Prepared for:

Analytical Support Branch

Environmental Analysis Division

Office of Information Analysis and Access

Office of Environmental Information

US Environmental Protection Agency

February 9, 2012

Economic Analysis of the Proposed Rule to Add 

ortho-Nitrotoluene to the EPCRA Section 313 

List of Toxic Chemicals
i 2/9/2012

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................. iii

ES.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................iii

ES.2 Need for Rule ..................................................................................................................................iii

ES.3 Addition of Chemicals.....................................................................................................................iii

ES.4 Estimated Reporting Activity ..........................................................................................................iii

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

ES.6 Small Entity Analysis......................................................................................................................vi

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

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

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

1.2 Chemicals for Addition to TRI......................................................................................................1-4

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

Chapter 2 – Estimates of the Number of Additional Forms and Affected Facilities2-1

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

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

2.3 Estimation of the Number of Forms and Facilities .......................................................................2-7

2.4 Summary of the Total Number of Forms and Facilities under the Proposed Rule .......................2-9

Chapter 3 – Cost Estimates ................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................3-1

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

3.3 EPA Costs......................................................................................................................................3-7

3.4 Total Costs.....................................................................................................................................3-8

Chapter 4 – Small Entity Analysis ...................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................4-1

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

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

4.4 Methodology Overview.................................................................................................................4-2

4.5 Summary of Results ......................................................................................................................4-7

Chapter 5 – Benefits ........................................................................................... 5-1
ii 2/9/2012

Table of Tables

Table ES- 1: Total Estimated Number of Forms and Facilities under the Proposed Rule ...........................iv

Table ES- 2: Industry Reporting Burden.......................................................................................................v

Table ES- 3: Estimated Number of Submissions and Incremental Agency Cost by Media 

Type ...........................................................................................................................................v

Table ES- 4: Summary of Total Costs of Proposed Rule .............................................................................vi

Table ES- 5: Summary of Universe for Small Entity Impact Analyses.......................................................vi

Table ES- 6: Summary of Impacts on Small Parent Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule ....................vii

Table 2-1: Estimated 2000 European Consumption of o-Nitrotoluene.................................................... 2-1

Table 2-2: Primary Sectors Manufacturing, Processing, or Otherwise Using o-Nitrotoluene ................. 2-2

Table 2-3: RY2010 TRI Reporting for the Potential Proxy Chemicals Across All Industry 

Sectors.................................................................................................................................... 2-5

Table 2-4: Comparison of the Major Uses of o-Nitrotoluene to the Potential Proxy Chemicals............. 2-6

Table 2-5: Estimated Forms and Facilities from Chemical Manufacturers Under the Proposed 

Rule ........................................................................................................................................ 2-8

Table 2-6: Estimated Forms and Facilities from Waste Treatment Under the Proposed Rule ................ 2-8

Table 2-7: Total Estimated Forms and Facilities Under the Proposed Rule ............................................ 2-9

Table 3-1: The Derivation of the Weighted Average Wage Rate (2011$)............................................... 3-5

Table 3-2: Total Estimated Forms Under the Proposed Rule................................................................... 3-6

Table 3-3: Industry Reporting Burden...................................................................................................... 3-6

Table 3-4: Industry Reporting Cost.......................................................................................................... 3-7

Table 3-5: Agency Forms Processing Cost by Media Type..................................................................... 3-7

Table 3-6: Estimated Number of Submissions and Incremental Agency Cost by Media Type ............... 3-8

Table 3-7: Summary of Total Costs of Proposed Rule.............................................................................. 3-8

Table 4-1: Small Business Size Standards for Industries Affected by the Proposed Rule........................ 4-2

Table 4-2: Summary of Universe for Small Entity Impact Analyses for Actual Facilities....................... 4-5

Table 4-3: Summary of Impacts on Small Parent Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule 

(Actual Facilities) .................................................................................................................. 4-5

Table 4-4: Summary of Impacts on Small Parent Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule 

(Modeled Facilities)............................................................................................................... 4-7
iii 2/9/2012

Executive Summary

ES.1 Introduction 

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

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

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to states on their releases, transfers, and other 

waste management practices for certain toxic chemicals if they are manufactured, processed, or otherwise 

used above certain threshold amounts. This information is included in a publicly available database 

known as the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).

Currently, there are 593 chemicals and 30 chemical categories on the list of chemicals subject to EPCRA 

section 313 requirements.

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

reportable substances. Under this rule, reporting for an additional chemical, ortho-nitrotoluene (also 

known as 2-nitrotoluene or o-nitrotoluene) would be required. 

ES.2 Need for Rule 

EPA believes that o-nitrotoluene meets the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) criteria for listing because of its

carcinogenic properties. Further, EPA believes that facilities currently manufacture, process, or otherwise 

use these chemicals above TRI thresholds and therefore would file TRI reports based on the analysis 

presented in this document. 

ES.3 Addition of Chemicals 

o-Nitrotoluene is primarily processed as a reactant to manufacture other chemicals used in the synthesis 

of dyes; rubber and agriculture chemicals; explosives; and pharmaceuticals (OECD, 1994; Dugal, 2005). 

o-Nitrotoluene has been classified by the National Toxicology Program in their 12th Report on 

Carcinogens as “reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” EPA believes that o-nitrotoluene 

meets the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) criteria because it can reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer in 

humans as there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in experimental animals as well as

supporting data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis. 

Human exposure to o-nitrotoluene in the United States is expected to result primarily from dermal contact 

and inhalation during its production and use. The general population may be exposed to o-nitrotoluene as 

a result of its occurrence in the environment from (1) accidental spills of o-nitrotoluene or chemical 

mixtures containing o-nitrotoluene, (2) emissions directly into the environment, or (3) breakdown products of dinitrotoluenes (DNT) and trinitrotoluenes (TNT).

ES.4 Estimated Reporting Activity 

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

 1 Includes the 16 chemicals added to the list of reportable chemicals on November 26, 2010.
iv 2/9/2012

Table ES- 1: Total Estimated Number of Forms and Facilities under the Proposed Rule

NAICS NAICS Description

Forms Facilities

Form R Form A Total Existing 

Filers

First Time 

Filers Total

325 Chemical Manufacturing 2 1 3 3 0 3

311942 Spice and Extract Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

325110 Petrochemical Manufacturing 1 1 2 2 0 2

325132 Synthetic Organic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

325188 All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

325192 Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 3 2 5 5 0 5

325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

325411 Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing 1 1 2 1 1 2

325413 In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and 

Preparation Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal 1 0 1 1 0 1

562213 Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators 1 0 1 1 0 1

Total 17 5 22 21 1 22

ES.5 Costs of the Proposed Rule 

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

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

time processing new forms. 

ES.5.1 Industry Costs 

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

burden methodology.2 Estimating reporting burden using RBBM produces a more stable estimate that 

reflects overall “average” reporting conditions at affected facilities. According to RBBM, reporting 

activities can be divided into two groups: 

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

calculations and form completion, and recordkeeping and submission; and 

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

determination. 

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

burden incurred by filers to file a Form R. The Nominal Form R unit burden is set at 35.70516 hours.3

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

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

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

R and Forms A expected to be filed due to the proposed rule. RBBM combines Form Activity Burden 

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

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

 2 Revising TRI Burden to Ratio-Based Methodology, TRI Regulatory Development Branch, TRI Program Division, 

Office of Information Analysis and Access, Office of Environmental Information, January 2011, EPA Docket ID 

Number EPA-HQ-OEI-2010-0825. 3 The burden of 35.70516 includes the recent addition of .00516 hours of burden associated with the new Dioxin 

Reporting Requirements promulgated in May 10, 2007, and accounted for in the 2011 ICR (Docket# EPA-HQ-OEI2010-0835.
v 2/9/2012

be incurred by filers due to the proposed rule (previously referred to as “Subsequent Year Burden”). To 

represent the elevated level of effort incurred by both filers reporting to TRI for the first-time and those 

already reporting to TRI but considering the requirements of the proposed rule for the first time, a FirstTime Filer Factor (FTFf) is computed at 2.1. 

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

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

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

Costs for Employee Compensation, updated quarterly. As of December 7, 2011, the WAWR is calculated 

at $50.56.

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

steady state. 

Table ES- 2: Industry Reporting Burden

Forms R 

(#)

Forms A 

(#)

Form R Burden 

(hours)

Form A Burden 

(hours)

Total Burden 

(hours)

Total Cost

(2011$)

First Year

17 5 1,275 231 1,506 $76,143

Steady State 607 110 717 $36,252

ES.5.2 EPA Costs 

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

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

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

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

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

Assuming the same distribution of submission media types as that in RY2010, the total form processing 

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

$70. Because of a low percentage of Forms R and Forms A submitted by paper in RY2010 (2.73% and 

4.73%, respectively, which, when applied, rounds to zero paper forms), it is estimated that the universe of 

submissions for o-nitrotoluene would be via TRIMEweb only, as presented in Table ES-3. 

Table ES- 3: Estimated Number of Submissions and Incremental Agency Cost by Media Type

Media Type Forms R

(#)

Forms A

(#)

Form Processing 

($/Form)

Processing Cost 

($)

TRIMEweb 17 5 $3.19 $70

ES.5.3 Summary of Costs 

The total cost of the proposed rule to industry and EPA is estimated at $76,213 in the first year and 

$36,322 in the steady state of the rule. Table ES-4 summarizes the total costs to industry and EPA 

associated with the proposed rule.
vi 2/9/2012

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

Description First Year Steady State

Industry Costs $76,143 $36,252 

Agency Costs $70 $70 

Total Costs $76,213 $36,322 

 

ES.6 Small Entity Analysis 

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

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

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

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

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

small entities.

This analysis uses estimated 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 revenues or sales. For purposes of determining small entity impacts,

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

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

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

regulation are likely to be minimal.

Cost impact percentages are calculated for the incremental compliance costs incurred during the first year 

of the rule and in the steady state. The incremental reporting burden and cost associated with this 

proposed rule is estimated using the Ratio-Based Burden Methodology (RBBM), described above.

Twenty-two facilities are expected to report under the proposed rule. The universe of potentially affected 

facilities was estimated using EPA’s TSCA Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Database, the Directory of 

World Chemical Producers (DWCP), other available publications, and existing TRI reporters. The 

method used to estimate the universe of affected facilities is discussed in detail in Chapter 2. 

The 22 potentially affected facilities can be divided into the following two groups:

• Actual Facilities – 20 facilities potentially subject to the proposed rule’s reporting requirements, 

where the identity of each facility is known. 

• Modeled Facilities – two facilities, where the identity of the individual facilities is unknown but 

where it was possible to estimate the total number of potentially subject facilities by NAICS code 

via the proxy chemical method, as described in Chapter 2. 

The estimation of revenue, employment, and impact figures for these two groups of facilities is performed

separately. The universe of affected facilities, parent companies, and affected small parent entities is 

summarized in Table ES-5. 

Table ES- 5: Summary of Universe for Small Entity Impact Analyses 

Number of facilities estimated to experience an impact 22

Number of parent companies 20

Number of small parent entities 6
vii 2/9/2012

The estimated impacts on small parent entities under the proposed rule are presented in Table ES-6. All 

six of the affected small parent entities would incur cost impacts of less than 1% in the first year of the 

rule and in the steady state.

Table ES- 6: Summary of Impacts on Small Parent Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule 

Cost Impact Category Affected Small Entities in 1st Year Affected Small Entities in Steady State

# % # %

Less than 1% 6 100% 6 100%

1% to 3% 0 0% 0 0%

Greater than 3% 0 0% 0 0%

ES.7 Benefits of the Proposed Rule 

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

related to the provision and distribution of information on releases and waste management of onitrotoluene. The provision of information can lead to follow-on activities that create additional costs and 

benefits. In particular, this information can lead to voluntary initiatives by industry to review production 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

communities’ exposure to toxic chemicals. In its report entitled: How are the Toxics Release Inventory 

Data Used? – Government, Business, Academic, and Citizen Uses, EPA has documented numerous 

examples of how multiple stakeholders have used TRI data (US EPA, 2003). Moreover, a cursory search 

on GoogleScholarTM reveals thousands of academic articles referencing the Toxics Release Inventory. 

Listing o-nitrotoluene, and the subsequent use of the reported information, should provide similar gains in 

understanding of this particular chemical. EPA believes that o-nitrotoluene meets the statutory toxicity 

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

believed there were net benefits due to reporting (i.e., the initial list of section 313 chemicals). 
viii 2/9/2012

Literature Cited

CDC (2009).Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Survey (NHANES). http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm

Revising TRI Burden to Ratio-Based Methodology, TRI Regulatory Development Branch, TRI Program 

Division, Office of Information Analysis and Access, Office of Environmental Information, 

January 20011, EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OEI-2010-0825.

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

U.S. EPA. (2006) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory Update Reporting (IUR): NonConfidential 2006 TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR) Records.

http://cfpub.epa.gov/iursearch/index.cfm?s=chem. (accessed Dec 9, 2009).

U.S. EPA (2011a). Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number (ICR) 1363.21, 

OMB Number 2025-0009: TRI Form R and Form A Toxic Chemical Release Reporting. 

February 2011.

U.S. EPA (2003). How are the Toxics Release Inventory Data Used? – Government, Business, Academic, 

and Citizen Uses. EPA 260-R-002-004. May 2003.
1-1 2/9/2012

Chapter 1– Background and Overview of Analysis

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

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

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

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

to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to States on their release(s), transfer(s), 

and waste management activities for certain toxic chemicals if they are manufactured, processed, or 

otherwise used above thresholds amounts. In addition, the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990 

requires these same facilities to report prevention, recycling, and other waste management information for 

these same chemicals. EPA maintains the data collected under EPCRA section 313 and the PPA in a 

database known as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI).4

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

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

10,000 pounds for toxic chemicals that are otherwise used. Facilities that meet these reporting thresholds, 

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

be required for an additional chemical, ortho-nitrotoluene (o-nitrotoluene) about which EPA is concerned 

as it is reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in humans. 

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

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

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

1.1 Overview of TRI 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

management of toxic chemicals.

EPCRA contains four main provisions:

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

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

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

• Toxic chemical release reporting (section 313).

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

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

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

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

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

make the report simpler and easier to read.
1-2 2/9/2012

Because this rule falls under section 313 (and not the other sections of EPCRA), the remainder of this 

overview deals only with the TRI provisions of section 313.

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

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

regulated facilities must complete the Toxic Chemical Release Inventory Reporting Form R, which 

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

the chemical to off-site locations. 

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

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

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

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

categories above the applicable reporting threshold.

Facilities must submit the forms each calendar year to both EPA and the State in which the facility is 

located by July 1 of the following year.

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

used over threshold levels at each regulated facility as described in 40 CFR part 372. For most chemicals, 

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

(40 CFR § 372.25). Over 600 toxic chemicals and chemical compound categories are currently on the list 

of TRI chemicals.

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

was designed for public access. EPCRA requires that EPA “establish and maintain in a computer 

database a national toxic chemical inventory based on data submitted to the Administrator” (42 U.S.C. § 

11023(j)). EPA maintains the section 313 data in the national TRI database and makes the data available 

to the public in a variety of formats, including online search tools and downloadable data files. With its 

broad dissemination, TRI data is used extensively by the public. Facilities use the data obtained through 

TRI to better understand their operations, and make better use of pollution prevention opportunities. 

Public-interest groups use the data to inform themselves about the presence of toxic chemicals in the 

environment, and use that knowledge to engage in a meaningful, productive dialogue with industry and 

all levels of government. In general, TRI data have proven to be a powerful tool in environmental 

decision-making.

1.1.1 Pollution Prevention Act 

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

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

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

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

source reduction and recycling options have been eliminated. Section 6607 of the PPA requires facilities 

to also report information on their pollution prevention, recycling, and other waste management activities. 

This information complements the information reported under EPCRA section 313 by providing 

information about the waste management activities related to the reported chemicals. The data elements 

required by the Pollution Prevention Act are included as Section 8 of Form R.
1-3 2/9/2012

1.1.2 Changes to the List of Chemicals 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

286 chemicals and chemical categories to the list of toxic chemicals subject to TRI on November 30, 

1994 (59 FR 61432). The majority of these chemicals are pesticides. Many of the remaining chemicals 

are either regulated or identified as concerns under other environmental statutes such as the Clean Air 

Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

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

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

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

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

1.1.3 Alternate Threshold 

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

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

with EPCRA section 313. It established a streamlined reporting option for facilities where the annual 

reportable amount of a listed chemical released or managed does not exceed 500 pounds.5 Such facilities 

have the option of applying an alternate manufacture, process, or otherwise use threshold of 1 million 

pounds to that chemical, instead of the standard thresholds of 10,000 or 25,000 pounds. If a facility does 

not exceed the 1 million-pound threshold, then that facility is eligible to submit Form A for that chemical 

instead of Form R. Form A is a simplified reporting form that includes facility identification information 

and identifies the chemical or chemical category being reported. The form must be submitted on an 

annual basis.

1.1.4 Executive Order 12856 

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

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

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

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

quantities of their releases and transfers by 1999.

1.1.5 Changes to the List of Industries 

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

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

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

treated, or released. It can be calculated as is the sum of data elements 8.1 through 8.7 on Form R.
1-4 2/9/2012

to be submitted in 1999 for reporting year 1998. Prior to this action, reporting was limited to facilities in 

the manufacturing sector and federal facilities. This action added facilities in the following sectors: 

• Metal mining, 

• Coal mining,

• Electric utilities,

• Commercial hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities

• Chemicals and allied products-wholesale,

• Petroleum bulk terminals and plants-wholesale, and

• Solvent recovery services.

1.1.6 Changes for Certain PBT Chemicals 

On October 29, 1999, EPA lowered reporting thresholds to 10 or 100 pounds for certain TRI chemicals 

(persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals, or PBT chemicals) that are of concern because of their 

toxicity and tendency to persist and bioaccumulate (64 FR 58666). EPA also added to TRI certain PBT 

chemicals that were not already listed including a dioxin category with a reporting threshold of 0.1 gram. 

At this time EPA made other changes to PBT chemical reporting, such as disallowing the use of the de 

minimis exemption, range reporting, and Form A reporting for PBT chemicals (40 CFR § 372.28(b)). On 

January 17, 2001, EPA lowered the reporting threshold for lead and lead compounds to 100 pounds and 

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

1.1.7 Toxic Chemical Release Reporting Using North American Industry 

Classification System (NAICS) Rule 

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

Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes in place of the Standard Industry Classification (SIC) 

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

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

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

forms.

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

Rule- Final Rule 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.2 Chemicals for Addition to TRI 

1.2.1 Addition of or tho-Nitrotoluene 

ortho-Nitrotoluene (also known as 2-nitrotoluene or o-nitrotoluene) is primarily processed as a reactant to 

manufacture other chemicals used in the synthesis of dyes; rubber and agriculture chemicals; explosives;

and pharmaceuticals (OECD, 1994; Dugal, 2005). o-Nitrotoluene has been classified by the National 

Toxicology Program in their 12th Report on Carcinogens as “reasonably anticipated to be a human 

carcinogen.” EPA believes that o-nitrotoluene meets the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) criteria because it 
1-5 2/9/2012

can reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer in humans as there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity 

from studies in experimental animals and supporting data on mechanisms of carcinogenesis. 

Exposure to o-nitrotoluene in the United States is expected to result primarily from dermal contact and 

inhalation exposure during its production and use. The general population may be exposed to 

o-nitrotoluene as a result of its occurrence in the environment from (1) inadvertent spills of o-nitrotoluene 

or chemical mixtures containing o-nitrotoluene, (2) emissions directly into the environment, or (3) 

breakdown products of dinitrotoluenes (DNT) and trinitrotoluenes (TNT).

1.3 Organization of This Report 

This report examines the potential increase in reporting burden that would result from adding onitrotoluene to the list of EPCRA section 313 reportable chemicals due to EPA’s concern for its 

carcinogenic properties. This report also estimates the costs to industry and EPA associated with the 

reporting burden and other impacts of the rule. The remainder of this report is organized as follows:

Chapter 2 summarizes the expected number of reports and facilities 

affected by the proposed rule.

Chapter 3 presents the methodology used to estimate the burden and 

costs as well as the results of the analysis. 

Chapter 4 examines the impacts of the proposed rule on small parent

entities as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980. 

Chapter 5 evaluates the benefits of the proposed rule.
1-6 2/9/2012

Literature Cited

CDC (2009). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). National Health and Nutrition 

Examination Survey (NHANES). http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm

Dugal, M. 2005. Nitrobenzene and Nitrotoluenes. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.

EPA. (2006). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Inventory Update Reporting (IUR): NonConfidential 2006 TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR) Records.

http://cfpub.epa.gov/iursearch/index.cfm?s=chem. (accessed Dec 9, 2009).

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 1994. Screening information dataset 

(SIDS) initial assessment profile on the OECD high production volume chemical 2-nitrotoluene. 

Accessed on December 13th, 2011. 

http://webnet.oecd.org/hpv/UI/SIDS_Details.aspx?Key=9698bce4-484f-4299-932e1c3a53d20c51&idx=0
2-1 2/9/2012

Chapter 2– Estimates of the Number of Additional Forms and 

Affected Facilities

This chapter presents the estimate of the number of additional forms and affected facilities as a result of 

the proposed addition of o-nitrotoluene (CAS 88-72-2) to the list of TRI-reportable chemicals under the 

proposed rule. 

Background information on o-nitrotoluene is provided in Section 2.1 of this chapter. The methods and 

associated assumptions used to estimate reporting for o-nitrotoluene are presented in Section 2.2. In 

Section 2.3, the estimated reporting (forms and facilities) resulting from the manufacture, processing or 

otherwise using of o-nitrotoluene is presented for each industry sector. Section 2.4 provides a summary of 

expected reporting from the potentially affected universe of facilities. 

2.1 Background 

o-Nitrotoluene (also known as 2-nitrotoluene or ortho-nitrotoluene) is composed of a nitro group bound 

to toluene in the second (or ortho) position. Nitrotoluenes are manufactured by nitration of toluene in an 

aqueous mixture of nitric and sulfuric acids resulting in isomer mixture of approximately 55-60% orthonitrotoluene, 35-40% para-nitrotoluene and 3-4% meta-nitrotoluene (Dugal, 2005). Nitrotoluene isomers 

are then separated by fractional distillation and crystallization (Dugal, 2005).

The production volume6 reported under the TSCA Inventory Update Rule (IUR) in 2006 for onitrotoluene was 10 to < 50 million lb (U.S. EPA, 2006). The U.S. 1993 U.S. production of o-nitrotoluene 

was approximately 35 million lb (Dugal, 2005). 

o-Nitrotoluene is primarily processed as a reactant to manufacture other chemicals used in the synthesis 

of azo dyes, sulfur dyes, rubber chemicals, agriculture chemicals, explosives and pharmaceuticals

(OECD, 1994; Dugal, 2005). Estimated European consumption of o-nitrotoluene is presented in Table 2-

1. A source for data on U.S. consumption of o-nitrotoluene was not identified.

Table 2-1: Estimated 2000 European Consumption of o-Nitrotoluene

Use Consumption 

(million lb)

Percentage 

of Total

Synthesis of o-Toluidine 76.9 40.0%

Synthesis of 2,4-Dinitrotoluene 108.4 56.3%

Synthesis of Other Chemicals 7.2 3.7%

Total 192.5 100%

Source: EURAR (2008)

There are few other current uses for o-nitrotoluene. Minor uses of o-nitrotoluene include use as a 

detection agent in plastic explosives (Rouhi, 1995) and use as a solvent in pigment manufacturing 

processes (OECD, 1994). No other commercial or consumer uses for o-nitrotoluene have been identified.

 6 Production volume includes manufactured volume plus imports.
2-2 2/9/2012

2.2 Methodology 

This section describes the methods used to estimate reporting for o-nitrotoluene. In Section 2.2.1, the 

general approach used to identify the industrial uses of o-nitrotoluene by industry sector is presented. The 

methods used to estimate the number of forms and facilities are presented in Sections 2.2.2: Actual 

Facilities, and 2.2.3: Proxy Chemical Method. Methods used to estimate numbers of Forms A and Forms 

R are presented in Section 2.2.4. Methods used to estimate existing filers and first time filers are 

presented in Section 2.2.5.

2.2.1 General Approach 

Due to the widespread use of o-nitrotoluene, characterizing all potential reporters in all potentially 

affected industries was not feasible. Therefore, this analysis focused on the sectors that capture the 

majority of the manufacturing and processing of o-nitrotoluene. This method assumed that most reports

for o-nitrotoluene would come from these sectors. Although reports may be filed for o-nitrotoluene by 

facilities in additional sectors not considered by this analysis, few reports are expected from these other 

sectors compared to the total number of reports expected under the proposed rule.

The primary sectors manufacturing, processing, or otherwise using o-nitrotoluene were identified based

on information available from:

• TSCA Inventory Update Reporting (IUR, 2006), 

• Directory of World Chemical Producers (CIS, 2008), and

• Existing TRI reporters (U.S. EPA, 2011).

The primary sectors are listed in Table 2-2.

Table 2-2: Primary Sectors Manufacturing, Processing, or Otherwise Using o-Nitrotoluene

Sector NAICS NAICS Description

Chemical Manufacturers

325a Chemical Manufacturing

311942 Spice and Extract Manufacturing

325110 Petrochemical Manufacturing

325132 Synthetic Organic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing

325188 All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing

325192 Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Manufacturing

325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing

325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing

325411 Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing

325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing

325413 In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing

325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing

Waste Treatment

562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal

562213 Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators a Any chemical manufacturing facilities where the six-digit NAICS code could not be determined were classified under NAICS 325: Chemical 

Manufacturing for this analysis.

For each sector identified, the potential number of forms and facilities was estimated by NAICS code.

When possible, potential reporting was estimated based on actual facilities (described in Section 2.2.2). 

However, for some facilities processing or otherwise using o-nitrotoluene, due to the limited amount of 

available information, it was necessary to construct a model to estimate potential reporting. In this case, 

the proxy chemical method was used to estimate the number of forms and facilities by using TRI 

reporting of a proxy chemical in relevant sectors (described in Section 2.2.3).
2-3 2/9/2012

2.2.2 Actual Facilities 

Companies or facilities manufacturing or importing o-nitrotoluene or chemicals manufactured from onitrotoluene may be identified in the open literature. Based on this information, the number of facilities 

manufacturing o-nitrotoluene, importing o-nitrotoluene, or facilities processing o-nitrotoluene as a 

reactant to manufacture other chemicals expected to report o-nitrotoluene was estimated based on actual 

companies or facilities identified in the TSCA Inventory Update Reporting (IUR; U.S. EPA, 2006), 

Directory of World Chemical Producers (CIS, 2008), and other available publications.

In order to determine the NAICS codes for the facilities identified by the above sources, these facilities 

were matched to their TRI Facility IDs by searching existing TRI data for facilities by name, parent 

company name, and address and using EPA’s Facility Registry System (FRS) linkage. If a parent 

company rather than a facility was identified in the literature, existing TRI data and company websites 

were reviewed to determine the most appropriate facility within the corporate structure likely to report to 

TRI and to identify the appropriate TRI Facility ID. The actual facilities identified were classified under

the following six-digit NAICS codes:

• NAICS 311942: Spice and Extract Manufacturing

• NAICS 325110: Petrochemical Manufacturing

• NAICS 325132: Synthetic Organic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing

• NAICS 325188: All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing

• NAICS 325192: Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Manufacturing

• NAICS 325199: All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing

• NAICS 325211: Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing

• NAICS 325411: Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing

• NAICS 325412: Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing

• NAICS 325413: In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing

• NAICS 325998: All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing

If a facility’s six-digit NAICS code could not be determined, that facility was classified in the three-digit 

NAICS code 325, Chemical Manufacturing, for this analysis.

2.2.3 Proxy Chemical Method 

The proxy chemical method was used where insufficient data were available to apply the actual facilities 

method or the consumption method. Under the proxy chemical method, a TRI-reportable chemical was 

identified that has the following characteristics:

• Similar in physical and chemical properties as o-nitrotoluene,

• Produced or consumed in similar volumes relative to o-nitrotoluene, and

• Manufactured similarly and/or used for similar purposes as o-nitrotoluene across all industry 

sectors.

It was then assumed that the number of facilities reporting and forms submitted in RY2010 for the proxy 

chemical is a good approximation of the number of o-nitrotoluene facilities and forms expected under the 

proposed rule. 

The proxy chemical method was used to estimate the number of forms and facilities expected to report the 

o-nitrotoluene in the following NAICS codes: 

• NAICS 562211: Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal 
2-4 2/9/2012

• NAICS 562213: Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators

Facilities in these two NAICS codes provide waste treatment services to multiple industry sectors and as 

such, their activities are defined by the demands of all industry sectors. 

Potential TRI-reportable proxy chemicals were identified through TSCA IUR reporting. In the 2006 IUR, 

o-nitrotoluene is characterized as follows: 

• Production volume (aggregated): 10 to < 50 million lb, 

• Maximum concentration (at manufacture or import site): > 90%,

• Physical form(s): liquid,

• Processed in between 1 to 99 sites, and

• No commercial or consumer use information was reported.

The following ten TRI-reportable chemicals were identified as having the same physical and production 

characteristics as o-nitrotoluene in the 2006 IUR:

• 1,2-Butylene oxide (CAS 106-88-7)

• 3-Chloro-2-methyl-1-propene (CAS 563-47-3)

• Chlorobenzene (CAS 108-90-7)

• 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (CAS 95-50-1)

• 2,4-Dichlorophenol (CAS 120-83-2)

• Dimethyl sulfate (CAS 77-78-1)

• Hexachlorocyclopentadiene (CAS 77-47-4)

• 2-Methylpyridine (CAS 109-06-8)

• Pyridine (CAS 110-86-1), and

• o-Toluidine (CAS 95-53-4).

In order for the potential proxy chemicals to best match the chemical properties of o-nitrotoluene, the 

above list of chemicals was restricted to those chemicals containing a benzene ring. Thus, the following 

four benzene-based chemicals were considered to be potential proxy chemicals for o-nitrotoluene for this 

analysis:

• Chlorobenzene (CAS 108-90-7)

• 1,2-Dichlorobenzene (CAS 95-50-1)

• 2,4-Dichlorophenol (CAS 120-83-2), and

• o-Toluidine (CAS 95-53-4).

To identify the proxy chemical that best matches the manufacturing and general uses across all industry 

relative to o-nitrotoluene, TRI Form R, Part II, Section 3: Activities and Uses of the Toxic Chemical at 

the Facility (hereinafter referred to as ‘Form R Section 3’) data were analyzed for the four potential proxy 

chemicals. In Form R Section 3, facilities indicate whether the chemical was manufactured (Section 3.1), 

processed (Section 3.2), and/or otherwise used (Section 3.3) at the facility. Further delineation of each of 

these activities is indicated, for example, whether a chemical was manufactured onsite (3.1a) or imported 

(3.2b), whether it was manufactured for on-site use/processing (3.1c), for sale or distribution in commerce 

(3.1d), and whether it was manufactured as a byproduct (3.1e) or impurity (3.1f). RY2010 reporting 

including Form R Section 3 data for these seven chemicals across industry sectors is summarized in Table 

2-3.
 2-5 6/21/2012

Table 2-3: RY2010 TRI Reporting for the Potential Proxy Chemicals Across All Industry Sectors

Chemical Forms

Form 

Ra

Form 

Ab

Form R Section 3.1: Manufacture

(number of times activity is indicated)

Form R Section 3.2: Process

(number of times activity is 

indicated)

Form R Section 3.3: 

Otherwise Use

(number of times 

activity is indicated)

3.1a 3.1b 3.1c 3.1d 3.1e 3.1f 3.2a 3.2b 3.2c 3.2d 3.2e 3.3a 3.3b 3.3c

Chlorobenzene 61 57 4 16 2 5 2 12 3 12 5 0 5 4 13 4 26

1,2-Dichlorobenzene 17 16 1 2 1 2 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 4 1 9

2,4-Dichlorophenol 6 5 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

o-Toluidine 15 13 2 4 1 2 1 3 0 5 3 0 0 1 0 0 3

Source: U.S. EPA (2011)

a Since a facility may report more than one Section 3 activity on a TRI Form R, the total number of Section 3 activities may be greater than the number of Forms R. b Facilities submitting Form A do not report Section 3 activities.

Activities Listed under Form R, Part II, Section 3

Section 3.1a: Manufacture, produce 

Section 3.1b: Manufacture, import

Section 3.1c: Manufacture for on-site use/processing

Section 3.1d: Manufacture for sale/distribution

Section 3.1e: Manufacture as a byproduct

Section 3.1f: Manufacture as an impurity

Section 3.2a: Process as a reactant

Section 3.2b: Process as a formulation component

Section 3.2c: Process as an article component

Section 3.2d: Process, repackaging

Section 3.2e: Process as an impurity

Section 3.3a: Otherwise use as a chemical processing aid

Section 3.3b: Otherwise use as a manufacturing aid

Section 3.3c: Otherwise use, ancillary
 2-6 2/9/2012

Using Form R Section 3 data, the manufacture and general uses of o-nitrotoluene as well as the proxy 

chemicals across industry sectors are compared in Table 2-4.

Table 2-4: Comparison of the Major Uses of o-Nitrotoluene to the Potential Proxy Chemicals

Use of the Toxic 

Chemical

Form R 

Relevant 

Data

oNitrotolueneChlorobenzene

1,2-

Dichlorobenzene

2,4-

Dichlorophenolo-Toluidine

Primarily processed as a 

reactant Section 3.2a X X X

Not processed as a 

formulation or article 

component

Section 3.2b,

Section 3.2c X X

a As described in Section 2.1, most o-nitrotoluene is processed as a reactant to manufacture other chemicals. b As described in Section 2.1, no uses for o-nitrotoluene aside from processing as a reactant and use as a solvent have been 

identified. Thus, o-nitrotoluene is not expected to be processed as a formulation or article component.

As shown in Table 2-4, of the potential proxy chemicals, 2,4-dichlorophenol best matches the 

manufacturing and general use of o-nitrotoluene across industry sectors. Specifically, both 2,4-

dichlorophenol and o-nitrotoluene are primarily processed as reactants and are not processed as 

formulation or article components. Thus, 2,4-dichlorophenol was identified as the proxy chemical that 

best matches the general use of o-nitrotoluene.

2.2.4 Forms A and Forms R 

Some facilities manufacturing, processing or otherwise using o-nitrotoluene were expected to meet the 

Alternate Threshold and thus be eligible to file a Form A for o-nitrotoluene. For example, it is likely that 

some facilities process relatively low amounts of o-nitrotoluene in processes where releases and waste 

management are limited. Activity, release and waste management data necessary to evaluate Form A 

applicability could not be estimated due to limited available information. Therefore, other methods using 

proxy chemical data were used to estimate the number of Forms A.

To estimate the number of Forms A potentially expected from actual facilities, the percentage of the 

proxy chemical (2,4-dichlorophenol)1 forms filed as Forms A in RY2010 in NAICS 325: Chemical 

Manufacturing was determined (25%).2 This percentage was then multiplied by the number of onitrotoluene forms expected from actual facilities to estimate the number of Forms A expected from 

NAICS 325: Chemical Manufacturing.

Using the proxy chemical method for waste treatment, the numbers of Forms A and Forms R for onitrotoluene were expected to be equal to the number of Forms A and Forms R for 2,4-dichlorophenol in 

RY2010 in the following NAICS codes:

• NAICS 562211: Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal, and 

• NAICS 562213: Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators.

 1 2,4-Dichlorophenol, the proxy chemical identified for waste treatment of o-nitrotoluene, was applied since it was 

identified to best reflect the general use of o-nitrotoluene. 2 In RY2010, a total of four forms (three Forms R and one Form A) were submitted for 2,4-dichlorophenol in 

NAICS 325: Chemical Manufacturing. Therefore, Forms A represent 25% of total forms in RY2010 in Chemical 

Manufacturing. However, the percentage of Forms A for 2,4-dichlorophenol in Chemical Manufacturing has been 

relatively consistent over prior reporting years (average of 32% for RY2006 – 2009).
 2-7 2/9/2012

2.2.5 Existing Filers and First Time Filers 

Facilities were classified as either existing filers or first time filers. Existing filers are defined as facilities 

that reported to TRI at least once during the period RY2006 – 2010. First time filers are defined as 

facilities that have never reported to TRI or have not reported to TRI since RY2005.

As described in Section 2.2.2, TRI Facility IDs were identified for actual facilities. A facility was 

identified as an existing filer if the appropriate TRI Facility ID was identified and that facility reported to 

TRI at least once during the period RY2006 – 2010.

In order to estimate existing versus first time filers for facilities modeled by the consumption or proxy 

chemical methods, the average annual percentage of new filers for RY2006 to RY2010 across all 

chemicals (3.5%)3 was multiplied by the number of facilities expected to report o-nitrotoluene to calculate 

the expected number of first time filers.

2.3 Estimation of the Number of Forms and Facilities 

This section presents estimated reporting for o-nitrotoluene for each of the sectors in Table 2-2. 

Specifically, the estimated number of forms and facilities is presented in Section 2.3.1 for chemical 

manufacturers and in Section 2.3.2 for waste treatment.

2.3.1 Estimation of the Number of Forms and Facilities from Chemical 

Manufacturers 

Estimated reporting for o-nitrotoluene from chemical manufacturers includes both facilities 

manufacturing o-nitrotoluene and facilities processing o-nitrotoluene to manufacture other chemicals. 

Using the method described in Section 2.2.2, a total of three facilities manufacturing or importing onitrotoluene and a total of 20 facilities processing o-nitrotoluene as a reactant to manufacture other 

chemicals were identified. Because all three facilities manufacturing or importing o-nitrotoluene also 

process o-nitrotoluene as a reactant to manufacture other chemicals, a total of 20 facilities manufacturing, 

importing or processing o-nitrotoluene as a reactant were identified. 

All facilities identified as manufacturing o-nitrotoluene or processing o-nitrotoluene as a reactant to 

manufacture other chemicals were expected to meet the TRI reporting requirements for o-nitrotoluene. 

Specifically, the average manufacturing and processing volumes were estimated to be at least 0.5 million 

lb of processing per facility and 3.3 million lb of manufacturing per facility.4 Because the estimated 

average manufacturing and processing volumes were greater than 20 times the reporting thresholds, all 

facilities identified as manufacturing o-nitrotoluene or processing o-nitrotoluene as a reactant to 

manufacture other chemicals were assumed to 1) be manufacturing or processing o-nitrotoluene above the 

25,000 lb reporting thresholds, and 2) be above the employment threshold of 10 or more fulltime 

employees. 

Using the method for estimating Forms A described in Section 2.2.4, five Forms A were estimated. 

Because the distribution of Forms A across chemical manufacturers was unknown, Forms A were 

assumed to be distributed across the relevant NAICS codes in proportion to the number of reporting 

 3 First time filers: RY2006 - 3.5%, RY2007 - 3.4%, RY2008 - 3.7%, RY2009 – 3.0%, RY2010 - 3.9% 4 Average processing volume per facility was calculated by dividing the lower bound of the reported production 

volume for o-nitrotoluene (10 million lb; IUR, 2006) by the 20 facilities identified as processing o-nitrotoluene as a 

reactant to manufacture other chemicals . Likewise, the average manufacturing per 

facility was calculated using the 3 facilities identified as manufacturing or importing o-nitrotoluene

. 
 2-8 2/9/2012

facilities identified in each NAICS code. Of the 20 facilities, one was identified as having not previously 

reported to TRI and is expected to be a first time filer.

Estimated reporting by chemical manufacturers under the proposed rule by NAICS code is presented in 

Table 2-5.

Table 2-5: Estimated Forms and Facilities from Chemical Manufacturers Under the Proposed Rule

NAICS NAICS Description

Forms Facilities

Form R Form A Total Existing 

Filers

First Time 

Filers Total

325 Chemical Manufacturing 2 1 3 3 0 3

311942 Spice and Extract Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

325110 Petrochemical Manufacturing 1 1 2 2 0 2

325132 Synthetic Organic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

325188 All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

325192 Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 3 2 5 5 0 5

325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

325411 Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing 1 1 2 1 1 2

325413 In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation 

Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

Total 15 5 20 19 1 20

2.3.2 Estimation of the Number of Forms and Facilities from Waste Treatment 

Using the proxy chemical method described in Section 2.2.3, reporting for o-nitrotoluene under the 

proposed rule was estimated to equal RY2010 reporting for 2,4-dichlorotolune in NAICS 562211: 

Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal and NAICS: 562213: Solid Waste Combustors and 

Incinerators.

Using the method for estimating first time filers described in Section 2.2.5, no first time filers are 

estimated. Estimated reporting under the proposed rule by waste treatment facilities is presented in Table 

2-6.

Table 2-6: Estimated Forms and Facilities from Waste Treatment Under the Proposed Rule

NAICS NAICS Description

Forms Facilities

Form R Form A Total Existing 

Filers

First Time 

Filers Total

562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal 1 0 1 1 0 1

562213 Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators 1 0 1 1 0 1

Total 2 0 2 2 0 2
 2-9 2/9/2012

2.4 Summary of the Total Number of Forms and Facilities 

under the Proposed Rule 

Total reporting is presented in Table 2-7. From the potentially affected universe of facilities, a total of 22 

forms from 22 facilities across 13 six-digit NAICS codes5 are expected to be submitted for o-nitrotoluene 

under the proposed rule. Of these 22 forms, 17 are expected to be Forms R and five are expected to be 

Forms A. Of the 22 facilities, one is expected to be a first time filer.

Table 2-7: Total Estimated Forms and Facilities Under the Proposed Rule

NAICS NAICS Description

Forms Facilities

Form 

R

Form 

A Total Existing Filers

First Time 

Filers Total

325a Chemical Manufacturing 2 1 3 3 0 3

311942 Spice and Extract Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

325110 Petrochemical Manufacturing 1 1 2 2 0 2

325132 Synthetic Organic Dye and Pigment 

Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

325188 All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical 

Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

325192 Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical 

Manufacturing 3 2 5 5 0 5

325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

325411 Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing 1 1 2 1 1 2

325413 In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product 

and Preparation Manufacturing 1 0 1 1 0 1

562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal 1 0 1 1 0 1

562213 Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators 1 0 1 1 0 1

Total 17 5 22 21 1 22 a Any chemical manufacturing facilities where the six-digit NAICS code could not be determined were classified under NAICS 325: Chemical 

Manufacturing for this analysis.

 5 The three facilities where six-digit NAICS code could not be determined were classified in the three-digit NAICS 

325: Chemical Manufacturing for this analysis.
 2-10 2/9/2012

Literature Cited

Chemical Information Services (CIS). 2008. Directory of World Chemical Producers.

European Union Risk Assessment Report (EURAR). 2008. European Union Risk Assessment Report: 

CAS:88-72-2: 2-Nitrotoluene. 2008. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European 

Communities. Accessed on December 13th, 2011. http://esis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/doc/existingchemicals/risk_assessment/REPORT/2nitrotoluenereport403.pdf

Dugal, M. 2005. Nitrobenzene and Nitrotoluenes. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 1994. Screening information dataset 

(SIDS) initial assessment profile on the OECD high production volume chemical 2-nitrotoluene. 

Accessed on December 13th, 2011. http://webnet.oecd.org/hpv/UI/SIDS_Details.aspx?Key=9698bce4-

484f-4299-932e-1c3a53d20c51&idx=0

Rouhi, A. M. 1995. Government, industry efforts yield array of tools to combat terrorism. Chemical and 

Engineering News, 73 (30), pp. 10–19.

U.S. EPA. 2011. TRI RY2010 (Results are based on data extracted on October 27th, 2011). Accessed via 

Envirofacts, Form R & A Download. http://www.epa.gov/enviro/facts/tri/form_ra_download.html

U.S. EPA. 2006. Inventory Update Reporting (IUR). Accessed May 2011. http://www.epa.gov/oppt/iur/
 3-1 2/9/2012

Chapter 3 – Cost Estimates

3.1 Introduction 

This chapter presents the estimated industry and EPA costs associated with the proposed rule that would

add o-nitrotoluene to the list of TRI-reportable chemicals. EPA is concerned about this chemical due its 

carcinogenic properties. In Section 3.2, the methodology used to estimate industry burden and cost is 

described. Section 3.3 details the estimated burden and cost to EPA. In Section 3.4, the total burden and 

cost of the proposed rule is summarized.

3.2 Industry Burden and Cost Estimates 

The burden and cost potentially incurred by industry as a result of the proposed rule are estimated using 

the Ratio-Based Burden Methodology (RBBM) which is a simplified formulation of the previously 

employed burden methodology.

1 Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 describe the methodology used to estimate 

industry burden and cost, respectively. Sections 3.2.3 and 3.2.4 present estimates of total industry burden 

and cost, respectively. 

3.2.1 Estimation of Reporting Burden 

The previous method used to estimate reporting burden and cost was based on a system of 96 factors 

across four categories of scenarios (persistent bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) first year, PBT 

subsequent year, non-PBT first year, non-PBT subsequent year), with each category’s set of factors 

yielding a separate subpopulation TRI chemical count. RBBM serves to simplify calculations, establish 

internal consistency, and sharpen transparency while retaining the components of the previous 

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

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

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

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

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

undertaken under the proposed rule.

Form Activities 

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

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

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

respond to a collection of information. 

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

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

required to become familiar with the definitions, exemptions, and threshold requirements under 

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

determinations to determine if the facility is required to report. 

Calculations and Form Completion: Facility staff 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. 

 1 Revising TRI Burden to Ratio-Based Methodology, TRI Regulatory Development Branch, TRI Program Division, 

Office of Information Analysis and Access, Office of Environmental Information, January 2011, EPA Docket ID 

Number EPA-HQ-OEI-2010-0825.
 3-2 2/9/2012

Recordkeeping and Submission: Facility staff must maintain recordkeeping systems and submit 

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

required to transmit or otherwise disclose the information. 

Non-Form Activities 

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

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

subject to EPCRA §313 reporting. This activity includes the time required to inform customers 

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

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

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

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

estimated in connection with the proposed rule. 

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

facilities will complete compliance determination but will not file a Form R or Form A. The 

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

determination applies to all other facilities in NAICS code-eligible sectors (with ten or more 

employees)—including those that ultimately do not report to TRI—the latter category is 

accounted for in this separate activity. For this proposed rule, it is assumed that the addition of onitrotoluene constitutes a modest change when compared to the total number of chemicals subject 

to the program. Thus, it is assumed that the non-reporter compliance determination burden is 

already included in the existing compliance determination burden estimates. 

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

associated with section 6607 of the 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 used at the facility; 

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

determining whether their facility is required to report and, if so, completing a Form R and Form A report 

(or multiple Form R and Form A reports) 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 for managerial and clerical staff are also considered when estimating costs.

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

reporting conditions at reporting facilities. In RBBM, the variable Nominal Form R unit burden is used as 

a base number for the entire methodology, and reflects the burden incurred by reporters to undertake all 
 3-3 2/9/2012

Form Activities for filing a Form R, thereby preserving the previous methodology’s burden totals. The 

Nominal Form R unit burden is set at 35.70516 hours.2 

The estimated reporting burden for Form A is closely linked to that of Form R, and is quantified by the 

ratio A/R(is set at .615), reflecting the burden of a Form A as 61.5% of the burden of a Form R. This 

relationship implies that filing a Form A instead of a Form R yields a 38.5% burden reduction per 

chemical. 

Form Activity Burden can be calculated using the Nominal Form R unit burden, the A/R ratio, and the 

number of Forms R and Forms A expected to be filed due to the proposed rule. RBBM combines Form 

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

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

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

Year Burden”), see Equation 1. 

Equation 1: Steady State Total Burden Calculation

Steady State Total Burden = Form R Activity Burden + Form A Activity Burden + Non-Form Activity Burden

Where: 

Form R Activity Burden = (# Form R) * (Nominal Form R Unit Burden) 

Form A Activity Burden = (# Form A) * (A/R) * (Nominal Form R Unit Burden) 

Non-Form Activity Burden = Supplier Notification + Non-Reporter Compliance Determination 

And: 

A/R = 0.615 

Nominal Form R Unit Burden = 35.70516 hours per Form R 

As in the previous methodology, the Steady State Total Burden does not incorporate any first-time filer 

impacts because those impacts are present only in the first year of reporting under the proposed rule. First 

time filer impacts account for the elevated level of effort incurred by both 1) filers reporting to TRI for 

the first-time and 2) filers already reporting to TRI, but considering the requirements of the proposed rule 

for the first time. To represent that impact, a First-Time Filer Factor (FTFf) is computed at 2.1. FTFf has

the following interpretation: “for any comparison of first-time filer to ongoing filer burden, the elevated 

startup effort is roughly twice that of normal ongoing burden.”3 Using FTFf, first year burden is 

calculated by multiplying the Steady State Total Burden by FTFf, as in Equation 2.

Equation 2: First Year Total Burden Calculation

First Year Total Burden = Steady State Total Burden * FTFf

Where:

Steady State Total Burden is calculated as in Equation 1.

FTFf = 2.1

 2 The burden of 35.70516 includes the recent addition of .00516 hours of burden associated with the new Dioxin 

Reporting Requirements promulgated in May 10, 2007, and accounted for in the 2011 ICR (Docket# EPA-HQ-OEI2010-0835. 3 Revising TRI Burden to Ratio-Based Methodology, TRI Regulatory Development Branch, TRI Program Division, 

Office of Information Analysis and Access, Office of Environmental Information, January 2011, EPA Docket ID 

Number EPA-HQ-OEI-2010-0825.
 3-4 2/9/2012

3.2.2 Estimation of Reporting Cost 

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

loaded cost for a mix of Managerial, Technical, and Clerical labor per hour of TRI reporter burden. The 

WAWR reflects the total cost to employ an individual and includes the cost of salaries, fringe benefits

(e.g., paid leave), health insurance, retirement savings, legally required benefits, and other overhead 

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

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

process at the facility level is as follows:

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

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

Managerial staff are briefed by technical staff once annually regarding TRI submissions and any 

changes to TRI reporting requirements. All sections of the Form are reviewed by managerial 

staff at this time.

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

understand which processes and activities at the facility should be considered in making threshold 

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

determinations, calculate release and waste management quantities, and enter the required data on 

the TRI form, either by hand or electronically using TRI reporting software. Technical staff are 

also responsible for briefing managerial staff once annually regarding TRI submissions and any 

changes to TRI reporting requirements.

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

and supporting documentation in accordance with TRI recordkeeping requirements. Note that as 

reporting facilities move toward filing TRI reports electronically, clerical time is minimized.

As presented in Table 3-1, the Managerial, Technical, and Clerical wage rates are composites of the BLS 

rates for ‘Wages and Salaries’ and ‘Total Benefits’ by labor category. The sum of ‘Wages and Salaries’ 

and ‘Total Benefits’ is equal to ‘Total Compensation.’ The Managerial labor rate is defined as the 

average hourly wages and salaries for the “Management, Business, and Financial” occupational category. 

The Technical labor rate is defined as the average hourly wages and 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.4 The sum 

of ‘Total Compensation’ and ‘Overhead’ is equal to ‘Total Loaded Hourly Wage Rate’. The hourly wage 

rates are $65.33 for managerial personnel, $52.27 for technical personnel, and $25.73 for clerical 

personnel, all in 2011 dollars, as presented in Table 3-1.

The WAWR is derived using hourly labor rates and the relative weight or contribution of each labor 

category derived using Engineering Studies conducted by Abt Associates. The relative fixed weights 

 4 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.
 3-5 2/9/2012

assigned are 0.03 for Managerial, 0.89 for Technical, and 0.08 for Clerical.5 Multiplying each labor 

category’s by its appropriate weight yields a single weighted average wage rate of $50.56.

Table 3-1: The Derivation of the Weighted Average Wage Rate (2011$)

Wage Type Managerial Technical Clerical

Wages and Salaries $40.55 $33.27 $16.00

Total benefits $17.89 $13.34 $7.01 

Overhead $6.89 $5.66 $2.72

Total Loaded Rate $65.33 $52.27 $25.73

Labor Burden Weights 0.03 0.89 0.08

Weighted Average Wage Rage (WAWR) $50.56

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation. Table 9. Released December 7, 2011. 

The Steady State Total Cost incurred by filers in subsequent years of the proposed rule, is calculated by 

multiplying the WAWR by the Steady State Total Burden. Similarly, to calculate First Year Total Cost

incurred by filers in the first year of the proposed rule, the First Year Total Burden is multiplied by the 

WAWR (see Equation 3).

Equation 3: Steady State and First Year Cost Calculation

Steady State Total Cost = Steady State Total Burden * WAWR

First Year Total Cost = First Year Total Burden * WAWR

3.2.3 Total Industry Reporting Burden Estimates 

The Steady State Total Burden estimated to be incurred by filers in subsequent years of this proposed rule 

is calculated by multiplying the estimated number of Forms R by the Nominal Form R Unit Burden, 

multiplying the number of Forms A by the A/R ratio and the Nominal Form R Unit Burden, and summing 

the two products. Non-Form Activity burden is negligible and assumed to be zero.6

The number of Forms R and Forms A estimated to be filed by industry sectors potentially affected by the 

proposed rule is presented in Table 3-2. Equation 4 presents the Steady State Total Burden calculation for 

this proposed rule. First Year Burden is calculated by multiplying the Steady State Total Burden by 2.1, 

the FTFf factor (Equation 5).

 5 As derived using the Abt Associates Engineering Study (TRI Reporting Burden Estimates, Memo from Hilary 

Eustace, David Cooper, Susan Day, Abt Associates to Paul Borst, EPA, July 16, 2004) and discussed in the Revising 

TRI Burden to Ratio-Based Methodology (TRI Regulatory Development Branch, TRI Program Division, Office of 

Information Analysis and Access, Office of Environmental Information, January 2011, EPA Docket ID Number 

EPA-HQ-OEI-2010-0825). 6 For supplier notification, it is assumed that the number of facilities that might be required to provide supplier 

notifications would only be a small fraction of potential supplier notifications in connection with the TRI program 

overall. For non-reporter compliance determination, it is assumed that the addition of o-Nitrotoluene constitutes a 

modest change when compared to the total number of chemicals subject to the program.
 3-6 2/9/2012

Table 3-2: Total Estimated Forms Under the Proposed Rule

NAICS NAICS Description

Forms

Form R Form A Total

325a Chemical Manufacturing 2 1 3

311942 Spice and Extract Manufacturing 1 0 1

325110 Petrochemical Manufacturing 1 1 2

325132 Synthetic Organic Dye and Pigment Manufacturing 1 0 1

325188 All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 1 0 1

325192 Cyclic Crude and Intermediate Manufacturing 1 0 1

325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 3 2 5

325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 1 0 1

325411 Medicinal and Botanical Manufacturing 1 0 1

325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing 1 1 2

325413 In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance Manufacturing 1 0 1

325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and 

Preparation Manufacturing 1 0 1

562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal 1 0 1

562213 Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators 1 0 1

Total 17 5 22 a Any chemical manufacturing facilities where the six-digit NAICS code could not be determined were classified 

under NAICS 325: Chemical Manufacturing for this analysis.

Equation 4: Steady State Total Burden Incurred by Reporters under the Proposed Rule

717 hours = [(17* 35.70516) + (5*.615*35.70516) + 0]

Equation 5: First Year Total Burden Incurred by Reporters under the Proposed Rule

1,506 hours = 717 * 2.1

As shown in Table 3-3, industry would incur 1,506 hours of reporting burden in the first year of the rule. 

In the steady state, industry reporting burden would equal 717 hours.

Table 3-3: Industry Reporting Burden

Form R (#) Form A (#)

Form R 

Burden 

(hours)

Form A Burden 

(hours) Total Burden 

(hours)

First Year

17 5 1,275 231 1,506

Steady State 607 110 717
 3-7 2/9/2012

3.2.4 Total Industry Reporting Cost Estimates 

As shown in Equations 6 and 7, the costs incurred in the first year and steady state of the rule are 

calculated by multiplying the burden by the WAWR. 

Equation 6: Steady State Total Cost Incurred by Filers under the Proposed Rule

$36,252 = 717 hours * $50.56

Equation 7: First Year Cost Incurred by Filers under the Proposed Rule

$76,143 = 1,506 hours * $50.56

Table 3-4 shows that industry would incur a cost of $76,143 in the first year, and $36,252 in the steady 

state as a result of the proposed rule.

Table 3-4: Industry Reporting Cost

Form R (#) Form A (#) Total Cost (2011$)

First Year

17 5

$76,143

Steady State $36,252

 

3.3 EPA Costs 

The burden and cost to EPA to process Form R and Form A reports are based on information 

characterizing the resources used by the Agency in previous years. For the TRI program in general, EPA 

incurs burden and costs for five categories of activities: data processing, outreach and training, 

information dissemination, policy and petitions, and compliance and enforcement. 

The estimates of EPA burden and costs are separated into fixed and variable components. Activities and 

expenses that are not affected by small changes in the number of reports submitted annually are reported as 

fixed costs. These activities and expenses include rent for the EPCRA Reporting Center, development 

costs for data access tools, compliance assistance measures, and other activities and expenses listed 

above. There are no additional fixed costs to the Agency associated with the proposed rule. The 

incremental burden, or the variable component, is the type of burden that varies depending on the number 

of forms, particularly concerning forms processing. Table 3-5 presents costs associated with form 

processing by submission media type. In this analysis, it is conservatively assumed that processing costs 

for Form R and Form A are the same within each submission media type (paper or TRI-MEweb). 

Table 3-5: Agency Forms Processing Cost by Media Type

Media Type Form Processing Cost Per Form (2011$)

Paper $26.32

TRI-MEweb $3.19

Source: Personal communication with Juan Parra. TRI Information and Outreach Brach. 

January 9, 2012. Cost updated to 2011 dollars using the Employer Cost Index.
 3-8 2/9/2012

As presented in Table 3-6, 17 Forms R and 5 Forms A are expected to be filed for o-nitrotoluene under 

the proposed rule. The distribution of forms by media type is estimated using RY2010 TRI data.7 

Assuming the same distribution of submission media types as in RY2010, the total form processing 

burden for EPA associated with Forms R and Forms A submissions under the proposed rule is estimated 

to be $70. Because such a low percentage of Forms R and Forms A were submitted via a paper 

submission in RY2010 (2.73% and 4.73%, respectively, which, when applied, rounds to zero paper 

forms), it is estimated that the universe of submissions for o-nitrotoluene would be via TRIMEweb only, 

as presented in Table 3-6.

Table 3-6: Estimated Number of Submissions and Incremental Agency Cost by Media Type

Media Type Estimated Number 

of Forms R

Estimated Number 

of Forms A

Form Processing 

Cost Per Form ($)

Processing 

Cost ($)

TRIMEweb 17 5 $ 3.19 $70

3.4 Total Costs 

The total cost of the proposed rule to industry and EPA is estimated at $76,213 in the first year of the rule 

and $36,322 in the steady state.

8 Table 3-7 summarizes the total costs to industry and EPA as a result of

the proposed rule.

Table 3-7: Summary of Total Costs of Proposed Rule

Description First Year Steady State

Industry Costs $76,143 $36,252 

Agency Costs $70 $70 

Total Costs $76,213 $36,322 

 7 In RY2010, 2,007 Forms R were submitted as paper forms and 71,491 Forms R were submitted via TRI-MEweb; 

447 Forms A were submitted as paper forms and 8,997 Forms A were submitted via TRI-MEweb. 8 The steady state burden created by the rule would be added to the steady state burden of TRI reporting in general 

during ICR development.
 3-9 2/9/2012

Literature Cited

Abt Associates Inc. (2004). Engineering Studies. TRI Reporting Burden Estimates, Memo from Hilary 

Eustace, David Cooper, Susan Day, Abt Associates to Paul Borst, EPA, July 16, 2004.

Heiden Associates (1989). Final Report: A Study of Industry Compliance Costs Under the Final 

Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule, Prepared for the Chemical Manufacturers 

Association, December 14, 1989.

U.S.DOL (2011). Employer Costs for Employee Compensation – September 2011. Table 9. U.S. 

Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Washington D.C., December 7, 2011.

U.S. EPA (2011a). Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number (ICR) 1363.21, 

OMB Number 2025-0009: TRI Form R and Form A Toxic Chemical Release Reporting. 

February 2011.

U.S. EPA (2011b). Revising TRI Burden to Ratio-Based Methodology (TRI Regulatory Development 

Branch, TRI Program Division, Office of Information Analysis and Access, Office of 

Environmental Information, January 2011, EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OEI-2010-0825
 4-1 2/9/2012

Chapter 4 – Small Entity Analysis

4.1 Introduction 

This chapter addresses the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities. Specifically, Section 

4.2 discusses the Regulatory Flexibility Act and its applicability to small entities under the proposed rule. 

In Section 4.3, definitions of small entities for the industry groups affected by the proposed rule are 

provided. Section 4.4 describes the general methodology used to determine if the proposed rule results in 

a significant economic impact to a substantial number of small entities. Finally, Section 4.5 summarizes 

the results for all small entities affected by the proposed rule.

4.2 Impact on Small Entities 

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

assess the effects of regulations on small entities, 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 would 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 would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of 

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

number” of small entities. 

4.3 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.1 

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

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

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

employees that represent a measure of these characteristics. These standards represent the largest size 

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

The SBA small business size standards are expansive, classifying most businesses as “small.” 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, 277,572 of 281,644 manufacturing firms 

have fewer than 500 employees (USSBA, 2011). Therefore, at least 98.5 percent of manufacturing firms 

would be 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. Table 4-1 lists the small business size standards for the 

industries affected by the proposed rule. 

 1 SBA's size standards can be found at: http://www.sba.gov/content/table-small-business-size-standards
 4-2 2/9/2012

Table 4-1: Small Business Size Standards for Industries Affected by the Proposed Rule

NAICS NAICS Description SBA Standards

325120 Industrial Gas Manufacturing 1,000 (empls)

325188 All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing 1,000 (empls)

325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing 1,000 (empls)

325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing 750 (empls)

325320 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing 500 (empls)

325412 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing 750 (empls)

325414 Biological Product (except Diagnostic) Manufacturing 500 (empls)

325992 Photographic Film, Paper, Plate and Chemical Manufacturing 500 (empls)

325998 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturing 500 (empls)

326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing 500 (empls)

424210 Drugs and Druggists’ Sundries Merchant Wholesalers 100 (empls)

424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers 100 (empls)

525910 Open-End Investment Funds 7,000,000 ($)

551112 Offices of Other Holding Companies 7,000,000 ($)

562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal 12,500,000 ($)

562213 Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators 12,500,000 ($)

The RFA defines “small governmental jurisdictions” as governments of cities, counties, towns, school 

districts, or special districts with populations of less than 50,000 people. No small governmental 

jurisdictions are expected to incur a burden as a result of the proposed rule.

The RFA defines “small organizations” as any “not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned 

and operated and is not dominant in its field.” No small organizations are expected to incur a burden as a 

result of the proposed rule.

4.4 Methodology Overview 

This analysis uses annual cost impact percentages to measure potential impacts on small parent entities. 

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

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

compliance costs are compared to annual revenues to estimate the magnitude of the regulatory burden 

relative to a commonly available and objective measure of a company's business volume. Where 

regulatory costs represent a small fraction of a typical firm's revenue, the impacts of the regulation are 

likely to be minimal.

Cost impact percentages are calculated for the incremental compliance costs incurred during the first year 

of the rule and in the steady state. The incremental reporting cost associated with this proposed rule is 

estimated using the Ratio-Based Burden Methodology (RBBM), which is a simplified formulation of the 

previously employed burden methodology. Estimating reporting burden using RBBM produces a burden 

estimate that reflects overall “average” reporting conditions at reporting facilities. 2 According to RBBM, 

in the steady state, the average burden incurred from submitting a Form R equals 35.70516 hours. The 

burden incurred from submitting a Form A is 61.5% of the burden of a Form R. To reflect the additional 

reporting burden incurred during the first year of the rule by both filers reporting to TRI for the first-time 

and those already reporting to TRI but considering the requirements of the proposed rule for the first time, 

RBBM assumes that reporting burden is 2.1 that of each forms’ burden in the steady state. To calculate 

 2 For more details on RBBM see Chapter 3 of this economic analysis, and Revising TRI Burden to Ratio-Based 

Methodology, TRI Regulatory Development Branch, TRI Program Division, Office of Information Analysis and 

Access, Office of Environmental Information, January 20011, EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OEI-2010-0825.
 4-3 2/9/2012

the corresponding cost of these burdens, a weighted average wage rate, WAWR, is calculated, representing 

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

burden. The WAWR is calculated with data from Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Employer Costs for 

Employee Compensation, updated quarterly. As of December 7, 2011, the WAWR is calculated at $50.56. 

Applying the WAWR to the estimated burden of filing a Form R yields a cost of $3,843 and $1,820 in the 

first year of the rule and in the steady state, respectively.

Twenty-two facilities are expected to report under the proposed rule. The universe of potentially affected 

facilities was estimated using EPA’s TSCA Inventory Update Reporting (IUR) Database, the Directory of 

World Chemical Producers (DWCP), other available publications, and existing TRI reporters. The exact 

method used to estimate the universe of affected facilities is discussed in detail in Chapter 2. 

The 22 potentially affected facilities can be divided into the following two groups:

• Actual Facilities – 20 facilities potentially subject to the proposed rule’s reporting requirements, 

where the identity of each facility is known. 

• Modeled Facilities – two facilities, where the identity of the individual facilities is unknown but 

where it was possible to estimate the total number of potentially subject facilities by NAICS code 

via the proxy chemical method, as described in Chapter 2. 

For these two groups of facilities, although the estimation of revenues, employment, and impacts are 

derived separately, the general methodology used to estimate the impacts on small parent entities consists 

of the following steps:

Step 1: Identify the universe of affected o-nitrotoluene facilities.3

Step 2: Characterize the relationships between facilities and their parent companies in the 

affected universe.

Step 3: Estimate annual revenue of parent companies4 in the affected universe.

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

Step 5: Develop small parent entity compliance cost estimates, based on the number of 

facilities per parent company estimated in Step 2.

Step 6: Calculate the small parent entity cost impact ratio, defined as the compliance costs as 

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

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

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

 3 The term “affected facilities” is used in this report to denote facilities that meet the TRI reporting requirements and 

are expected to submit at least one form for o-nitrotoluene. A Form R is completed for a single chemical. Facilities 

may submit more than one Form R if they manufacture, process, or otherwise use more than one listed TRI 

chemical. Form A permits multiple chemical reports on the same form if the facility meets alternate threshold 

requirements. An “affected” company is a company owning at least one “affected” facility.

4 For the purposes of this report, “parent company” denotes an ultimate parent company owning an affected facility 

(regardless of the size of the facility); “small parent entity” denotes a small ultimate parent company (as defined by 

the Small Business Administration threshold) owning an affected facility.
 4-4 2/9/2012

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

three percent of annual revenue.

The following sections describe how revenue and business size data (based on revenue and employment) 

were used to characterize impacts on small parent entities of actual and modeled facilities in affected 

industries.

4.4.1 Actual Facilities 

Of the 22 facilities estimated to be affected by the proposed rule, 20 (91%) are identified as specific 

facilities currently manufacturing or importing o-nitrotoluene. For these facilities, the cost impact

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

company for small parent entities, and the annual revenues for each of the small parent entities. 

Identification of Small Entities and Generation of Revenue Data

For each parent company, revenue and employment data was obtained from Dun and Bradstreet’s (D&B) 

Private Data Portal (Version 2.6.0, accessed on January 2, 2012). D&B provides a range of data for over 

11 million business locations, including data on number of employees, line of business, key financial 

indicators, business size, and parent/headquarters.

Where D&B data was incomplete or outdated, alternative resources, such as Bloomberg Businessweek 

(http://investing.businessweek.com), MantaTM, HooversTM, and individual company website documents 

were used to identify company size and revenue data. Using this information, it was possible to classify 

parent companies as small parent entities using the SBA defined thresholds for the affected industries. 

The revenue and business size data used in this analysis represent data for global ultimate parent 

companies that own one or more facilities in the industries affected by the proposed rule.5 The 20 actual 

facilities identified as currently manufacturing or importing o-nitrotoluene under consideration, were

linked to 18 parent companies, 17 of which had revenue and size information available in D&B.

Information on the one remaining parent company was found using CorteraTM and MantaTM, two webbased business intelligence resources.

The ultimate parent data obtained from D&B includes available revenue data for all subsidiaries, 

divisions, and branches of that parent, including those not individually affected under the rule. The 

number of potentially affected facilities per parent company, however, represents the number of facilities 

owned by that parent company that are expected to perform compliance activities for the proposed rule 

(not the total number of facilities per parent company). The universe of actual facilities and their parents 

is summarized in Table 4-2.

 5 The global ultimate parent is the uppermost parent or headquarters that encompasses all directly related branches, 

subsidiaries, or parents of a specific business at a specific location. This analysis assumes that a facility, as defined 

under TRI, is equivalent to a location as defined by D&B. A “facility,” subject to EPCRA section 313 reporting 

requirements, means all buildings, equipment, structures, and other stationary items that are located on a single site 

or on contiguous or adjacent sites, and which are owned or operated by the same person, that is classified under an 

SIC code covered by the regulations, has 10 or more employees or the equivalent, and manufactures, processes, or 

otherwise uses any of the listed toxic chemicals or chemical categories above the specific reporting thresholds. For 

some industries this may not correspond exactly to the definition of a location by D&B.
 4-5 2/9/2012

Table 4-2: Summary of Universe for Small Entity Impact 

Analyses for Actual Facilities

Number of actual facilities estimated to experience an impact 20

Number of parent companies 18

Number of small parent entities 4

 

Estimating Compliance Cost 

To evaluate the potential impact of the proposed rule, this analysis uses the number of facilities per parent 

company for small parent entities, the number of reports filed per facility, and the annual revenue for each 

small entity. Of the 18 parent companies identified, 4 (22%) were classified as small parent entities 

(Table 4-2), each owning one affected facility estimated to file one Form R.6 

Estimating Cost Impact Ratios 

Cost impact percentages for the first year and the steady state were calculated for each small parent entity 

by dividing compliance costs (for all affected facilities owned by the parent company) by the parent 

company’s annual revenue. The estimated impacts on small parent entities owning actual facilities under 

the proposed rule are presented in Table 4-3 below. All four of the affected small parent entities have 

cost impacts of less than 1% in the first year and in the steady state. In the first year, there is a maximum 

impact of 0.05% and a minimum impact of less than 0.02%. The mean and median impacts for the first 

year are estimated to be 0.033% and 0.029%, respectively. 

In the steady state, there is a maximum impact of 0.025% and a minimum impact of less than 0.01%. The 

mean and median impacts in the steady state are estimated to be less than 0.02% and 0.014%, 

respectively.

Table 4-3: Summary of Impacts on Small Parent Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule

(Actual Facilities)

Cost Impact Category Affected Small Entities in 1st Year Affected Small Entities in Steady State

# % # %

Less than 1% 4 100% 4 100%

1% to 3% 0 0% 0 0%

Greater than 3% 0 0% 0 0%

Median Impact 0.029% 0.014%

Maximum Impact 0.052% 0.025%

Note: An “affected entity” is a company that is identified to be a parent of the affected facility identified in Chapter 2.

4.4.2 Modeled Facilities 

Small entity impacts were modeled for 2 facilities using data from the U.S. Census of Statistics of U.S. 

Businesses (SUSB) (U.S.CB, 2010). 

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 on total receipts are also provided by SUSB 

 6 The number and types of forms estimated to be submitted by actual facilities is derived in Chapter 2. By applying 

the same methodology, (i.e. multiplying the number of o-nitrotoluene forms expected from actual facilities by the 

percentage of proxy chemical 2,4-dichlorophenol Forms A filed in RY2010 in NAICS 325) it is estimated that all 4 

of the small entities identified would submit one Form R per affected facility, due to rounding.
 4-6 2/9/2012

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

parent entities, construct annual revenue, and calculate cost impact ratios.

The two modeled facilities affected by the proposed rule are identified as operating in the Hazardous 

Waste Treatment and Disposal sector and the Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators sector (NAICS# 

562211 and 562213, respectively). Both industries have a revenue-based small business threshold 

defined at $12.5 million.7 

Characterize Facility-Parent Relationships

Compliance costs and impacts are estimated at the parent company level, where a parent company may 

own one or more facilities. Because only one facility would be affected in each of the two sectors, it was 

assumed that the affected facilities are parent companies with single locations. According to the SUSB 

distribution of firms, 85 and 86 percent of firms in the Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal and the 

Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators sectors fall under the $12.5 million small business threshold, 

respectively.8

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 size class combination. Due to the small universe of 

modeled facilities, it was not possible to meaningfully assign each sector’s single affected facility to an 

SUSB revenue size class. Consequently, average small parent revenues were calculated for each affected 

sector to represent the revenues of the two affected parent entities. In some cases, total revenue for a 

revenue 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 extrapolated by multiplying the 

midpoint of the revenue size class by the number of firms in that size class.9 Because the SUSB data 

reflect 2007 annual revenue, it was necessary to inflate the revenue to current dollars based on the change 

in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 2007 to 2011, which is a measure of overall economic output 

(BEA, 2011).

Estimate Parent Entity Compliance Costs

As detailed in Chapter 2, it is estimated that the two modeled facilities would each file one Form R under 

the proposed rule. Additionally, it is assumed that the affected facilities are parent companies with single 

locations. Therefore, the estimated cost incurred by each of the two modeled small parent entities would 

be $3,843 and $1,820 in the first year of the rule and in the steady state, respectively. 

Estimate Cost Impact Ratios

To calculate the cost impact ratios, the first year and steady state compliance costs are divided by the 

average revenue per small parent entity for each affected sector. As presented in Table 4-4, no small 

parent entity is estimated to incur impacts higher than 1 percent under the proposed rule.

 7 The $12.5 million small business threshold falls in the middle of the $10,000,000 to $14,999,999 SUSB revenue 

size class, therefore, to be conservative, parent entities earning revenues up to $14,999,999 are classified as small 

entities in this analysis.

8 Ibid.

9 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.
 4-7 2/9/2012

Table 4-4: Summary of Impacts on Small Parent Entities Affected by the Proposed Rule (Modeled Facilities)

NAICS Description

Small 

Parent 

Entities (#)

Average 

Revenues 

(2011$)

First Year 

Cost

Steady 

State Cost

First Year 

Impacts

Steady State 

Impacts

562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal 1 $1,880,332 $3,842.56 $1,820.16 0.204% 0.097%

562213 Solid Waste Combustors and Incinerators 1 $1,898,258 $3,842.56 $1,820.16 0.202% 0.096%

 

4.5 Summary of Results 

The 22 facilities estimated to report under the proposed rule were linked to 20 parent companies, 6 (30%) 

of which were categorized as small parent entities. Twenty of the 22 facilities were identified as actual 

facilities and could be linked to 18 actual parent companies, 4 of which were identified as small parent 

entities. For these four actual parent companies, small parent entity impacts are estimated to be less than 

1% of annual revenue in the first year of the rule and in the steady state. 

For the two modeled facilities, it was assumed that the affected facilities are parent companies with single 

locations. Additionally, it was assumed that the parent companies are small parent entities, with 

revenues equal to the average revenues across all small parent entities in each NAICS sector. For the two 

modeled parent companies, small parent entity impacts are estimated to be less than 1% of annual average 

revenue in the first year of the rule and in the steady state. 
 4-8 2/9/2012

Literature Cited

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

U.S.DOL (2011). Employer Costs for Employee Compensation – September 2011. Table 9. U.S. 

Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Washington D.C., December 7, 2011.

U.S. EPA (2011a). Supporting Statement for Information Collection Request Number (ICR) 1363.21, 

OMB Number 2025-0009: TRI Form R and Form A Toxic Chemical Release Reporting. 

February 2011.

U.S. Federal Reserve. 2011. Federal Reserve Statistical Release: Industrial Production and Capacity 

Utilization. Release Date April, 2011. 

<http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g17/current/default.htm>

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

Classification System Codes. U.S. Small Business Administration. August 22, 2008. 

SBA's size standards can be found at: http://www.sba.gov/content/table-small-business-sizestandards

U.S. SBA (2011). United States Small Business Administration. Office of Advocacy – Research and 

Statistics – Data on Small Business – All Industries by NAICS Codes, 2008: Employer Firms & 

Employment by Employment Size of Firm by NAICS Codes, 2008. Information from the Small 

Business Administration on the Internet. 

http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/us_naics6.pdf. Downloaded on August 10, 2011.
 5-1 2/9/2012

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 powerful forces in empowering the federal government, 

state and local governments, industry, environmental groups, and the general public to fully participate in 

an informed dialogue about the environmental impacts of toxic chemicals in the United States. The TRI 

database provides several types of information, including quantitative information on toxic chemical 

releases and other waste management practices. Starting in 1987, the collection of this information 

enhanced the ability for the public, government, and the regulated community to understand the breadth 

and magnitude of chemical releases in the United States, and to assess the need to reduce the releases and 

transfers of toxic chemicals. TRI data enable all interested parties to establish credible baselines, to set 

realistic goals for environmental progress, and to measure progress in meeting these goals over time. As 

such, the TRI Program has become a yardstick by which progress can be measured by all interested or 

affected stakeholders. 

The information reported to the TRI increases community knowledge and awareness of the quantities of 

toxic chemicals released to the environment, and the potential pathways of exposure to those chemicals. 

This knowledge then:

• Improves scientific understanding of the health and environmental risks of toxic chemicals; 

• Allows the public to make informed decisions on where to work and live; 

• Enhances the ability of corporate leaders and purchasers to more accurately gauge a facility’s 

potential environmental liabilities; 

• Provides reporting facilities with information that can be used to save money as well as reduce 

emissions; and 

• Assists federal, state, and local authorities in making better decisions on acceptable levels of toxic 

chemicals in the environment.

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

related to the provision and distribution of information on releases and waste management of onitrotoluene. The provision of information can lead to follow-on activities that create additional costs and 

benefits. In particular, this information can lead to voluntary initiatives by industry to review production 

processes, set goals for reductions in emissions, and institute “good neighbor” policies. If an individual 

facility owner or operator perceives that the additional information generated to comply with the section 

313 reporting requirements provide them with valuable information about their operations and how they 

might be modified, then changes can be implemented to reduce releases of TRI chemicals. 

Making TRI information available to the public may provide incentives for facilities to reduce TRI 

chemical releases, and in some cases it may encourage facilities to reduce releases where such changes 

would not be in the facility’s best interest if the information about the releases was not in the public 

domain. Social benefits derived from voluntary follow-on activities may include decreased costs of waste 

treatment and disposal, lower probability of accidental releases and lower clean-up costs in the event of 

such releases, reduced contamination of natural resources from decreased land disposal, improved air and 

water quality, and reduced risks to human health. Such social benefits are partially offset by the social 

costs to implement the changes, such as installing scrubbers and substituting materials that are less toxic 

but more expensive. The net social benefits of the information provided by the proposed rule and the 

possible follow-on activities equal the difference between the total benefits and the total costs of the 

activities that lead to the reduction in releases.
 5-2 2/9/2012

The potential benefits of additional TRI reporting can be understood by examining the ways in which 

different groups of affected stakeholders—consumers, industry, non-federal governments and the general 

public—use the TRI data. Consumers may use the data to make more informed decisions about the 

products they buy and to enter into constructive dialogue with the firms in their communities that release 

o-nitrotoluene. Facilities may find opportunities for waste reduction and cost savings through developing 

reporting data required under the proposed rule. Non-federal governments may use the data in lieu of, or 

in support of, their own environmental protection activities. In addition, non-users of the TRI data benefit 

from its public provision whenever others use of the data results in improvements in environmental 

quality.

Some examples of the ways in which various stakeholders have utilized TRI data include: 

• Use of the Data by Community and Public Interest Groups: Communities use TRI data to begin 

dialogues with local facilities and to encourage them to reduce their emissions, develop pollution 

prevention plans, and improve safety measures. Public interest groups use the data to educate the 

public about toxic chemical emissions and potential risk, and in environmental justice activities.

• Use of the Data by Education and Research Institutions: The TRI data are used in many 

environmental education programs, particularly at the high school and university levels. Students 

learn about toxic chemical releases, the potential health and environmental effects of those 

releases, pollution prevention activities and opportunities, and the social and political aspects of 

environmental protection. Some organizations also conduct educational outreach programs using 

TRI data. 

• Use of the Data by the Financial and Business Communities: Investment analysts use TRI data to 

provide recommendations to clients seeking to make environmentally sound investments. 

Insurance companies look to TRI data as one indication of potential environmental liabilities. 

Consultants and others use the data to identify business opportunities, such as marketing pollution 

prevention and control technologies to TRI reporting facilities. Demand for environmental 

performance information by investors, insurance companies, and the public has led many 

companies to develop environmental annual reports similar to annual reports on financial 

performance traditionally prepared for investors.

• Industry Use of TRI Data: TRI data are used by industry for activities such as developing waste 

reduction strategies and improving companies’ understanding of their own production processes. 

Industry also uses TRI submission information to show environmental progress and as a starting 

point for engaging with communities. 

• Government Use of TRI Data: Government organizations such as the media-specific and core 

offices at EPA, EPA Regional offices, and other national, state, and local government agencies 

routinely use the TRI data. TRI data are used to: develop inspection targeting and enforcement 

tools; analyze and prioritize long-term trends in waste minimization; identify candidates for the 

National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; to coordinate environmental data internationally 

through agreements and organizations such as the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, 

and to set priorities and allocate increasingly scarce environmental protection resources to the 

most pressing problems.

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

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

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

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

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

quantify potential benefits.
 5-3 2/9/2012

The experience since the first forms were submitted to TRI in 1987 suggests that reporting under EPCRA 

section 313 has produced real gains in understanding about communities’ exposure to toxic chemicals. In 

its report entitled: How are the Toxics Release Inventory Data Used? – Government, Business, Academic, 

and Citizen Uses, EPA has documented numerous examples of how multiple stakeholders have used TRI 

data (US EPA, 2003). Moreover, a cursory search on GoogleScholarTM reveals thousands of academic 

articles referencing the Toxics Release Inventory. Listing o-nitrotoluene, and the subsequent use of the 

reported information, should provide similar gains in understanding of this particular chemical. EPA 

believes that o-nitrotoluene meets the statutory toxicity criteria of section 313, and is at least as toxic as 

some of the chemicals for which Congress initially believed there were net benefits due to reporting. 
 5-4 2/9/2012

Literature Cited

U.S. EPA (2003). How are the Toxics Release Inventory Data Used? – Government, Business, Academic, 

and Citizen Uses. EPA 260-R-002-004. May.