusiness.verizon.com/products/internet/hsi/overview.aspx#plans. Accessed April 22, 2011.