# ASSESSMENT OF THE POTENTIAL COSTS, BENEFITS, AND OTHER IMPACTS OF THE HAZARDOUS WASTE EXPORT-IMPORT REVISIONS RULE

Draft Report | March 2, 2015

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery Economics and Risk Analysis Staffi 

### ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Agency recognizes Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc) , for the overall organization and development of this report. Alan Barnosky, Phuc Phan, and Chri s McMinimy of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provided guidance and review.ii 

### TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION 

### Overview 1-1 

### Background and Need for Regulatory Action 1-1 

### Summary of the Proposed Rule 1-2 

### Changes to 40 CFR Part 262, Subparts E and F 1-2 

### Changes to 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart H 1-6 

### Organization of the Report 1-7



### CHAPTER 2 | POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ENTITIES 

### Introduction 2-1 

### Baseline Level of Hazardous Waste Foreign Trade Activity 2-1 

### Estimating the Number and Volume of Shipments of Hazardous Waste 2-1 

### Estimating the Number of Export and Import Notices 2-9 

### U.S. Census Foreign Trade Data as an Alternative Source of Information on Transnational Shipments of SLABs 2-12 

### Economic Profile of Potentially Affected Entities 2-19


### Data Collection Methods 2-19 

### Industry Characteristics of Exporters 2-20 

### Industry Characteristics of Importers 2-22



### CHAPTER 3 | ASSESSMENT OF COSTS AND COST SAVINGS 

### Introduction 3-1 

### Universe of Entities Affected by the Rule 3-1 

### Cost Methodology 3-2 

### General Assumptions 3-2 

### Methods for Assessing Costs of Rule Provisions 3-5 

### Results 3-24 

### Sensitivity Analysis 3-25 

### Additional Analytic Limitations 3-26iii 

### CHAPTER 4 | ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS 

### Discussion of Non-Monetized Benefits 4-1 

### Human Health Benefits from Increased Compliance with Existing Regulations 4-1 

### Benefits Associated with Increased Regulatory Efficiency 4-2



### CHAPTER 5 | EQUITY CONSIDERATIONS AND OTHER IMPACTS 

### Regulatory Planning and Review 5-1 

### Regulatory Flexibility 5-2 

### Employment Impact Analysis 5-9 

### Unfunded Mandates Analysis 5-10 

### Federalism Analysis 5-11 

### Tribal Government Analysis 5-11 

### Environmental Justice Analysis 5-11 

### Children’s Health Protection Analysis 5-12 

### Energy Impact Analysis 5-12 

### Joint Impacts of Rules 5-13



### APPENDIX A | COST IMPACTS BY YEAR

APPENDIX B | EPA COST ESTIMATES FOR ENHANCEMENTS TO WIETSES-1 

### EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This document presents the U.S. Environmental Prot ection Agency’s (EPA) analysis of the costs, benefits, and economic impacts of the proposed H azardous Waste Export-Import Revisions Rule. This rule proposes to amend certain existing regulations promulgated under the hazardous waste provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regarding the export and import of hazardous wastes from and into the United States. EPA is publis hing this Economic Assessment (EA) in conjunction with the proposed rule and invites comments fro m the public on the data, methods, assumptions, and conclusions presented herein.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR REGULATORY ACTION 

### Since March 1992, Organization for Economic C ooperation and Development (OECD) member countries have regulated the international movement of hazardous wastes destined for recovery under Council Decision C(92)39/FINAL. EPA’s April 1996 Imports and Exports of Hazardous Waste Final Rule implements OECD’s Council Decision C(92)39/F INAL in the United States under RCRA authority, under 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart H. 1 

### While the Imports and Exports of Hazardous Waste Final rule codifies the OECD requirements for U.S. imports an d exports of hazardous waste with OECD countries, shipments to Canada and Mexico are regulated unde r separate bilateral agreements. In addition, the United States regulates other transboundary move ments of hazardous waste under 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart E. In 2004, in order to improve some of its provisions and enhance harmonization with the Basel Convention, OECD updated its rule under C ouncil Decision C(2001)107/FINAL, as amended by C(2004)20. In 2008, EPA developed the Proposed Ru le on Exports and Imports of Hazardous Waste Destined for Recovery Among OECD Countries, Exports of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries from the U.S., and Import Consent Documentation to implement these updates. When the rule was finalized in 2010, EPA also strengthened controls on exports of spen t lead-acid batteries (SLABs) by making their export subject to subpart E export regulations, if being ship ped to Canada, Mexico, or non-OECD countries, or subject to Subpart H OECD regulations, if being shipped to OECD countries other than Canada or Mexico. Because domestic shipment of SLABs fo r recycling is exempted from RCRA manifest requirements, export shipments of SLABs were also exempted from RCRA manifest requirements. But export shipments of SLABs subject to subpart H OE CD requirements were subject to OECD movement document requirements under the changes in the 2010 rule. Since the 2010 rulemaking, however, EPA and several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have raised concerns over the lack of reporting and insuffi cient environmental and occ upational health controls associated with transboundary movement of hazardous wastes, most notably regarding exports of SLABs

1 U.S. EPA Imports and Exports of Hazardous Waste: Implementati on of OECD Council Decision C(92) 39 Concerning the Control of Tra nsfrontier

Movements of Wastes Destined for Reco very Operations, Final Rule, Federal Re gister, Vol. 61, No. 72, April 12, 1996.ES-2 

### to Canada and Mexico. 2,3,4 

### To address these concerns, EPA is proposing to make all U.S. imports and exports of hazardous waste, including those with countries outside of OECD, subject to standards equivalent to those promulgated in 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart H in the 2010 rulemaking. In addition, EPA is proposing to mandate the electronic submission of required documents, which is expected to improve data availability and quality. Be tter data will help the United Stat es and other countries control the environmental and health risks associated with h azardous waste movement, processing, and disposal.

SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED RULE 

### This section describes regulatory changes or amendments engendered by the proposed rule.

CHANGES TO REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO 40 CFR PART 262,
SUBPARTS E AND F 

### The proposed rule will regulate hazardous waste shipments with Mexico, Canada and non-OECD countries in a manner more consistent with regulations currently in place for shipments with other OECD member countries under 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart H. Many of the regulatory changes described below do not alter the requirements in Subpart H associated w ith each provision, but rather adjust the types of entities held to each requirement by making entities cu rrently subject to Subpart E and F requirements subject to Subpart H requirements. Changes to requi rements for shipments currently subject to 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart E (i.e., exports to Canada, Me xico, and non-OECD countries) and Subpart F (i.e., imports from Canada, Mexico, and non-OE CD countries) include the following: (1) Exporters of hazardous waste to Canada, Mexico, and non-OECD countries will be required to submit additional information with each export notice. (2) Importers of RCRA hazardous wastes not controlled as hazardous waste exports by the country of export will need to submit noti ces to EPA on behalf of foreign exporters. (3) For annual reports to EPA, exporters to Canada, Mexico, and non-OECD countries must list OECD waste codes for all shipments in addition to RCRA waste codes, and exporters to all countries must list DOT/UN ID numbers in place of the currently required DOT hazard class for all shipments. (4) Contracts must be signed between e xporters and importers of hazardous waste and foreign facilities specifying the parties releva nt to each shipment and the various legal responsibilities of each party involved. (5) Exception reports can be based on e ither RCRA manifests or OECD movement documents.

2 OECD (2012), Illegal Trade in Environmentally Sensitive Goods , OECD Trade Policy Studies, OECD Publishing, accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264174238-en on November 12, 2014.

3 Occupational Knowledge Internat ional and Fronteras Comunes, Exporting Hazards: U.S. shipments of used lead batteries to Mexico take advantage of lax environmental and worker health regulations , June 2011, accessed at http://www.okinternational.org/docs/ Exporting%20Hazards_Study_100611v5.pdf on November 12, 2014.

4 Secretariat of the Commission for Environmen tal Cooperation, Hazardous Trade? An Exam ination of US-generated Spent Lead-Acid B attery Exports and Secondary Lead Recycling in Canada, Mexico , and the United States, April 2013, accessed at http://www3.cec.org/isl andora/en/item/11220- hazardous-trade-examination-us-generated-spent-lead-acid-battery-exports-and on October 21, 2014.ES-3 

### (6) Exporters and importers must ensure that a movement document accompanies all transnational shipments of hazardous waste. (7) U.S. receiving facilities must send a copy of the signed OECD movement document to EPA, the foreign exporter of the waste, and the relevant authorities of the exporting country. (8) U.S. receiving facilities must prepare and send a confirmation of recovery or disposal to EPA, the exporter, and the relevant authority in the country of export for each shipment received. (9) Exporters must maintain a copy of the confirmation of recovery or disposal from the foreign importing facility for three years. (10) Transporters must receive instructions for returned wastes and shipments must be returned within 90 days of receiving notification from the country of import or transit. (11) Transnational shipments with Canada, Me xico, and non-OCED countries that are exempt from export and import requirements as wastes destined for laboratory analysis are subject to additional weight limits. (12) Exporters are no longer required to provide an extra copy of the manifest to the transporter and transporters are no longer require d to give that copy to a Customs official.

CHANGES TO 40 CFR PART 262, SUBPART H 

### Changes to 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart H include the following: (1) Exporters will no longer be required to submit a copy of EPA’s Acknowledgment of Consent to transporters. (2) Recognized traders must obtain EPA Identification Numbers. 5


### (3) Exporters and importers must comply with electronic reporting requirements using EPA’s hazardous waste import/export database. (4) Exporters must file additional EPA elemen ts as part of their Automated Export System (AES) filing requirements under 15 CFR 30.4. (T his requirement is also being added to the cathode ray tube (CRT) export requirements in 40 CFR 261.39(a)(5).)

BASELINE LEVEL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE FOREIGN TRADE ACTIVITY 

### This EA relies on a baseline (i.e., pre-rule) character ization of U.S. foreign trade and the number of entities involved in the export and import of hazar dous waste, including SLABs. EPA’s export annual reports and import RCRA manifests ar e key data sources for this charact erization. Export annual reports provide information on hazardous waste exports, incl uding the annual number of shipments and volume, and the number of U.S. entities exporting hazardous w aste. Import manifests provide information on the

5 A recognized trader is a person domiciled in the United States , who acts to arrange and facilitate transboundary movements of wastes destined for recovery or disposal operations, either by purchasing from and subsequently selling to U.S. and foreign facilities, or by a cting under arrangements with a U.S. waste facility to a rrange for the export or import of the wastes.ES-4 

### volume of manifested hazardous waste imports received by U.S. facilities and describe the number of entities involved. EPA annual export reports showed that approximately 51,200 ship ments and one million tons of hazardous waste were exported in 2011. Of this total, approximately 90 percent of exports went to Canada and Mexico and less than 0.1 percent of export shipments went to non-OECD countries. SLABs accounted for more than half of all hazardous waste e xports, with more than two-thirds of all U.S. SLAB exports shipped to Mexico. Approximately 630,000 tons of SLABs were exported in 2011, including 429,000 tons to Mexico. In 2011, there were 378 U.S. exporters of hazardous waste. The majority of these entities exported waste to just one foreign country, while only four expor ters shipped hazardous waste to multiple countries. Eleven countries received hazardous waste from U.S. exporters. Approximately 44 percent of exporters (169 of 378 exporters) shipped SLABs abroad. The majority of these exporters shipped SLABs to Canada, and two shipped SLABs to multiple countries. Many SLAB exporters also exported other hazardous wastes. EPA also tracks imports of hazardous waste to the United States; however, less information is captured on the types and overall quantity of waste for imports than for exports. Specifically, the data are limited to the total number of RCRA import manifests and the number of wastes listed per manifest. Imports of SLABs and universal wastes are domestically exempted from RCRA manifest requirements, so data on these imports are not reflected in this analysis. The vast majority of imported hazardous waste is shipped from Canada and Mexico. Canada acc ounted for more than 80 percent of manifested import shipments of hazardous waste in 2011, Mexico accounted for appr oximately 10 percent of import shipments, and approximately three percent of hazardous wast e imports were shipped from non-OECD countries. EPA import manifest data show that there were 45 im porters in the United States in 2011. Of these, 74 percent received shipments from Canada, 24 percent received shipments from Mexico, and less than 10 percent received shipments from non-OECD countries. Four importers received shipments from more than one country.

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS AND COST SAVINGS 

### To assess the costs of the proposed ru le, this EA estimates the unit costs for each provision of the rule and applies these values to the number of affected U.S. entities. This EA employs a “model entity” approach to estimate the cost and cost savings associated with the proposed rule, applying average costs by entity type (i.e., exporter, importer, transporter, or rec ognized trader) and foreign trade partner. Exhibit ES-1 reports the total number of U.S. entities and foreign shipments of hazardous waste potentially affected by the proposed rule.ES-5 EXHIBIT ES-1. NUMBER OF U.S. ENTITIES AND THEIR SHIPMENTS

ENTITY TYPE (COUNTRY OF DESTINATION / ORIGIN) 1,2 TOTAL NUMBER OF
ENTITIES TOTAL ANNUAL
NUMBER OF
SHIPMENTS AVERAGE NUMBER
OF SHIPMENTS PER
ENTITY
Exporters (Canada) 326 25,600 79 Exporters (Mexico) 24 23,126 964 Exporters (Non-OECD) 2 26 13 Exporters (OECD) 31 2,466 80 Importers (Canada) 35 2,418 69 Importers (Mexico) 11 343 31 Importers (Non-OECD) 3 111 37 Importers (OECD) 2 62 31 Transporters 564 N/A N/A
Notes: 1. While Canada and Mexico are OECD countries, under exis ting regulations there are different requirements for the foreign trade of hazardous waste with these countri es compared with other OECD countries. Canada and Mexico currently have bilateral waste agreements with the United States se parate from the OECD multilateral waste agreement, and thus will be newly subject to vari ous provisions of the proposed rule that currently apply to other OECD member countri es. Therefore, this EA estimates impacts to export ers and importers separately for trade with Canada and Mexico versus other OECD countries. 2. Several exporters and importers trade with more than one country. Therefore, there are 378 unique exporters (rather than 383 listed above) and 45 unique importers (rather than 51 list ed above). However, this exhibit parses out the exporters that ship to more than one country into each of their re spective destinations to accurately reflect the aver age number of shipments sent to each dest ination. Depending on the context, the remainder of this analysis may similarly parse out export ers that ship to more than one country separately to accurately estimate costs associated with shipping to alternative destinations. In other words, this analysis sometimes uses the higher enti ty count, where appropriate. Source: EPA, Export Annual Reports and Import Manifests for 2011. Information on transporters based on EPA’s 2011 Biennial Report Database.



### Exhibit ES-2 reports the total costs and cost savings of the proposed rule by provision, reported on an annualized basis using a seven percent discount rate. Th e costs (and cost savings) of the proposed rule are estimated over a twenty-year time horizon. The most significant costs to industry under the proposed rule are associated with the movement document and conf irmation of recovery/disposal requirements. Agency costs reflect enhancements and maintenance costs related to the EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)/Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) Waste Import and Export Tracking System (WIETS), the burden of reviewing and maintaining records of movement documents and confirmations of recovery or disposal and issuing EPA ID numbers to recognized traders. 6

6 Requests for an EPA ID number will only go to EPA if the reco gnized trader is located in a state that does not have an authori zed agency that issues EPA ID numbers. As these costs are sm all, for illustrative purposes they are i ncluded as Agency costs in this EA. Howeve r, a portion of this burden could be on state agencies, depending on the location of the recognized traders.ES-6 

### Agency cost savings include the burden reduction of responding to inquiries and manual data entry in WIETS associated with export notices and export annual reports. In addition, the proposed rule may result in cost savings associated with greater regulatory effi ciency that cannot be quantified. These benefits are described in the next section.

EXHIBIT ES-2. TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE BY PROVISION, USING A SEVEN PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE ($2013)

ROW [A] PROVISION [B] TOTAL
ANNUALIZED
COSTS

[C] TOTAL
ANNUALIZED
COST SAVINGS [D] NET COSTS [E=C-D] 1 Reading the Rule $11,494 $0 $11,494 2 CDX Registration $4,768 $0 $4,768 3 Export/Import Notices $23,859 $2,459 $21,400
4 Re-notifications $164 $0 $164 5 Annual Report $211 $2,098 ($1,886) 6 Additional Reports $0 $0 $0
7 Contracts $0 $0 $0 8 Provide Acknowledgment of Consent to Transporter $0 $450,103 ($450,103) 9 Exception Report $11 $10 $1 10 Movement Document $1,247,291 $32 $1,247,259 11 Confirmation of Recovery/Disposal $191,529 $32 $191,496
12 Return of Wastes $0 $0 $0

13 Exemption for Wastes Dest ined for Laboratory Analysis $320 $18 $302
14 AES Requirements $0 $0 $0 15 Obtain EPA IDs (recognized traders) $13 $0 $13

16 Sub-total: Industry Costs $1,479,660 $454,753 $1,024,907 17 Agency Costs (low-end) $767,485 $232,895 $534,591 18 Agency Costs (high-end) $889,861 $232,895 $656,967

19 TOTAL (low-end) $2,247,145 $687,648 $1,559,498
20 TOTAL (high-end) $2,369,521 $687,648 $1,681,874
Notes: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. Numbers in parentheses indicate a net cost savings.



### Exhibit ES-3 reports the distributional costs of the proposed rule across the different entity types. As shown in the exhibit, the net cost impacts of the pr oposed rule are the greatest for U.S. exporters of hazardous waste. The net cost impacts for U.S. importe rs are generally less than for exporters (with the exception for U.S. receiving facilities that import fro m Mexico). The estimated net cost impacts for transporters are minimal. Costs for recognized trader s are also small, and are apportioned into the cost estimates for importers and exporters, as recognized tr aders are part of the listed exporter and importer universe.ES-7 EXHIBIT ES-3. TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE BY ENTITY TYPE, USING A SEVEN PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE ($2013)

ROW [A] ENTITY TYPE [B] TOTAL
NUMBER
OF
ENTITIES [C] TOTAL
ANNUALIZED
COSTS

[D] TOTAL
ANNUALIZED
COST SAVINGS [E] NET COSTS [F=D-E] 1 Exporters (Canada) 326 $121,498 $238,170 ($116,671) 2 Exporters (Mexico) 24 $1,294,326 $213,655 $1,080,672 3 Exporters (Non-OECD) 2 $1,544 $248 $1,295 4 Exporters (OECD) 31 $1,156 $157 $999 5 Importers (Canada) 35 $9,806 $2,014 $7,792 6 Importers (Mexico) 11 $40,276 $302 $39,973 7 Importers (Non-OECD) 3 $10,933 $91 $10,842 8 Importers (OECD) 2 $102 $116 ($14) 9 Transporters 564 $20 $0 $20
10 Sub-total: Industry Costs 998 $1,479,660 $454,753 $1,024,907 11 EPA (low-end) N/A $767,485 $232,895 $534,591 12 EPA (high-end) N/A $889,861 $232,895 $656,967
13 TOTAL (low-end) N/A $2,247,145 $687,648 $1,559,498

14 TOTAL (high-end) N/A $2,369,521 $687,648 $1,681,874
Notes: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. Numbers in parentheses indicate a net cost savings.

ASSESSMENT OF NON-MONETIZED BENEFITS 

### The monetized cost savings in this EA include (1) the Agency burden reduction associated with the electronic submittal of notices, (2) elimination of the requirement for one-time import notices, and (3) removal of the requirement for exporters of hazardous waste to provide an acknowledgment of consent document to transporters. In additio n to the benefits described above, this EA describes other categories of benefits qualitatively, including the following:

 Enhanced EPA tracking of exporter, importer, and recognized trader activities.

 Reduction of risks associated with treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes.

 Improved ability to acquire information regarding the quantities of hazardous waste shipments exported from the United States and the destination facilities to which the shipments are exported.

 Increased regulatory efficiency.

 Consistency with export and impor t requirements for OECD countries.ES-8 OTHER REQUIRED ANALYSES 

### As required by applicable statutes and executive or ders, this EA assesses other required analyses and regulatory concerns associated with the proposed rule, including the following:

 Regulatory planning and review : Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 13563, the Agency has determin ed that this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action.

 Regulatory flexibility: The average cost impacts developed in this EA suggest that the proposed rule would not have significant economic impact s on a substantial number of small entities.

 Unfunded mandates: Signed into law on March 22, 1995, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) requires federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector, to determine whether any proposed rulemaking may result in “any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal gove rnments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.” Based on the magnitude of the proposed rule’s estimated cost impacts, EPA does not expect th e rule to result in annual expenditures exceeding $100 million for either the private sector or state, local, and tribal governments in the aggregate.

 Federalism: The proposed rule is not expected to result in substantial direct compliance costs for hazardous waste generators owned by state and local governments.

 Tribal governments: The estimated costs of the rule for trib al entities suggest that the rule would not impose a substantial burden on tribal governments.

 Environmental justice: EPA does not expect that the proposed rule would result in disproportionately high or adverse impacts for mi nority or low-income populations. Overall, the Agency anticipates that the rule would redu ce any adverse effects associated with the management and disposal of hazardous waste, thus benefiting minority and low-income populations.

 Children's health protection: The rule is not expected to result in a disproportionate adverse health impact on children.

 Energy Impacts: The proposed rule is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on energy supply, distribution, or use. In addition, no measurable adverse impacts are expected on energy prices or foreign supplies.

 Employment impacts: Insufficient data are available to quantify the potential impact of the proposed rule on employment. The economics lite rature suggests, however, that the costs imposed on directly regulated sectors may raise pr oduction costs and put some specific jobs at risk, while at the same time environmental regul ation may create jobs in the regulated sector or other sectors, such as the environmental protection sector. 7



###  Joint impacts of rules: Some of the exporters, importers, transporters, and recognized traders regulated by the proposed rule are also subj ect to other RCRA requirements. Combined, the

7 Richard D. Morgenstern, William A. Pizer, and Jhih-Shyang Shih . (2002) “Jobs Versus the Environm ent: An Industry-Level Perspec tive.” Journal of

Environmental Economics and Manage ment, Vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 412-436.ES-2 

### proposed change to the import-export requirement s and existing regulations for hazardous waste generators and transporters would ensure that the management of waste by these entities subject to both sets of regulations is protective of human health and the environment.1-1 

### CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION

OVERVIEW 

### This document presents EPA’s analysis of the cost s, benefits, and economic impacts of the proposed Hazardous Waste Export-Import Revisions Rule. This rule proposes to amend cert ain existing regulations promulgated under the hazardous waste provisions of the RCRA regarding the export and import of hazardous wastes from and into the United States. EPA is publishing this EA in conjunction with the proposed rule and invites comments from the public on the data, methods, assum ptions, and conclusions presented herein.

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR REGULATORY ACTION 

### EPA designates certain secondary materials as hazardous wastes, noting that they can pose threats to human health and the environment. Under RCRA, EP A regulates the management, transportation, and ultimate disposal of those wastes. Tracking where wa stes are generated and moved can help assure that wastes are not misplaced, lost, or unaccounted for. Since March 1992, OECD member countries have regul ated the international movement of hazardous wastes destined for recovery under Council Deci sion C(92)39/FINAL. EPA’s April 1996 Imports and Exports of Hazardous Waste Final Rule implemen ts OECD’s Council Decision C(92)39/FINAL in the United States under RCRA authority, under 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart H. 8 

### While that rule codifies the OECD requirements for U.S. imports and exports of hazardous waste with OECD countries, shipments to Canada and Mexico are also covered under separat e bilateral agreements. RCRA regulatory requirements for exports to Canada, Mexico, a nd non-OECD countries are under 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart E, and the corresponding import requirements for shipments from these countries are under 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart F. In 2004, in order to improve some of its provisions and enhance harmonization with the Basel Convention, OECD updated its rule under C ouncil Decision C(2001)107/FINAL, as amended by C(2004)20 and further amendments in November 2005 and November 2008. In 2008, EPA developed the Proposed Rule on Exports and Imports of Hazardous Waste Destined for Recovery Among OECD Countries, Exports of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries fro m the U.S., and Import Consent Documentation to implement these updates and strengthen controls on SL ABs by making their export subject to subpart E export regulations, if being shipped to Canada, Mexico , or non-OECD countries, or subject to subpart H OECD regulations, if being shipped to OECD countries other than Canada or Mexico. The final rule for these changes was issued in 2010. Because domestic sh ipment of SLABs for recycling is exempted from RCRA manifest requirements, export shipments of SLABs were also exempted from RCRA manifest requirements. But export shipments of SLABs subject to subpart H OECD requirements were subject to OECD movement document requirements under the changes in the 2010 rule.

8 U.S. EPA Imports and Exports of Hazardous Waste: Implementati on of OECD Council Decision C(92) 39 Concerning the Control of Tra nsfrontier Movements of Wastes Destined for Reco very Operations, Final Rule, Federal Re gister, Vol. 61, No. 72, April 12, 1996.1-2 

### Since the 2010 rulemaking, however, EPA and several NGOs have raised concerns over the lack of reporting and insufficient environmental and occupationa l health controls associated with transboundary movement of hazardous wastes, most notably rega rding exports of SLABs to Canada and Mexico. 9 

### For example, in June 2011, Occupati onal Knowledge International and Fronteras Comunes issued a joint report highlighting how SLAB recyclers were able to circumvent relatively stringent environmental and occupational safety regulations in the Un ited States by exporting SLABs to Mexico. 10 

### In April 2013, the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) issu ed a report on the trade of SLABs between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, identifying potential underre porting and discrepancies in relevant records, and reasserting the environmental and health risks associated with recovery of lead from SLABs. 11 

### To address these concerns, EPA is proposing to make all U.S. imports and exports of hazardous waste, including those with countries outside of OECD, subject to st andards equivalent to those promulgated in 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart H in the 2010 rulemaking. In a ddition, EPA is proposing to mandate the electronic submission of required documents, which is expected to improve data availability and quality. Better data will help the United States and other countries control the environmental and health risks associated with hazardous waste movement, processing, and disposal. The pertinent details of the proposed rule are outlin ed below. For further information regarding the historical context and details of this rulemaking, please refer to the Preamble to the proposed rule.

SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED RULE 

### This section describes regulatory changes or amendments engendered by the proposed rule.

CHANGES TO REQUIREMENTS FOR SHIPMENTS CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO 40 CFR PART 262,
SUBPARTS E AND F 

### The proposed rule will regulate hazardous waste shipments with Mexico, Canada and non-OECD countries in a manner more consistent with regulations currently in place for shipments with other OECD member countries under 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart H. Many of the regulatory changes described below therefore do not alter the requirements in Subpart H asso ciated with each provision, but rather adjust the types of entities held to each requirement by ma king entities currently subject to Subpart E and F requirements subject to Subpart H requirements. Cha nges to requirements for shipments currently subject to 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart E (i.e., exports to Cana da, Mexico, and non-OECD countries) and Subpart F (i.e., imports from Canada, Mexico, and non-OECD countries) include the following: (1) Exporters of hazardous waste to Cana da, Mexico, and non-OECD countries will be required to submit additional info rmation with each export notice.

9 OECD (2012), Illegal Trade in Environmentally Sensitive Goods , OECD Trade Policy Studies, OECD Publishing, accessed at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264174238-en on November 12, 2014.

10

Occupational Knowledge International and Fron teras Comunes, Exporting Haza rds: U.S. Shipments of used lead acid batteries to M exico take advantage of lax environmental and worker health regulations, June 2011, accessed at http://www.okinternational.org/doc s/Exporting%20Hazards_Study_100611v5.pdf on October 21, 2014.

11 Secretariat of the Commission for Environmen tal Cooperation, Hazardous Trade? An Exam ination of US-generated Spent Lead-Acid B attery Exports

and Secondary Lead Recycling in Canada, Mexico , and the United States, April 2013, accessed at http://www3.cec.org/isl andora/en/item/11220- hazardous-trade-examination-us-generated-spent-lead-acid-battery-exports-and on October 21, 2014.1-3 

### This additional information includes an email address and fax number for each listed party on the notice, all anticipated transporters for the shipments, all anticipated export ports in the United States, any interim facilities to be used during the transfer of waste, and the OECD waste codes and recycling or disposal operati on codes for all waste streams to be shipped. Exporters to other OECD countries are already required to submit this information, and will therefore experience no change in their cost burden as a result of the proposed rule. (2) Importers of RCRA hazardous wastes not treated as hazardous waste exports by the country of export will need to submit noti ces to EPA on behalf of foreign exporters. §262.82(a)(2)(ii) requires that hazardous waste shipments fulfill all regulatory requirements regardless of the designation of the waste in the country of export. §262.82(a)(2)(ii)(B) specifies that export notice requirements usually assigned to foreign exporters will become the duty of U.S. import facilities receiving shipments of waste. This requirement already applies to shipments of waste from other OECD countries and will be required for import shipments from Canada, Mexico, or non-OECD countries. This new U.S. requirement will not affect shipments from Canada as Canadian regulations already require export notices whenever the country of import controls the proposed shipment as hazardous waste, but will affect import shipments from Mexico and non-OECD countries. (3) For export annual reports to EPA, exporters to Canada, Mexico, and non-OECD countries must list OECD waste codes for all shipments in addition to RCRA waste codes, and must list DOT/ID numbers in place of DOT hazard classes. Exporters of hazardous waste to OECD countries must already comply with the first requirement in Subpart H. Exporters to Ca nada, Mexico, and non-OECD counties will be affected by the first requirement. All exporte rs will be affected by the second requirement, but as it replaces an existing data item being collected, the net impact of the second requirement will be zero. (4) Contracts must be signed between ex porters and importers of hazardous waste and foreign facilities specifying the parties rele vant to each shipment and the various legal responsibilities of each party involved. Exporters and importers of hazardous waste with OECD countries are already held to this requirement under subpart H. Exporters and importers of hazardous waste with Canada, Mexico and non-OECD countries will now be subj ect to this new U.S. requirement, but U.S. exporters and importers of wast e with Canada will not be impa cted as Canadian regulations already require contracts between the Cana dian facility and the foreign facility. (5) Exception reports can be based on either RCRA manifests or OECD movement documents. Currently, exception reports under Subpart E ar e only based off of RCRA manifests. This change will potentially impact export shipment s of universal waste and SLABs to Canada, Mexico, and non-OECD countries that are partially or wholly rejected by the foreign receiving facility.1-4 

### (6) Exporters and importers must ensure th at a movement document accompanies all transnational shipments of hazardous waste. The movement document must include a signed certification, as well as all information required for notification. For shipments to a nd from Canada, exporters and importers may use the existing Canadian movement document they are already required to use under Canadian regulations to fulfill this requirement. Similarl y, exporters to OECD countries and importers receiving waste from OECD countries for recycling (with the exception of Canada and Mexico) are already required to complete this document. Therefore, this requirement will only impact exporters and importers excha nging waste with Mexico and non-OECD countries. (7) U.S. receiving facilities must send a copy of the signed OECD movement document to EPA, the foreign exporter of the waste, a nd the relevant authorities of the exporting country. This requirement must be completed within th ree days of receiving a shipment of hazardous waste. Importers must also maintain a signe d copy of the movement document for three years. Importers receiving waste from other OECD countries must already comply with this requirement. Similarly, importers receiving waste from Canada can use the Canadian movement document they are already required to send to the Canadian exporter under Canadian regulations to fulfill this requireme nt, so the expected net burden will be sending copies to EPA and to Environment Canada. Im porters receiving shipments from Mexico and non-OECD countries will experience the full impact of this change, as they currently do not send copies of such a movement document to anyone. (8) U.S. receiving facilities must prepare and se nd a confirmation of recovery or disposal to EPA, the exporter, and the relevant author ity in the country of export for each shipment received. Importers receiving shipments from OECD countri es are already subject to this requirement under existing U.S. regulations, and will ther efore not experience a change in burden as a result of the proposed rule. U.S. importers receiving shipments from Canada are already required to prepare and send a confirmation to the foreign exporter, and therefore will only incur costs to send confirmations to EPA and Environment Canada. U.S. importers receiving shipments from Mexico and non-OECD countri es will experience the full impact of this change as they are not currently required to se nd confirmations of recovery or disposal to
anyone. (9) U.S. exporters must maintain a copy of the movement document and the confirmation of recovery or disposal from the foreign importing facility for three years. Exporters to OECD countries are already s ubject to this requirement under existing regulations, and will therefore not experience a change in burden as a result of the proposed rule. Exporters to Canada, Mexico, and non-OECD countries will be affected by this change.1-5 

### (10) Transporters must receive instructions for returned wastes and shipments must be returned within 90 days of receiving notification from the country of import or transit. When a manifested shipment of hazardous w aste cannot be completed, the primary exporter must (1) instruct the transporter to either re turn the shipment to the exporter or to an alternative facility in the United States, a nd (2) submit an exception report to EPA. The proposed rule does not change any of these re quirements with the exception of allowing the alternate facility to be in the country of impor t if allowed by the country of import, specifying that the instructions to the transporter be made via mail, email, or fax (so that a record of the instructions exist), and requiring that the ship ments be returned within 90 days of receiving notification from the country of import or transit. (11) Transnational shipments with Canada, Mexico, and non-OCED countries that are exempt from export and import requirements as wastes destined for laboratory analysis are subject to additional weight limits. Under existing regulations in 40 CFR Part 261, domestic shipments of hazardous waste sent for laboratory analysis are exempt from hazardous waste requirements if they fall within certain weight limits. Existing weight limits for exempted waste shipments range from 1kg for acute hazardous waste to 10,000kg of me dia contaminated with non-acute hazardous waste. Exporters and importers shipping hazardous waste samples for laboratory analysis to and from OECD countries are already subject to the additional limitation that the samples weigh no more than 25kg to be exempt from Subpart H export and import requirements (e.g., notice, movement document). The proposed rule makes exporters and importers shipping samples for laboratory analysis to and fr om Canada, Mexico, and non-OECD countries subject to the additional limitation of samples we ighing no more than 25kg to be exempt from export and import requirements. As a result, cu rrently-exempt shipments may no longer be exempt. EPA is requesting comment on the number of currently exempt shipments that will be impacted by this change. (12) Exporters are no longer required to provide an extra copy of the manifest to the transporter and transporters are no longer re quired to give that copy to a Customs official. Exporters shipping wastes to any country subj ect to RCRA manifesting requirements will no longer be required to provide an extra copy of the manifest to the transporter, and the transporter will no longer be required to give that copy to the Customs officer at the port of exit at time of departure. This change will a ffect all export shipments currently subject to Subpart E or H. This paper submittal requir ement is being dropped because it will be duplicative to the AES filing and information prov ided in the eventual submittal of the OECD movement document by the foreign receiving facility to confirm receipt.1-6 CHANGES TO 40 CFR PART 262, SUBPART H 

### Changes to 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart H include the following: (1) Exporters will no longer be required to submit a copy of EPA’s Acknowledgment of Consent to transporters. Under existing regulations in Subpart E, e xporters shipping to Canada, Mexico, and nonOECD countries must provide a copy of EPA’s Acknowledgment of Consent to the transporter for each hazardous waste ship ment. The proposed rule eliminates this requirement. Exports to OECD countries other th an Canada and Mexico will not be impacted by this change. (2) Recognized traders must obtain EPA Identification Numbers. The proposed rule will require all recognized traders involved in the arrangement of transportation of hazardous waste to obtain an EPA ID number. EPA assumes that one percent of all exporters and importers are recognized traders, and request comment on the accuracy of this assumption. (3) Exporters and importers must comply wi th electronic reporting requirements using EPA’s hazardous waste import/export database. The proposed rule establishes requirements for electronic reporting for exporters and importers of hazardous waste and exempted w aste in Part 261 subject to export conditions (i.e., cathode ray tubes (CRTs) being exported for recycling). Many of the activities required for these entities will be determined by inst ructions associated with EPA’s electronic document receiving system. EPA plans to deve lop enhancements to WIETS to receive these submittals, likely using the Agency-wide Centra l Data Exchange (CDX) system, which will facilitate the electronic submittal of required documents. The electronic system guides users through the registration and reporting procedur es. Electronic submittal is required for all exporters and importers; however, a waiver is available for companies that meet certain conditions specified by EPA (i.e., lack of access to broadband internet or other unique circumstances). Each individual entity required to submit documents electronically will need to register to use the system. The proposed rule will require electronic submittal of export notices, import notices (where the shipment is not considered hazardous in the country of export), confirmation of receipt for import ma nifests, confirmation of recovery/disposal, movement documents, exception reports, annual re ports, and notification for return of wastes. Each submittal will require that the exporter or importer sign each document electronically. (4) Exporters must file additional EPA data elements as part of their AES filing requirements under 15 CFR 30.4 (this requireme nt is also being added to the CRT export requirements in 40 CFR 261.39(a)(5)). Under existing U.S. Census Bureau regulations , exporters of waste subject to RCRA consent requirements must enter shipment data into the U.S. Census Bureau’s AES for each shipment. Under the proposed rule, exporters will be re quired in Subpart H to fill in two additional fields for the export license and EPA consent num ber, and conditionally required to fill in three additional fields related to the RCRA hazardous waste manifest tracking number, exported quantity, and reporting units if the ex isting AES-required reporting is not in units of1-7 

### weight (kg) or volume (L). It is unknown what percentage of the filings are expected to require the conditional data fields, so EPA is requesting comment from exporters on what export shipments of waste are not required to report in units of weight or volume in AES. This provision would also set new requireme nts for CRTs exported for recycling under 40 CFR 261.39. EPA estimates that these exporters are already filing in AES for all shipments under current U.S. Census Bureau regulations. Th is change would require the filing of two to five additional fields in AES, as would filings for hazardous waste export shipments subject to Part 262 export requirements.

ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT 

### To support development of the proposed rule, EPA prep ared this EA examining the rule’s costs, benefits, and other economic impacts. The data, methods, and resu lts of this analysis are presented in the following chapters:

 

### Chapter 2: Potentially Affected Entities. This chapter provides an overview of the U.S. entities

that are likely to be affected by EPA’s proposed Hazardous Waste Export-Import Revisions Rule.

 

### Chapter 3: Assessment of Costs and Cost Savings. Chapter 3 includes EPA’s assessment of the

rule’s cost impacts. This chapter: (1) identif ies portions of the potentially regulated universe affected by individual rule provisions; (2) charact erizes the regulatory baseline; (3) describes the data and methods employed for the assessment of the rule’s cost impacts, and (4) presents the results of the cost analysis. To the extent possible, cost savings are also quantified.

 

### Chapter 4: Assessment of Benefits. After presenting the rule’s cost impacts, the focus shifts to

EPA’s assessment of the rule’s benefits in Chapter 4.

 

### Chapter 5: Other Required Analyses. This chapter assesses distributional and other impacts of the

proposed rule, including impacts to small entities, environmental justice implications, children's health, impacts to Tribal Governments, energy use and distribution effects resulting from the rule, and joint impacts with other rules.2-1 

### CHAPTER 2 | POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ENTITIES

INTRODUCTION 

### This chapter provides an overview of U.S. entities th at are likely to be affected by EPA’s proposed Hazardous Waste Export-Import Revisions Rule. The pr oposed rule may affect a number of exporters and importers of hazardous waste (including SLABs) that span a range of industries. The information presented here provides context for the EA regarding the costs and benefits associated with the proposed rulemaking. First, this chapter provides a summary of the volume of foreign trade in hazardous waste and the number of importers and exporters potentially aff ected by the proposed rule. Then, it presents data sources which show that EPA’s annual foreign trade reports likely understate the number of entities and countries involved in the trade of hazardous waste. Finally, it provides a profile of the types of entities that may be affected by the proposed rule.

BASELINE LEVEL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE FOREIGN TRADE ACTIVITY 

### This section describes the U.S. foreign trade and the number of entities involved in the export and import of hazardous waste, including SLABs. First it summarizes the number and volume of shipments of hazardous waste by trade partner and year. Then it discusses the number of U.S. entities involved in the foreign trade of hazardous waste.

ESTIMATING THE NUMBER AND VOLUME OF SHIPMENTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

### This EA relies on the data from EPA’s export annual reports and import manifests to characterize the volume of foreign trade in hazardous waste that would be regulated under the proposed rule. First, this EA reports information on hazardous waste exports and the number of U.S. entities exporting hazardous waste, and then it provides information on the volume of hazardous waste imports received by U.S. facilities and describes the number of entities involved.

Volume of Exports 

### EPA tracks shipments of hazardous waste through export annual reports submitted by the regulated trade community. Exporters must file an annual report w ith EPA on March 1 of each year, summarizing their shipments from the previous calendar year. EPA re views these annual reports for accuracy, and then inputs them into a database. This database provides detailed information from the export annual report, including an EPA ID number (if available), address for each exporter, and a description of all wastes shipped, including an indication of whether the ship ment contained SLABs, other solid wastes, or liquid hazardous wastes. This analysis relies primarily on EPA’s 2011 data base to estimate the base line scenario, because it includes the most recent calendar year for which EP A manually input records with a high level of detail on the contents of hazardous waste shipments. EPA also compiled similar, although less detailed, information using the 2012 export annual reports . Specifically, while the 2012 compilation provides information on the total number and volume of ship ments, exporter information (e.g., EPA ID number2-2 

### and address) and waste shipment detail are not availabl e. Furthermore, the 2012 data provide a combined total export volume for each exporter, but do not separate SLABs from other solid wastes if a single exporter shipped both types of wastes. To estimate th e percentage of waste comprised of SLABs in 2012, this EA applies the proportion of SLABs from the 2011 data to the total volume of solid waste in 2012. 12 

### The data also show that approximately 100 exporters that shipped waste in 2011 did not ship any waste in 2012. According to EPA export data, approximately 51,200 shipments and one million tons of hazardous waste were exported in 2011 and 53,100 shipments and 0.9 million tons of hazardous waste were exported in 2012. Of this total, approximately 90 percent of exports in 2011 and 97 pe rcent of exports in 2012 went to Canada and Mexico. Less than 0.1 percent of e xport shipments went to non-OECD countries. SLABs accounted for more than half of all hazardous waste exports, with more than two-thirds of all SLABs shipped to Mexico. Approximately 630,000 tons of SLABs were exported in 2011, including 429,000 tons to Mexico; approximately 551,000 tons of SLABs were exported in 2012, including 424,000 tons to Mexico. Exhibits 2-1 and 2-2 summarize the total quan tity of hazardous waste exports reported to EPA in 2011 and 2012.

EXHIBIT 2-1. U.S. EXPORTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BY TYPE OF WASTE AND COUNTRY OF DESTINATION (2011)

COUNTRY LIQUID WASTE SOLID WASTE

TOTAL WASTE 1 SLABs OTHER HAZARDOUS
WASTE
NO.
SHIPMENTS AMOUNT (GALLONS) NO.
SHIPMENTS AMOUNT (TONS) NO.
SHIPMENTS AMOUNT (TONS) NO.
SHIPMENTS AMOUNT (TONS)
Mexico 1,675 403,363 20,077 429,394 1,374 86,014 23,126 517,425 Canada 2,446 8,306,299 5,544 119,062 17,610 217,653 25,600 378,246 Korea 0 0 1,588 79,717 785 21,889 2,373 101,606 Spain 0 0 55 1,402 0 0 55 1,402 Sweden 0 0 0 0 2 550 2 550 Peru* 0 0 25 512 0 0 25 512 Belgium 0 0 0 0 17 253 17 253 UK 0 0 1 98 0 0 1 98 Japan 0 0 0 0 4 76 4 76 Germany 0 0 0 0 14 43 14 43 Philippines* 0 0 1 35 0 0 1 35 France 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 4,121 8,709,662 27,291 630,219 19,806 326,479 51,218 1,000,246 Notes: * Non-OECD Countries 1. For liquid wastes, this analysis uses an average density of 10 pounds per gallon. Based on analysis of annual reports where both weight and volume data were pu blished, in which specific densities ranged from 8.35 to 12 pounds per gallo n. Avanti Corporation

, Overview of EPA Hazardous Waste Annual Export Reports, 2011. Source: U.S. EPA Export Annual Reports, 2011.

12

In 2011, SLABs accounted for 94 percent of shipments and 83 percent of solid waste shi pped to Mexico and 24 percent of shipmen ts and 35 percent of solid waste shipped to Canada.2-3 EXHIBIT 2-2. U.S. EXPORTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BY TYPE OF WASTE AND COUNTRY OF DESTINATION (2012)

COUNTRY LIQUID WASTE SOLID WASTE

TOTAL WASTE 1 SLABs OTHER HAZARDOUS
WASTE
NO.
SHIPMENTS AMOUNT (GALLONS) NO.
SHIPMENTS AMOUNT (TONS) NO.
SHIPMENTS AMOUNT (TONS) NO.
SHIPMENTS AMOUNT (TONS)
Mexico 8,814 673,061 19,629 424,020 3,644 61,515 32,087 488,901 Canada 1,280 6,089,022 5,666 114,181 12,982 245,879 19,928 390,505 Korea 0 0 333 6,143 512 13,276 845 19,419 Spain 0 0 177 6,386 0 0 177 6,386 Sweden 0 0 0 0 1 275 1 275 Peru* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Belgium 0 0 0 0 47 722 47 722 UK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Japan 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Germany 0 0 0 0 62 106 62 106 Philippines* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 France 0 0 0 0 2 28 2 28 TOTAL 10,094 6,762,083 25,805 550,730 17,250 321,801 53,149 906,341 Notes: * Non-OECD Countries 1. For liquid wastes, this analysis uses an average density of 10 pounds per gallon. Based on analysis of annual reports where both weight and volume data were pu blished, in which specific densities ranged from 8.35 to 12 pounds per gallo n. Avanti Corporation

, Overview of EPA Hazardous Waste Annual Export Reports, 2011. Source: U.S. EPA Export Annual Reports, 2012.

Number of Exporters 

### EPA’s database of annual reports also provides info rmation on the number of entities exporting hazardous waste. As described above, the 2011 data provide facility-level informa tion, including the name, address, and EPA ID number. In contrast, the 2012 data c ontain facility names, but not addresses or EPA ID numbers. Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether repeated facility names are duplicate entries for the same location or cover multiple facilities owned by the same firm. Thus, this EA relies on the 2011 export annual re ports to estimate the number of hazardous waste exporters. In 2011, there were 378 U.S. exporters of hazardous waste. The majority of these entities exported waste to just one foreign country, while four exporters shipped hazardous waste to multiple countries. Eleven countries received hazardous waste from U.S. exporters. Approximately 44 percent of exporters (169 of 378 exporters) shipped SLABs abro ad. The majority of these exporters shipped SLABs to Canada, and two shipped SLABs to multiple countries. Many SLAB exporters also exported other hazardous wastes. Exhibit 2-3 summarizes the number of exporters and the average number of shipments by country of destination.2-4 EXHIBIT 2-3. NUMBER OF U.S. EXPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHIPMENTS BY DESTINATION (2011)

DESTINATION 1 NUMBER OF U.S.
EXPORTERS NUMBER OF U.S. SLAB
EXPORTERS AVERAGE NUMBER OF
SHIPMENTS PER
EXPORTER
Canada 2,3 326 142 79
Mexico 2,3 24 11 964
OECD Countries 31 16 80 Belgium 4 2 0 9 United Kingdom 1 1 1 Germany 4 2 0 7 Japan 5 1 0 4
Korea 5 23 14 103 Spain 6 1 1 55
Sweden 1 0 2
Non-OECD Countries 2 2 13
Peru 6 1 1 25 Philippines 1 1 1
TOTAL 383 171 134 Notes: 1. Three exporters shipped wa ste to two countries and one exporter shipped waste to three countries. Therefore, there are 378 unique exporters, rather than 383 listed above. However, this exhibit parses out the exporters that ship to more than on e country into each of their respective destinations to accurately reflect the average number of shipments sent to each destination. Depending on the context, the remainder of this document may similarly parse out expo rters that ship to more than one country separately to accurately estimate costs associated with shippi ng to alternative destinations. In ot her words, this analysis sometimes uses the 383 count of exporters and not the 378 unique exporters where appropriate. 2. While Canada and Mexico are OECD countries, under exis ting regulations there are different requirements for the foreign trade of hazardous waste with these countri es compared with other OE CD countries. Therefore, this EA estimates impacts to exporter s (and importers) separately for trade with Canada and Mexico versus other OECD countries. 3. One exporter sent shipments to both Canada and Mexico. 4. One exporter sent shipment s to Belgium and Germany. 5. One exporter sent shipments to Ja pan and Korea (as well as Canada). 6. One exporter sent shipments to Spain (OECD) and Peru (non-OECD). Source: U.S. EPA Export Annual Reports, 2011.



### Exhibit 2-4 shows where U.S. exporters of hazardous waste are located across the country. The states with the largest number of exporters are New York, Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and California. As shown in the exhibit, a large number of exporters are located in states along, or nearby, the border with Canada or Mexico.2-5 EXHIBIT 2-4. U.S. EXPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BY STATE



### Source: U.S. EPA Export Annual Reports, 2011.

Volume of Imports 

### EPA also tracks imports of hazardous waste to the United States, but less information is captured on the types and overall quantity of waste than for EPA’s expor t annual reports. Specifically, the data are limited to the total number of RCRA import manifests and th e number of wastes listed per manifest. However, unlike EPA’s export data, comparable import manifest data are available for both years 2011 and 2012. Imports of SLABs and universal wastes are domestic ally exempted from RCRA manifest requirements, so data on these imports could not be reflected in th is analysis. The vast majority of imported hazardous waste is shipped from Canada and Mexico. Canada ac counted for more than 80 percent of manifested import shipments of hazardous waste in 2011 and 20 12, while Mexico accounted for approximately 10 percent. About 3 to 4 percent of hazardous waste im ports were shipped from non-OECD countries in both years. Some U.S. importers received shipments in on e year but not the other; for example, the United States received imports from Bermuda, Korea, the Domi nican Republic, and Singapore in 2012, but not in 2011. Exhibits 2-5 and 2-6 report the number of mani fested import shipments of hazardous waste to the United States in 2011 and 2012, respectively. As shown in the exhibits, the vast majority of shipments included only one waste listed per manifest.2-6 EXHIBIT 2-5. U.S. IMPORTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2011

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN TOTAL NUMBER OF
MANIFESTED IMPORT
SHIPMENTS AVG. NUMBER OF WASTES
LISTED PER MANIFEST MAX NUMBER OF WASTES
LISTED PER MANIFEST

Canada 2,418 1.33 25
Mexico 343 1.20 6 Philippines* 82 1 1 Japan 50 1 1 Germany 11 1 1 Malaysia* 11 1 1
Bahamas* 11 1 1
N Antilles* 7 1 1 United Kingdom 1 1 1
Bermuda* 0 0 0 Dominican Republic* 0 0 0
Korea 0 0 0 Singapore* 0 0 0
TOTAL 2,934 N/A N/A
Notes: * Non-OECD Countries Source: U.S. EPA RCRA manifest s for import shipments, 2011.2-7 EXHIBIT 2-6. U.S. IMPORTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN 2012

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN TOTAL NUMBER OF
MANIFESTED IMPORT
SHIPMENTS AVG. NUMBER OF WASTES
LISTED PER MANIFEST MAX NUMBER OF WASTES
LISTED PER MANIFEST

Canada 2,521 1.69 41
Mexico 272 1.32 6 Philippines* 91 1 1 Japan 82 1 1 Germany 10 1 1 Malaysia* 6 1 1
Bahamas* 0 0 0
N Antilles* 0 0 0 United Kingdom 1 1 1
Bermuda* 2 9 17
Dominica* 1 23 23
Korea 2 1 1 Singapore* 3 1 1
TOTAL 2,991 N/A N/A
Notes: * Non-OECD Countries Source: U.S. EPA RCRA manifest s for import shipments, 2012.

Number of Importers 

### Exhibit 2-7 summarizes the number of U.S. importers of hazardous waste and the average number of shipments per importer by country of origin. EPA import manifest data show that there were 45 importers in the United States in 2011. Of these, 74 percent received shipments from Canada, 24 percent received shipments from Mexico, and less than 10 percent received shipments from non-OECD countries. Four importers received shipments from more than one country in 2011.2-8 EXHIBIT 2-7. NUMBER OF U.S. IMPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHIPMENTS BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN (2011)

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN 1 NUMBER OF IMPORTERS AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHIPMENTS PER
IMPORTER

Canada 2,3,4,5 35 69
Mexico 2,3,5 11 31
OECD Countries 2 31 United Kingdom 4 1 1 Germany 4 1 11 Japan 5 1 50
Non-OECD Countries 3 37
Bahamas 1 11 Malaysia 5 1 11 N Antilles 1 7 Philippines 5 1 82
TOTAL 51 57 Notes: 1. Four importers received waste from two or more countries as descri bed below. Therefore, there are 45 unique importers, rather than 51 listed above. However, this exhibit parses out the importers that receive from more than one country into each of their respecti ve origins to accurately reflect the average number of shipments sent to each importer. Depe nding on the context, the remainder of this document may similarly parse out importers that receive fr om more than one country separate ly to accurately estimate costs associated with receiving from altern ative destinations. That is, this EA often uses the 51 count of importers and not the 45 unique importers. 2. While Canada and Mexico are OECD countries, under exis ting regulations there are different requirements for the foreign trade of hazardous waste with these countri es compared with other OE CD countries. Therefore, this EA estimates impacts to importers (and exporters) separately for trade with Canada and Mexico versus other OECD countries. 3. Two importers received shipments from Canada and Mexico. 4. A single importer received shipments from England, Germany, and Canada. 5. A single importer received shipme nts from Malaysia, the Philippines, Canada, Mexico, and Japan. Source: U.S. EPA RCRA manifest s for import shipments, 2011.



### Exhibit 2-8 shows the geographic distribution of U.S. importers of hazardous waste. The states with the largest number of importers are Ohio, Texas, California, and Arkansas. These four states account for nearly half of all U.S. importers.2-9 EXHIBIT 2-8. U.S. IMPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE BY STATE



### Source: U.S. EPA RCRA manifests for import shipments, 2011.

ESTIMATING THE NUMBER OF EXPORT AND IMPORT NOTICES 

### In addition to submitting a nnual reports to EPA, under existing regu lations in 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart E, U.S. exporters must also notify EPA of their in tent to send shipments of hazardous waste and obtain consent via EPA prior to their departure. EPA forw ards the export notices to the countries of import and transit, and documents the countries’ responses in the acknowledgement of consent (AOC) letter or equivalent objection letter back to the exporter. Similarly, foreign exporters notify their country’s authorities by submitting an export notice proposing ship ments of certain wastes to the United States for disposal or recovery. The countries of export then fo rward those notices to EPA for administrative review and processing. When EPA sends its consent to a notic e in writing back to the country of export, EPA also sends consent documentation to the listed destination facility or facilities from the notice. In addition to the notice and consent process with the foreign exporter and country of export, receiving facilities subject to 40 CFR Part 264 or 265 must notify EPA at least four weeks prior to receiving the initial shipment from a specific foreign source.2-10 

### Notices of Intent to Import/Export are tracked by WIE TS. This database provides an additional source of information on U.S. entities that intend to impor t/export hazardous waste. However, the WIETS data likely overstate the actual volume of foreign trad e because facilities must estimate the quantity of hazardous waste they will manage over a 12-month pe riod and cannot exceed the quantity declared in their import/export notice. First, the WIETS data ove restimate the number of exporters and importers because some companies may submit notices but not subsequently ship/receive any hazardous waste during that time frame. Second, entities that do ship/r eceive waste are more likely to overestimate (rather than underestimate) the amount of hazardous waste they will manage because the actual quantity during the year cannot exceed the amount requested in the notice.

Number of Export Notices 

### The WIETS data report that approximately 600 expor ters submitted more than 1,500 notices in 2011 compared to 378 exporters that submitted annual export reports to EPA. These numbers may not be directly comparable because notices can extend over a period of 12 months, which would include shipments in 2012. However, these figures generally illu strate that WIETS data are likely to overstate the number of hazardous waste exporters. Furthermore, it is not possible to directly compare the number of shipments and total quantity of hazardous waste repor ted in export notices with actual export records because WIETS double counts shipment and quantity totals for facilities that report multiple waste
streams. 13


### In 2013, the most recent calendar year for which da ta are available, 692 exporters submitted 1,684 notices to EPA. Of the total export notices obtained from WIE TS, 91 percent requested to export hazardous waste to Canada, 4 percent requested to export to Mexico, 5 percent requested to export to OECD countries, and 0.1 percent to non-OECD countries. Exhibit 2-9 repo rts the number of U.S. exporters that submitted notices and the total number of export notices in 2013.

13

For example, to define the number of requ ested shipments data field in the WIETS data base, EPA states the following: “The tota l number of shipments requested to use in an alysis for specific waste stream. If no waste stre am level info was listed in notice, the notic e level requested number of shipments is applied to each waste stream. For example, if the notice lists 10 wastes streams, and only specifies 50 requested shipments in the notice, the re port shows 50 shipments requeste d for each of the 10 waste stre ams.” This information was obtain ed from an Excel Workbook entitled “RCRA Notice Data from WIETS JAN 2011 – AUG 20113.xlsx”2-11 EXHIBIT 2-9. NUMBER OF U.S. EXPORTERS AND EXPORT NOTICES BY COUNTRY OF DESTINATION
IN 2013

COUNTRY OF DESTINATION NUMBER OF EXPORTERS 1 NUMBER OF EXPORT
NOTICES AVERAGE NUMBER OF
NOTICES PER EXPORTER
Canada 601 1,533 2.6
Mexico 47 67 1.4
OECD Countries 51 82 1.6
Non-OECD Countries 2 2 1
TOTAL 701 1,684 N/A
Notes: 1. Several exporters requested export to two or more countries. Therefore, there are 692 unique exporters, rather than 701 listed above. However, this exhibit parses out the exporters that ship to more than one country into each of their respective destinations to accurately reflect the averag e number of notices for each destination. Depending on the context, the remainder of this document may similarl y parse out exporters that ship to more than one country separate ly to accurately estimate costs asso ciated with shipping to alternative destinations. Source: U.S. EPA WIETS data, 2013.

Number of Import Notices 

### The WIETS data report that approximately 130 U.S. f acilities were listed as the receiving facility on more than 450 foreign export notices submitted to EPA in 2011 compared to 45 U.S. facilities that submitted RCRA manifests to EPA. As with the export data, it is not possible to directly compare the number of shipments and total volume of hazardous waste reporte d in foreign export notices. Some of the difference between the foreign export notice data and the import ma nifest data may be due to the fact that foreign exporters overestimated the volume of hazardous wast e they would ship to the United States. Another basis for the difference may be due to the impor ted waste being exempted from RCRA manifesting requirements, like SLABs or universal waste, or the recycling facility not being a RCRA-permitted facility subject to Part 264/265 requirements. In 2013, 225 importers were listed as the receiving f acility on 769 foreign export notices. Of the total number of foreign export notices obtained from WIET S, 87 percent came forwarded from Canada, 6 percent came forwarded from Mexico, 4 percent came forwarded form OECD countries, and 3 percent came forwarded from non-OECD countries. Exhibit 2-10 reports the number of U.S. importers that were listed as receiving facilities and the to tal number of import notices in 2013.2-12 EXHIBIT 2-10. NUMBER OF U.S. IMPORTERS AND IMPORT NOTICES BY COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN
2013

COUNTRY OF ORIGIN NUMBER OF IMPORTERS NUMBER OF IMPORT
NOTICES AVERAGE NUMBER OF
NOTICES PER IMPORTER
Canada 196 671 3.4
Mexico 20 47 2.4
OECD Countries 22 33 1.5
Non-OECD Countries 11 18 1.6
TOTAL 249 769 N/A
Notes: 1. Several importers received foreign export notices from two or more countries. Therefore, there are 225 unique importers, rather than 249 listed above. However, this exhibit parses out the importers that receive from more than one country into each of their respecti ve origins to accurately reflect the average number of shipments sent to each importer. Depe nding on the context, the remainder of this document may similarly parse out importers that receive fr om more than one country separate ly to accurately estimate costs associated with receiving from alternative destinations. Source: U.S. EPA WIETS data, 2013.

U.S. CENSUS FOREIGN TRADE DATA AS AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON
TRANSNATIONAL SHIPMENTS OF SLABs 

### This section outlines U.S. Census Foreign Trade data on exports of SLABs. These data show that the information currently collected by EPA may be gene rally accurate and representative of the volume of foreign trade in SLABs. However, it may understate the number of countries trading with the United States. Data on SLAB exports were obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Foreign Trade Data on Electronic Media for the years 2011 to 2013. 14,15 

### According to the U.S. Census, exporters shipped approximately 507,000 tons of SLABs valued at $224 m illion in 2011 (measured in 2013 dollars). 16 

### By weight, 74 percent of SLABs were exported to Mexico and 23 percent were exported to Canada. Less than 0.5 percent of SLABs were sent to non-OECD countries. Since 2011, SLAB exports to nearly all countries have decreased, with the notable exception of Mexico . In 2012, the United States exported 372,000 tons of SLABs to Mexico, accounting for 89 percent of all SLAB exports and in 2013, the United States exported 433,000 tons of SLABs to Mexico, accounting for 92 percent of all SLAB exports. Exhibit 2-11 illustrates the volume of U.S. SLAB exports by countr y of destination for 2011 through 2013. Overall, exports of SLABs to Mexico have increased over this time period, while exports to Canada fell by more

14

Data purchased from U.S. Census Bureau , Foreign Trade Data Products, accessed at https://www.census.gov/foreigntrade/reference/products/ catalog/ftdproductsa.html on April 17, 2014.

15

SLABs are identified using the following 10-digit Schedule B commodity codes (based on the international Harmonized Tariff Sys tem): 8548100540 (lead-acid storage batteries of a kind used for starting engi nes, for the recovery of lead) and 8548100580 (spent primary cells , spent primary batteries, & spent electric storage batteries for recovery of lead, other than lead-acid storage batteries for starting engines ).

16

The nominal export dollar amounts for were adjusted to $2013 dollars u sing the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ Annual Price Index es for Gross

Domestic Product (GDP).2-13 

### than half between 2011 and 2013. Exhibits 2-12 th rough 2-14 provide additional detail on the volume and value of exports of SLABs by year and country of destination.

EXHIBIT 2-11. U.S. EXPORTS OF SLABs BY COUN TRY OF DESTINATION, 2011 TO 2013 (TONS)



### Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Data on Electronic Media, 2011 to 2013. 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 500,000

2011 2012 2013Tons of SLABs

Mexico Canada Rest of World2-14EXHIBIT 2-12. PROFILE OF U.S. EXPORTS OF SLABs (2011)COUNTRYWEIGHT(TONS)PERCENTOF TOTALTOTAL DOLLARVALUE ($2013)PERCENTOF TOTALNUMBER OFBATTERIES SHIPPEDPERCENT OFTOTALMexico 377,218 74.4% $98,351,853 43.8% 19,632,056 75.5%Canada 115,488 22.8% $110,566,992 49.2% 5,758,533 22.1%Spain 10,399 2.1% $9,254,172 4.1% 368,562 1.4%Korea 1,366 0.3% $1,717,122 0.8% 39,829 0.2%Subtotal (Mexico and Canada) 492,70697.2%$208,918,845 93.0%25,390,58997.7%Subtotal (OECD, excluding Canada and Mexico)111,9632.4%$12,081,581 5.4%423,8631.6%Subtotal (non-OECD)22,2660.4%$3,658,111 1.6%186,3590.7%TOTAL506,936100%$224,658,537100%26,000,811100%Notes:1. Including 8 additional OECD countries that are not reported above.2.Including 42 non-OECD countriesthat are not reported above.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Data on Electronic Media. Based on exportsof Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes8548100540 (leadacid storage batteries of a kind used for starting engines,for the recovery of lead) and 8548100580 (spent primary cells, spent primary batteries, &spent electric storage batteries for recovery of lead, other than lead-acid storage batteries for starting engines).2-15EXHIBIT 2-13. PROFILE OF U.S. EXPORTS OF SLABs (2012)COUNTRYWEIGHT(TONS)PERCENTOF TOTALTOTAL DOLLARVALUE ($2013)PERCENTOF TOTALNUMBER OFBATTERIES SHIPPEDPERCENT OFTOTALMexico 372,215 88.8% $77,764,803 43.4% 20,391,209 89.4%Canada 42,331 10.1% $93,816,698 52.4% 2,112,048 9.3%Spain 3,191 0.8% $2,440,643 1.4% 100,662 0.4%Korea 213 0.1% $73,858 0.5% 19,423 0.1%Subtotal (Mexico and Canada) 414,54698.9%$171,581,501 95.8%22,503,25798.7%Subtotal (OECD, excluding Canada andMexico)13,6890.9%$5,539,223 3.1%211,1810.9%Subtotal (non-OECD)21,0760.3%$2,027,409 1.1%85,0890.4%TOTAL419,312100%$179,148,133100%22,799,527100%Notes:1. Including an additional 11 OECD countries that are not reported above.2. Including 37 non-OECD countriesthat are not reported above.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Data on Electronic Media. Based on exportsof Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes8548100540 (leadacid storage batteries of a kind used for starting engines,for the recovery of lead) and 8548100580 (spent primary cells, spent primary batteries, &spent electric storage batteries for recovery of lead, other than lead-acid storage batteries for starting engines).2-16EXHIBIT 2-14. PROFILE OF U.S. EXPORTS OF SLABs (2013)COUNTRYWEIGHT(TONS)PERCENTOF TOTALTOTAL DOLLARVALUE ($2013)PERCENTOF TOTALNUMBER OFBATTERIES SHIPPEDPERCENT OFTOTALMexico 433,070 91.8% $83,300,763 44.5% 24,457,416 92.3%Canada 33,177 7.0% $94,324,819 50.4% 1,653,727 6.2%Spain 4,630 1.0% $4,081,259 2.2% 134,851 0.5%Korea 92 0.0% $1,469,387 0.8% 6,798 0.0%Subtotal (Mexico and Canada) 466,24898.9%$177,625,58295.0%26,111,14398.5%Subtotal (OECD, excluding Canada and Mexico)15,1281.1%$8,083,3544.3%362,3501.4%Subtotal (non-OECD)22720.1%$1,276,8130.7%37,9750.1%TOTAL471,647100%$186,985,749100%26,511,468100%Notes:1. Including an additional 14 OECD countries that are not reported above.2. Including 26 non-OECD countriesthat are not reported above.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Data on Electronic Media. Based on exportsof Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes8548100540 (leadacid storage batteries of a kind used for starting engines,for the recovery of lead) and 8548100580 (spent primary cells, spent primary batteries, &spent electric storage batteries for recovery of lead, other than lead-acid storage batteries for starting engines).2-17 

### The 2013 report by the Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation titled “ Hazardous Trade? An Examination of US-generated Spent Lead-Acid Battery Exports and Secondary Lead Recycling in Canada, Mexico, and the United States ,” examined EPA and Ce nsus data from 2011 and identified discrepancies between the two data sources. Specifically, it noted that the Census data show a number of countries where the United States exporte d SLABs to in 2011 were not reported to EPA. However, the volume of hazardous waste reported to Census was lower than that reported to EPA. Furthermore, the report found anecdotal evidence of underreporting prior to 2010, implying that some U.S. exports of SLABs to Canada were likely improperly classified. 17



### Exhibits 2-15 and 2-16 show the U.S. Census da ta alongside EPA’s annual foreign trade data for 2011 and 2012. While U.S. Census data indicate a larger number of countries received SLAB exports compared to EPA data, they indicate a lower total volume of hazardous waste shipments. For example, EPA reports show that U.S. exporters shipped approximately 55 1,000 tons of SLABs in 2012, compared to 419,000 tons reported in the Cens us foreign trade data.

17

SLAB exports to Canada were almost enti rely automobile and in dustrial batteries, despite record s of exports to Canada classifi ed under HTS code 8548102500 (“waste and scrap primary cells, primar y batteries and electric storage batteri es for the recovery of lead, not spec ified elsewhere”).
Secretariat of the Commission for Environmenta l Cooperation “Hazardous Trade? An Examin ation of US-generated Spent Lead-Acid Ba ttery Exports and Secondary Lead Recycling in Canada, Me xico, and the United States.” 2013, p.252-18 EXHIBIT 2-15. CENSUS AND EPA DATA ON U.S. EXPORTS OF SLABs (2011)

COUNTRIES WEIGHT (TONS) NUMBER OF COUNTRIES

CENSUS 1 EPA 2 DIFFERENCE CENSUS 1 EPA 2 DIFFERENCE Mexico 377,218 429,394 -52,176 1 1 0 Canada 115,488 119,062 -3,574 1 1 0 Subtotal (Mexico and Canada) 492,706 548,456 -55,750 2 2 0 Subtotal (OECD, excluding Canada and Mexico) 11,963 81,217 -69,254 10 3 7
Subtotal (non-OECD) 2,266 547 1,719 42 2 40
TOTAL 506,936 630,220 -123,284 54 7 47 Notes: 1. U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Data on Electronic Media, 2011. 2. U.S. EPA Export Annual Reports, 2011.

EXHIBIT 2-16. CENSUS AND EPA DATA ON U.S. EXPORTS OF SLABs (2012)

COUNTRIES WEIGHT (TONS) NUMBER OF COUNTRIES

CENSUS 1 EPA 2 DIFFERENCE CENSUS 1 EPA 2 DIFFERENCE

Mexico 372,215 424,020 -51,805 1 1 0 Canada 42,331 114,181 -71,850 1 1 0 Subtotal (Mexico and Canada) 414,546 538,201 -123,655 2 2 0 Subtotal (OECD, excluding Canada and Mexico) 3,689 12,529 -8,839 13 2 11
Subtotal (non-OECD) 1,076 0 1,076 37 0 37
TOTAL 419,312 550,730 -131,418 52 4 48 Notes: 1. U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Data on Electronic Media, 2012. 2. U.S. EPA Export Annual Reports, 2012.



### Overall, according to the U.S. Census, the Unite d States exported SLABs to 81 different countries between 2011 and 2013. These include 20 OECD memb er countries, as well as 61 non-OECD countries. Based on the U.S. Census data, Exhibit 2-17 provide s the full list of countries where the United States exported SLABs to from 2011 through 2013. In cont rast, EPA export annual report data for 2011 and 2012 show that the United States exported SLABs to only 7 countries, two of which were non-OECD countries.2-19 EXHIBIT 2-17. LIST OF COUNTRIES WHERE THE UNITED STATES EXPORTED SLABs TO FROM 2011 TO 2013 (U.S. CENSUS DATA)

COUNTRIES Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Anguilla , Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Aruba, Australia, Bahamas, Belgium, Belize, Bermuda, Bolivia, Brazil, Brit ish Virgin Islands, Canada, Cayman Islands, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo (Brazzaville), Costa Rica, Curacao, Czech Republic, Do minica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Finland, France, French Guiana, Germany, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana , Haiti, Honduras, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Korea, South, Kuwait, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Martinique, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Netherlands An tilles, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Saint Maarten, South Afri ca, Spain, Sri Lanka, St. Kitts And Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent And The Grenadines, Suriname, Sweden, Taiwan , Trinidad And Tobago, Turkey, Turks And Caicos Islands, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, and Venezuela Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Data on Electronic Media, 2011 to 2013.

ECONOMIC PROFILE OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ENTITIES 

### This section provides an economic profile of entities likel y to be affected by the proposed rule. Financial data on the potentially affected universe are lim ited because (1) firms exporting and importing hazardous waste, including SLABs, represent a small percentage of all firms in their respective industries (thus, industry-wide data may not be generally representativ e of these particular firms) and (2) many of these firms are privately-held, so financial data are not genera lly available. However, to the extent possible, this chapter describes the industries and the relative size of companies involved in the foreign trade of hazardous waste. First, this section describes the da ta collection methods used for this EA. Then it provides a profile of potentially affected entities.

DATA COLLECTION METHODS 

### The number of entities involved in the foreign tr ade of hazardous waste was identified using EPA’s annual export/import reports for 2011. 18 

### As a primary source of financial data for exporters and importers in the regulated universe, this EA relies on informa tion from Dun & Bradstreet (D&B), a leading private source of commercial information. D&B collects financ ial, industry, and credit risk data from over 30,000 sources and maintains a database containing records for more than 200 million companies. D&B also validates these data through proprietary quality assurance software. 19 

### Specifically, these data include the primary NAICS code, annual revenues, and number of employees for each company. These financial data were matched to exporters and im porters through the parent company identified by D&B (or, if the company was foreign-owned, the largest U.S. subs idiary). D&B does not have information for all companies because private companies may not self-report their financial information to D&B. Therefore, data pulls from D&B were also supplemented with a review of three other online commercial intelligence

18

As further noted, detailed exporter an d importer information for 2012 was not available. Therefore, this EA relies on EPA’s 20 11 data.

19

For more information, see http://www.dnb.co.uk/scores-data

.2-20 

### databases: Manta.com, Hoovers.com, and Insideview .com. Each of these sources gathers and organizes data on companies in order to facilitate market research and business transactions. 20


### Another primary data source, the U. S. Economic Census, provides aggreg ate financial data for all firms across a wide range of industries based on their NAI CS code. However, these data likely overstate the number of exporters and importers of hazardous wa ste because these firms represent a small percentage of their respective industries. Furthermore, the av erage revenues for the industry as a whole may not be representative of firms exporting and importing hazardous waste. Thus, it may not be appropriate to rely exclusively on the U.S. Economic Census fo r financial data on exporters and importers.
Therefore, based on the review of financial inform ation for individual firms from D&B and other sources, this EA estimates that there are 299 U.S. firms exporting hazardous waste (compared to 378 export facilities) and 34 U.S. companies importing hazardous waste (compared to 45 import facilities). Of these, at least 11 firms both export and import hazardous wa ste. Overall, industry classification data (i.e., NAICS codes) are available for approximately one-third of these firms, while other financial information (e.g., annual revenues and number of employees) are ava ilable for less than one-quarter of firms in the potentially affected universe. Exhibit 2-18 summarizes data availability for a sub set of firms in the regulated universe based on the review of D&B and other data sources. Financial da ta are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5.

EXHIBIT 2-18. SUMMARY OF DATA AVAILABILITY FOR FIRMS IN THE REGULATED UNIVERSE

ENTITY TYPE NUMBER OF ENTITIES NUMBER OF FIRMS FOR WHICH FINANCIAL DATA ARE
AVAILABLE

FACILITIES FIRMS REVENUES NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES NAICS CODE Exporters 378 299 51 80 87 Importers 45 34 10 19 24

TOTAL 1 N/A 322 59 92 102
Notes: 1. Eleven firms both import and export hazardous waste. Therefore, totals do not equal the sum of importers and exporters. Sources: Number of facilities based on U.S. EPA RCRA manifests for impo rt shipments/Export Annual Reports, 2011. Number of firms and other financial data from Dun & Bradstreet, Hoovers.com, Insideview.com, Manta.com. Websites accessed between June 1, 2014 and July 30, 2014.

INDUSTRY CHARACTERISTICS OF EXPORTERS 

### Exhibit 2-19 describes the range of industries exporti ng hazardous waste. This list is intended to be representative of the subset of the foreign trade sector involved in the trade of hazardous waste, but it is not all-inclusive. The export industries represented by the largest number of firms include: Waste Management and Remediation Services (NAICS 562) ; Primary Metal Manufacturing (NAICS 311); and Chemical Manufacturing (NAICS 325).

20

For more information, see http://www.insideview. com/about-insideview

, http://www.manta.com/about , and http://www.hoovers.com/aboutus.html

.2-21 EXHIBIT 2-19. LIST OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED EXPORT INDUSTRIES

NAICS CODE NAICS DESCRIPTION

562 Waste Management and Remediation Services 325 Chemical Manufacturing 331 Primary Metal Manufacturing 423 Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods 541 Professional, Scientific , and Technical Services 335 Electrical Equipment, Applia nce, and Component Manufacturing 324 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing 336 Transportation Eq uipment Manufacturing 561 Administrative and Support Services
211 Oil and Gas Extraction
332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing 424 Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods 213 Support Activities for Mining 311 Food Manufacturing 326 Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing
327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing 333 Machinery Manufacturing 334 Computer and Electron ic Product Manufacturing
441 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 488 Support Activities for Transportation
531 Real Estate
721 Accommodation 924 Administration of Environmental Quality Programs Sources: Dun & Bradstreet, Hoovers.com, Insideview.com, Manta.com. Websites accessed between June 1, 2014 and July 30, 2014



### Firms in these industries vary substantially in size. For example, based on the available industry data, approximately half of the firms have more than 10,000 employees, while appr oximately 20 percent of firms have fewer than 10 employees. The average annual revenues of firms range from approximately $100,000 to billions of dollars. For the subset of fi rms for which data are available, approximately onethird of firms have revenues over $1 billion per year, while more than 10 percent of firms have less than $10 million in annual revenues. 21

21 Financial data collected from Dun & Bradstreet, Hoovers.com, Insideview.com, and Manta.com.2-22 INDUSTRY CHARACTERISTICS OF IMPORTERS 

### Exhibit 2-20 describes the range of industries importi ng hazardous waste. This list is intended to be representative of the subset of the foreign trade sector involved in the trade of hazardous waste, but it is not all-inclusive. The import industries represented by the largest number of firms include: Waste Management and Remediation Services (NAICS 562) and Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services (NAICS 541).

EXHIBIT 2-20. LIST OF POTENTIALLY AFFECTED IMPORT INDUSTRIES

NAICS CODE NAICS DESCRIPTION

562 Waste Management and Remediation Services 541 Professional, Scientific , and Technical Services 331 Primary Metal Manufacturing 333 Machinery Manufacturing 423 Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods 212 Mining (except Oil and Gas) 325 Chemical Manufacturing 326 Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing
332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 334 Computer and Electron ic Product Manufacturing 339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing Sources: Dun & Bradstreet, Hoovers.com, Insideview.com, Manta.com. Websites accessed between June 1, 2014 and July 30, 2014



### The limited financial data available also suggest that importers vary considerably in size. Two firms have 100 or fewer employees, while at least five firms have more than 10,000 employees. Limited revenue data are available for importers (some degree of informa tion is available for approximately one-quarter of import firms). Based on these data, nearly half of the firms had revenues of more than $1 billion per year, while approximately 10 percent of firms had revenues less than $10 million per year. 22 

### These data may overstate the actual revenues of firms in the regulat ed universe because information is more readily available for large, publicly-traded companies. Thus, the reported financial data may not be representative of smaller entities in the regulated universe.

22

Financial data collected from Dun & Bradstreet, Hoovers.com, Insideview.com, and Manta.com.3-1 

### CHAPTER 3 | ASSESSMENT OF COSTS AND COST SAVINGS

INTRODUCTION 

### This chapter assesses the costs of exporting and impo rting hazardous waste under the provisions set forth in the proposed Hazardous Waste Export-Import Revisi ons Rule, which are outlined in Chapter 1. This chapter begins with an overview of the regulated unive rse that is likely to be affected by the proposed rule, building off of the discussion in Chapter 2. Then, it provides a detailed description of the methodology for the cost analysis. Finally, this chapte r presents the total costs and cost savings of the proposed rule, and concludes with a discu ssion of the potential analytic limitations.

UNIVERSE OF ENTITIES AFFECTED BY THE RULE 

### As described in Chapter 2, the potentially affect ed universe includes U.S. exporters and importers involved in the foreign trade of hazardous waste. To assess the cost impacts of th e proposed rule, this EA develops representative costs for potentially affect ed U.S. entities based on the foreign country of destination (or origin) and extrapolates these costs to the full universe of entities affected by the rule. While this EA would ideally examine costs for each affected entity individually, the data necessary to assess the costs for specific exporters and imports are not available. Exhibit 3-1 reports the total number of U.S. entities and foreign shipments of hazardous waste potentially affected by the proposed rule. In addition to exporters and importe rs of hazardous waste, the proposed rule may affect two additional categories of entities: U.S. transporters of hazardous waste and recognized traders who arrange for the import and export of hazardous waste. The number of establishments in these industries involved in foreign trade is uncertain. EPA estimates that there are 564 transporters nationwide. 23 

### However, not all transporters are involved in foreign trade; therefor e, this is a high-end estimate. Less information is available for recognized traders. EPA estimates that on e percent of all current exporters and importers are recognized traders. 24 

### It is not possible to identify recognized traders in EPA’s annual export and import data because recognized traders may not identify themsel ves directly to EPA (e.g., they may not have an EPA ID number). These entities are not reported separatel y to avoid double-counting, but are reflected in the total number of e xporters and importers.

23

Based on self-reported in formation from EPA’s 2011 Bi ennial Report Database.

24

Based on email communication with Phuc Ph an of EPA’s Office of Resource Conser vation and Recovery on June 5, 2014.3-2 EXHIBIT 3-1. NUMBER OF U.S. ENTITIES AND THEIR SHIPMENTS

ENTITY TYPE (COUNTRY OF DESTINATION / ORIGIN) 1,2 TOTAL NUMBER OF
ENTITIES TOTAL ANNUAL
NUMBER OF
SHIPMENTS AVERAGE NUMBER
OF SHIPMENTS PER
ENTITY
Exporters (Canada) 326 25,600 79 Exporters (Mexico) 24 23,126 964 Exporters (Non-OECD) 2 26 13 Exporters (OECD) 31 2,466 80 Importers (Canada) 35 2,418 69 Importers (Mexico) 11 343 31 Importers (Non-OECD) 3 111 37 Importers (OECD) 2 62 31 Transporters 564 N/A N/A
Notes: 1. While Canada and Mexico are OECD countries, under exis ting regulations there are different requirements for the foreign trade of hazardous waste with these countri es compared with other OECD countries. Canada and Mexico currently have bilateral waste agreements with the United States se parate from the OECD multilateral waste agreement, and thus will be newly subject to vari ous provisions of the proposed rule that currently apply to other OECD member countri es. Therefore, this EA estimates impacts to export ers and importers separately for trade with Canada and Mexico versus other OECD countries. 2. Several exporters and importers trade with more than one country. Therefore, there are 378 unique exporters (rather than 383 listed above) and 45 unique importers (rather than 51 list ed above). However, this exhibit parses out the exporters that ship to more than one country into each of their re spective destinations to accurately reflect the aver age number of shipments sent to each dest ination. Depending on the context, the remainder of this analysis may similarly parse out export ers that ship to more than one country separately to accurately estimate costs associated with shipping to alternative destinations. In other words, this analysis sometimes uses the higher enti ty count, where appropriate. Source: EPA, Export Annual Reports and Import Manifests for 2011. Information on transporters based on EPA’s 2011 Biennial Report Database.

COST METHODOLOGY 

### This section presents the methods employed in this EA to assess the cost impacts of the proposed rule. First, this section outlines the key assumptions reflected in several components of the cost analysis. Next, it provides a detailed accounting of the costs and cost savings associated with each provision of the proposed rule. The costs of the proposed rule represen t the incremental costs above and beyond the costs currently incurred in the baseline scenario—the worl d as it would exist absent the proposed rule. For each provision, this section describes differences in requi rements in the baseline scenario and under the proposed rule.

GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS 

### This assessment relies upon several assumptions that influence the estimated costs of importing and exporting hazardous waste under the proposed rule. So me of these assumptions affect several components3-3 

### of the analysis. These include assumptions regarding (1) hourly labor costs, (2) costs of materials required to comply with various provisions of the proposed rule, and (3) discount rates. These assumptions are outlined in detail below.

Hourly Labor Costs 

### Many of the unit costs presented in this chapter refl ect the time required of managers, technicians, and other staff to complete various tasks. The costs associ ated with this time are estimated as a function of the hourly labor costs associated with various professional and clerical positions. Exhi bits 3-2 and 3-3 report the fully loaded labor costs on a per-hour basis fo r workers who will likely implement the requirements associated with the proposed rule for private industry and EPA, respectively.

EXHIBIT 3-2. PRIVATE INDUSTRY HOURLY LABOR COSTS

BLS OCCUPATION CATEGORY MEAN LOADED HOURLY LABOR COST ($2013) 1,2

Managers $139.53

Technicians $67.40
Office Clerks, General $36.05
Notes: 1. Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates, May 2013, accessed at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm on April 24, 2014. 2. To estimate average annual labor costs, this EA relies on national averag e wage data reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for a full time employee work ing 40 hours a week multiplied by a loaded wage rate of 150 percent, which represents average private industry fringe benefits (e.g. paid time off, health benefits, retirement benefits, other legally re quired benefits, and payroll taxes) and overhead rates (e.g. general and administrative, fixed overhead, insurance, and profit).

EXHIBIT 3-3. AGENCY HOURLY LABOR COSTS

EPA OCCUPATION CATEGORY (GENERAL SCHEDULE GRADE, STEP) MEAN LOADED HOURLY LABOR COST ($2013) 1,2

Managers (GS-14, step 1) $65.58 Technicians (GS-13, step 1) $55.50 Office Clerks, General (GS-5, step 1) $21.25
Notes: 1. U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Salary Table 201 4-GS, Incorporating the 1% General Schedule Increase, Effective January 2014, Hourly Basic Rates by Grade and Step, accessed at http://www.opm.gov/policy-dataoversight/pay-leave/salaries-wag es/salary-tables/pdf/2014/GS_h.pdf on August 18, 2014 2. EPA uses a fringe benefit and overheat cost factor of 1.6. EPA, ICR Handbook: EPA's Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, February 1999.3-4 Cost of Materials and Electronic Submission of Documents 

### Under current regulations, exporters and importers of hazardous waste are required to submit notices, annual reports, and other documents to EPA. The pro posed rule will require that these documents be submitted electronically into EPA’s waste import/e xport database, likely using EPA’s CDX system. 25 

### Specifically, the proposed rule will require electroni c submittal of export notices, import notices (where the shipment is not controlled as a hazardous waste export in the country of export), 26 

### confirmations of receipt for import manifests, confirmations of receipt for import and export movement documents, confirmations of recovery/disposal for import a nd export movement documents, exception reports for export shipments, annual reports for export shipme nts, and notifications for return or alternate management of import shipments. To the extent that CROMERR applies, each document submitted to EPA must also have an electronic signature, which involves (1) entering an ID, (2) entering a password, and (3) answering a security question. The costs to industry to electroni cally sign each of these documents are discussed below. This may ove restimate costs for submittals th at do not require an electronic signature. The costs incurred to develop this system and cost savings associated with electronic submittal for EPA are discussed later in this chapter. Exhibit 3-4 presents the costs for various materials an d technologies that may be used if these tasks are completed in their paper form, rather than using electronic submission. These unit costs are used to estimate the cost savings due to electronic submittal.

EXHIBIT 3-4. MATERIALS COSTS ($2013)

MATERIALS COST CATEGORY UNIT COST
Mailing Costs (9 x 12 package) 1 $5.55 Mailing Costs (standard letter) 2 $0.52 International letter 3 $1.18 Copying 4 $0.11 Fax 5 $0.12 Notes: 1. Includes postage for a 5 oz. package ($2.09) ( http://www.stamps.com/whitepapers/2014-usps-postage-rateincrease-guide.pdf ), certified mail fee ($3.30) ( http://www.certified-mail-envelopes.com/2009-uspscertified-mail-rates/ ), and cost of a manila envelope ($0.16) ( www.staples.com ). 2. Includes first class postage ($0.49) and cost of an envelope ($0.03) ( www.staples.com ). 3. Includes $1.15 for international postage and $0.03 for a standard envelope. Based on USPS price calculator for 1-oz. envelope sent by First Class International Letter. 4. Based on estimates from Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collectio n Request Number 0820.11 Hazardous Waste Generator Standards (Renewal), March 30, 2011. 5. Based on estimates from 2009 Cost Assessment for the Final Rule on Exports and Imports of Hazardous Waste Destined for Recovery Among OECD Countries, Exports of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries from the United States, and Import Consen t Documentation.

25

A waiver may be available for companies th at meet certain conditions. However, this EA assumes that only a few companies would receive waivers. Therefore, it estimates that all exporters and importers will incur costs asso ciated with electronic submittal. This m ay overstate costs for a very small number of companie s that may receive waivers.

26

For example, while Maquiladora shipments are considered hazardous waste by Mexico, they are currently considered a return to the United States rather than an export and are not controlled as hazardous waste exports.3-5 Discount Rates 

### This EA presents the cost impacts of the rule in present value and annualized terms using a discount rate of seven percent over a 20-year forecast period. This EA also presents the cost impacts of the rule using a three percent discount rate as a sensitivity analysis. Th e present value represents the value of a payment or stream of payments in common dollar terms. That is, it is the sum of a series of future cash flows expressed in today's dollars. Translation of future co sts to present value terms requires the following: (a) projected future costs; and (b) the specific years in which these impacts are expected to be incurred. With these data, the present value of the future stream of impacts (PV c 

### ) from year t 1 

### to T is measured in 2013 dollars according to the following standard formula: 27



### where C t 

### is the cost of each management activity in year t and r is the discount rate. 28


### As indicated above, this EA also expresses cost impacts as annualized values. Annualized values are calculated to provide a comparison of impacts ac ross activities with varying time components and forecast periods. 29 

### Annualized future impacts (APV c 

### ) are calculated according to the following standard formula:

where N is the number of years in the forecast period.

METHODS FOR ASSESSING COSTS OF RULE PROVISIONS 

### This section describes the methods employed to assess th e costs and cost savings associated with each of the rule provisions outlined in Chapter 1. For each provision of the rule, costs are estimated on an incremental basis relative to the baseline scenario. For each potentially affected facility, this section describes the unit costs of each compliance-rela ted activity, by entity type and country of destination/origin.

27

To derive the present value of future impacts, t 1 is 2015 and T is 2034, the final year of the fo recast. This EA uses a 20 -year forecast period.

28

To discount and annualize costs, guidance provided by the OMB specifies the use of a re al discount rate of seven percent. In a ddition, OMB recommends sensitivity analysis u sing other discount rates such as three percent, which some economists believe more appropriat ely reflects the social rate of time preference. U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Circular A-4, September 17, 2003 and U.S. Office of Manag ement and Budget, “Draft 2003 Report to Congress on th e Costs and Benefits of Fede ral Regulations; Notice,” 68 Federal Register 5492, Feb ruary 3, 2003.

29

When comparing annualized costs using differe nt discount rates, the values may vary de pending on the timing of costs over the analytical time horizon. A priori , there is no rule stating whether a lower or higher discount rate should yield a hi gher annualized cost, as this depends on th e timing of costs during the analyt ic time horizon. As described above, the annuali zation method involves two steps, which have c ountervailing influences on the magnitude of the annuali zed cost: the present value calculation and the standard annualization formula. In ge neral, if the majority of costs are experience d in the upfront years, the annualized cost would be higher using a higher discount rate. Howev er, if the majority of costs are experienced in the years further out, the annualized costs would be higher using a lower discount rate. For a cons tant stream of payments, the annualized costs ar e not sensitive to the discount rate and will be equivalent.3-6 Reading the Rule 

### This EA assumes that all U.S. exporters and importers of hazardous waste will incur costs in the first year of the proposed rule in order to understand and comp ly with the new requirements. All 378 exporters and 45 importers will need to familiarize themselves with the requirements of the proposed rule. This EA assumes that reading and understanding the proposed rule will require one hour of a manager’s time and 2.5 hours of a technician’s time. 30 

### This is equivalent to an upfront cost of $308.03 per facility (or $27.17 on an annualized basis over a 20-year time horizon, us ing a 7 percent discount rate). Thus, the aggregate annualized costs of reading the proposed rule are $11,494 using a 7 percent discount rate.

CDX Registration 

### The proposed rule establishes requi rements for electronic reporting for exporters and importers of hazardous waste. Under the proposed rule, EPA plans to develop enhancements to the WIETS system, likely using the Agency-wide CDX system, which wi ll facilitate the electronic submittal of required documents. WIETS guides users through the registration and reporting procedures. Electronic submittal is required for all exporters and impor ters; however, a waiver may be available for companies that meet certain conditions specified by EPA (i.e., lack of access to broadband internet or other unique circumstances). The first industry cost burden associated with el ectronic submittal involves user registration. EPA estimates that any staff involved in the reporting of export/import notices, annual reports, or other required documents would have to register using the electronic system. Specifically, EPA estimates an average of six employees would have to register at a large firm, while an average of three employees would have to register at a small firm. 31 

### This EA estimates that 67 percen t of exporters and 57 percent of importers are owned by large firms, as defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 32 

### Using a weighted average approach, this EA estimates there will be an average of 5 registrants per exporter and 4.7 registrants per importer. The registration process is estimated to take approximately nine minutes per registrant. 33 

### However, EPA estimates that approximately 20 percent of registrants will fail the system’s identity proofing requirements. 34 

### If identity proofing fails, registrants are routed to an “electronic signature agreement” form that is completed on th e computer, printed out, signed, and then mailed to EPA. This EA estimates each failure will cost industry approximately five minutes of a technician’s time to complete the electronic signature agreement, pl us the cost of printing and sending the document to EPA. In addition, EPA estimates that 10 percent of u sers will have to update their information each year

30

Page B-1 of the Cost Assessment for the Fi nal Rule on Exports and Imports of Hazardou s Waste Destined for Recovery Among OECD Countries, Exports of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries from th e U.S., and Import Consent Documentation: O ffice of Resource Conservation and Recov ery, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 2009.

31 Supporting Statement for EPA Information Co llection Request Number 2002.06: "Cross-Medi a Electronic Reportin g Rule", October 1 7, 2014, Office

of Environmental Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

32

The methodology for estimating the distribution of large and small firms in the potentially a ffected universe using the SBA’s small business size standards is described in grea ter detail in Chapter 5.

33

Supporting Statement for EPA Information Co llection Request Number 2002.06: "Cross-Medi a Electronic Reportin g Rule", October 1 7, 2014, Office of Environmental Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

34

Communication with William Noggle of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservati on and Recovery on September 22, 2014.3-7 

### (a process that will take approximately 0.02 hours for each user). 35 

### EPA also estimates that each year 10 percent of users will have to register as new users due to employee turnover, and that each year 1 percent of users will have to re-register due to compromised signatures. 36


### This EA assumes that exporters and importers will regi ster to use the electronic system immediately after the promulgation of the rule. Under the previous ly described methodology, the average first-year registration cost per entity is estimated to be $56.91 per exporter and $53.50 per importer. The estimated recurring costs after the first year following the prom ulgation of the rule are $6.94 per exporter and $6.52 per importer. As described above, this EA uses a 20- year time horizon to estimate annualized impacts of the proposed rule. Thus, the total annualized cost of registration is $4,768 using a 7 percent discount rate. Exhibit 3-5 reports the total annualized costs of registration by entity type.

EXHIBIT 3-5. ANNUALIZED COSTS OF CDX REGIST RATION ($2013) USING A 7 PERCENT DISCOUNT
RATE

ENTITY TYPE (COUNTRY OF DESTINATION/ORIGIN) [A] NUMBER OF
AFFECTED
ENTITIES 1 [B] AVG. (MEAN)
NUMBER OF
REGISTRANTS [C] INCREMENTAL
COST PER

ENTITY

[D] TOTAL
ANNUALIZED
COSTS [E=B×D]
Exporters (Canada) 325 5.0 $11.34 $3,685 Exporters (Mexico) 24 5.0 $11.34 $267 Exporters (Non-OECD) 2 5.0 $11.34 $17 Exporters (OECD) 28 5.0 $11.34 $319 Importers (Canada) 33 4.7 $10.66 $347 Importers (Mexico) 9 4.7 $10.66 $98 Importers (Non-OECD) 2 4.7 $10.66 $26 Importers (OECD) 1 4.7 $10.66 $9 TOTAL 423 N/A N/A $4,768
Notes: 1. For reporting purposes and to avoid double-counting, this EA estimates that if an ex porter ships waste to both Canada and Mexico, half of the costs are incurred for sh ipments to Canada and half are incurred for shipments to Mexico. Therefore, costs are proportionally distribute d (by country) for entities that trade with more than one country. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

35

Supporting Statement for EPA Information Co llection Request Number 2002.06: "Cross-Medi a Electronic Reportin g Rule", October 1 7, 2014, Office of Environmental Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

36 Ibid.3-8 Export/Import Notices 

### Export Notices Under existing regulations in 40 CFR Part 262, Subp art E, U.S. hazardous waste exporters must notify EPA of their intent to export wastes at least 60 days in advance of each shipment. In cases where the exporter intends to send multiple similar shipments to the same receiving facility, exporters may submit one notice to EPA that covers all export shipme nts extending over a 12-month period. Notices must include information about the exporter, type of waste, expected quantities and frequency of waste shipments, means of transport, expected time of tr ansit, points of departure and entry for each country through which waste will be transported, the name and location of the receivi ng facility, and ultimate method for managing the waste. Additionally, Canadian regulations require that transporters and interim facilities be listed in each notice. Following notifica tion, EPA will forward the notice to the regulatory authority of the receiving country and any transit coun tries for their review. Once the foreign authority consents to the shipment, EPA forwards an Acknowle dgment of Consent to the exporter authorizing the shipment. According to EPA’s WIETS data for 2013, e xporters submitted a total of 1,684 notices, with a range of 1 to 138 notices submitted per exporter. As discussed above, the proposed rule requires el ectronic submittal of export notices. This requires exporters to submit each export notice with an electr onic signature, which involves (1) entering an ID, (2) entering a password, and (3) answering a security question. EPA estimates this process takes approximately 10 seconds per data el ement. Thus, this EA estimates an additional burden of 30 seconds per export notice. 37 

### Based on a technician’s hourly labor rate, this translates to a cost of approximately $0.56 per export notice. Under the proposed rule, 352 e xporters sending hazardous waste to Canada, Mexico, and non-OECD countries will also be required to submit additional information with each notice. 38 

### This additional information includes an email address and fax number fo r each listed party on the notice, all anticipated transporters for the shipments, an y interim facilities to be used duri ng the transfer of waste, and the OECD waste codes and recycling or disposal operati on codes for all waste streams to be shipped. EPA does not have information to estimate the cost of a dding this information to export notices and requests comment on the amount of time required to submit these a dditional data elements with each export notice.
Given the lack of data, this EA estimates it will take approximately 30 minutes of a technician’s time to provide this information (in addition to the 108 minut es it will take a technician to prepare an export notice under the current regulations). 39 

### Exporters to Canada will not e xperience an additional burden from listing transporters and interim facilities, as these da ta elements are already required by Canadian regulations (thus, this EA estimates it will take an a dditional 20 minutes of a technician’s time to provide the required information for exports to Canada). E xporters to other OECD countries are already required to submit this information, and will therefore experien ce no change in their cost burden as a result of the proposed rule. Once the electronic submittal is fully implemented, exporters will have the option to use

37

Supporting Statement for EPA Information Co llection Request Number 2002.06: "Cross-Medi a Electronic Reportin g Rule", October 1 7, 2014, Office of Environmental Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

38

See Exhibit 2-3. Some entities may be count ed more than once if they export waste to more than one country. However, costs are estimated based on the number of notices to avoid double-counting costs.

39

Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 0820.11 Hazardou s Waste Generator Standards (Renewal), Marc h 30, 2011.3-9 

### the duplication feature in WIETS (in which data field information is copied from the previous notice), which will reduce this estimated burden for entities that submit identical notices (with the exception of the first and last shipment date fields) from year to y ear. EPA estimates that 60 percent of exporters will be able to take advantage of this duplication f eature and incur no additional burden for providing supplemental information in WIETS starting in the second year after electronic submittal is formally implemented. The remaining 40 percent of exporters will have to enter this information for each new export notice. This EA does not estimate cost savi ngs for the reduced technical labor, shipping, and materials-related costs associated with switching from paper to electronic submittal of export notices because adding the capability to electronically subm it export notices using WIETS was initiated prior to development of the rule and would still exist absent the rule, to facilitate electronic transmittal of the notice data between EPA and other other governments. 40


### In addition, EPA receives a large number of notices th at do not result in foreign shipments. Specifically, as indicated in Chapter 2, more U.S. exporters subm it notices than export hazardous waste each year. As a result of the proposed rule, these en tities will incur costs associated w ith electronic submittal and the additional data entry requirements described above. EPA estimates that an additional 314 exporters will incur the costs described in the preceding paragraphs for submitti ng export notices. However, they will not incur subsequent costs related to physically e xporting waste. These notification costs are detailed in Exhibit 3-6 below under the category “Exporters (Other)”. Import Notices As described in Chapter 2, foreign exporters must also submit export notices for shipments of certain wastes to the United States for disposal or rec overy to their country’s authorities who forward these notices to EPA. This EA does not estimate costs im pacts of the proposed rule for foreign exporters. However, if the country of export does not contro l the waste as a hazardous waste export, the proposed rule will require that the U.S. facility submit an impor t notice that requests consent from EPA on behalf of the foreign exporter. As with export notices, these im port notices may cover multiple shipments of waste from the same foreign exporter to the same U.S. f acility over a 12-month peri od. Canadian regulations require that exporters submit rele vant notifications for any waste considered hazardous in the United States, and OECD regulations in subpart H require U. S. facilities to submit an import notice if an OECD country other than Canada or Mexico does not control the waste to be shipped for recycling in the United States as a hazardous waste export. 41 

### Therefore, this EA does not estimate any additional burden for U.S. receiving facilities importing waste from Canada or OECD countries other than Mexico. It is uncertain whether any wastes from non-OECD countries would re quire U.S. importers to submit notices to EPA, therefore this EA estimates that this provision would impose no additional burden on receiving facilities importing waste from non-OECD countries. This provision would impose an additional burden on receiving facilities importing waste from Mexico. Specifically, it would require receiving facilities in the U.S. importing waste from maquiladoras in Mexico to submit import notices on behalf of these foreign exporters. EPA import data show that 48 maquiladoras exported hazardous waste to 11 U.S. recei ving facilities between 2011 and 2014, although

40

See the below discussion of development co sts for enhancements to WIET S in the section on Agency costs and cost savings.

41 Communication with Laura Coughlan (EPA’s International and Transp ortation Branch) and Phuc Phan (EPA’s Office of Resource Cons ervation and Recovery) on July 16, 2014.3-10 

### some facilities did not export waste every year. 42 

### Therefore, every U.S. receiving facility importing waste from Mexico received some (if not all) of their waste from a maquiladora exporter. Based on this information, this EA assumes that all U.S. receivi ng facilities importing waste from Mexico would need to submit import notices to EPA each year. EPA estimates that 100 import notices will be submitted by U.S. importers each year, or approximately 9 notices per receiving facility. 43 

### EPA also estimates that these notices will cost $138.88 to prepare plus $0.56 to provide an electronic signature. 44 

### As described above, the duplication feature in WIETS will reduce this burden for entities that submit identical notices (with the exception of the first and last shipment date fields) from year to year. Therefore, starting in the second year of electronic submission this EA assumes that approximately 60 percent of entities will use the duplication feature in WIETS to submit notices at a reduced burden of ap proximately $1.35 (0.02 hours of a technician’s time) to update a small number of data fields, including first and last shipment date, plus $0.56 to provide an electronic signature. The proposed rule will also result in cost savings to importers by eliminating the requirement that importers notify a regional administrator four weeks prior to receiving a shipment of hazardous waste for the first time (hereafter, “one-time notice”). Under existing regulations, one-time notices are required the first time a waste stream is imported by a U.S. receiving facility. The cost of preparing a one-time notice is uncertain. However, these documents are typical ly a one-to-two page letter identifying the name, address, and contact information for a U.S. receiving facility and every new waste stream they intend to import. Therefore, the estimated cost to prepare this document is similar to the cost burden to send a letter to EPA requesting an EPA ID number (which includes similar information), or $36.96 in labor costs plus $0.52 shipping including the cost of an envelope. 45 

### Based on information provided by the EPA Regions, the number of one-time notices is fairly small (appr oximately 5 percent of all foreign export notices) because U.S. receiving facilities have long-term contract s with foreign exporters and typically import the same wastes year after year. Thus, importers woul d avoid costs for submitting approximately 8 one-time notices per year, a cost savings of approximately $288 per year. Under existing regulations, all manifested import sh ipments going to TSDFs subject to Part 264/265 require the TSDF to send EPA a paper copy of the manifest along with a copy of the import consent documentation within 30 days of shipment delivery. To comply with this provision, importers must send one standard letter to EPA per shipment at a cost of $0.52 per manifest plus photocopying costs of $0.22 ($0.11 per document). 46 

### However, electronic submittal reduces the need for importers to send their import manifests to EPA. This EA estimates that 51 U.S. receiving facilities import a total of approximately 2,930 shipments each year. Therefore, importers woul d experience a cost savings of $2,171. Exhibit 3-6 reports the total costs and cost savings im pacts associated with import manifests.

42

Information provided by Alan Barnosky of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on October 2, 2014.

43

Estimate provided by William Noggle of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on October 2, 2014.

44

This estimate includes 0.1 hours of a ma nager’s time, 1.8 hours of a technician’s ti me, and 0.1 hours of administrative time. On average, there are 719 data fields per export notice an d this EA assumes it takes approximately 10 seconds to complete each data field.

45

Labor cost estimate includes 0.08 hours of a manager’s time, 0.34 hour s of a technician’s time, and 0.08 hours of administrati ve time from “Supporting Statement for EPA Information Co llection Request Number 0976.16, 2013 Hazard ous Waste Report, Notification of Regul ated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modifica tion”, September 2012.

46

Mailing costs for a standard letter include $0.49 for firs t class postage ( www.usps.com ) and the cost of an envelope ($0.03) ( www.staples.com ).3-11EXHIBIT 3-6. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATEDWITH EXPORT AND IMPORT NOTICES ($2013) USING A 7 PERCENTDISCOUNT RATEENTITY TYPE (COUNTRYOF DESTINATION/ORIGIN)[A]NUMBER OFAFFECTEDENTITIES1[B]AVG. (MEAN)ANNUALNUMBER OFNOTICES2[C]AVG. (MEAN)NUMBER OFONE-TIMENOTICES3[D]AVG. (MEAN)NUMBER OFIMPORTMANIFESTS[E]ANNUALIZEDCOST PER NOTICE(COST SAVINGSFOR ONE-TIMENOTICES INPARENTHESES)[F]ANNUALIZEDCOSTS(PER FACILITY)[G]ANNUALIZEDCOST SAVINGS(PER FACILITY)[H]TOTALCOSTS[I=B×G]TOTAL COSTSAVINGS[J=B×H]Exporters (Canada) 326 2.6 N/A N/A $10.63 $27.12 $0 $8,842 $0Exporters (Mexico) 24 1.4 N/A N/A $15.82 $22.56 $0 $541 $0Exporters (Non-OECD) 2 1.0 N/A N/A $15.82 $15.82 $0 $32 $0Exporters (OECD) 31 1.6 N/A N/A $0.56 $0.90 $0 $28 $0Exporters (Other)4318 2.4 N/A N/A Varies Varies $0 $7,996 $0Importers (Canada) 35 3.4 0.2 69.1 ($37.48) $0 $57.54 $0 $2,014Importers (Mexico)5–costs associated withmaquiladora shipments11 9.1 N/A N/A $64.20 $583.62 $0 $6,420 $0Importers (Mexico)6–cost savings associatedwith one-time notices11 2.4 0.1 31.2 ($37.48) $0 $27.48 $0 $302Importers (Non-OECD) 3 1.6 0.1 37.0 ($37.48) $0 $30.45 $0 $91Importers (OECD) 2 1.5 0.1 31.0 ($37.48) $0 $25.75 $0 $52TOTAL 752 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A $23,859 $2,459Notes:1.U.S. EPA, Export and Import Annual Reports, 2011.2.U.S. EPA WIETS data, 2013.3.Based on information provided by the regional offices, EPA estimates that the number ofone-time notices submitted by U.S. importers is approximately 5 percent ofall import notices received by EPA.4.The category “Exporters (Other)”indicates U.S. exporters (to any country) thatsubmit notices but do not export any waste forthe same calendar year as the notice.U.S. EPA WIETS data, 2013.5.EPA estimates that U.S. receiving facilities will submit an average of 9.1 notices per year formaquiladorashipments.6.EPA received an average of 2.4foreign export notices per U.S. receiving facility from non-maquiladoraMexican facilities in 2013.Numbers may not sum due to rounding.3-12 Re-notification 

### Under both existing and proposed regulations, exporters must notify EPA if the conditions specified on their initial notice change. The proposed rule does not alter this requirement, nor is it assumed to change the number of such notices received by EPA each year. EPA estimates that 32 percent of export notices (approximately 290 export notices) will need to be resubmitted each year. 47 

### This figure excludes export notices that do not result in future shipments. The proposed rule requires electronic submittal of all re-notifications sent to EPA. This will require each exporter to provide an electronic signature for each notice submitted (approximately 30 seconds), resulting in a total cost of $0.56 per notice. Across all exporters, this additional co st is expected to total $164 each year. As described above in the discussion of export notices, this EA does not estimate cost savings associated with electronic submittal of re -notifications because the addition of electronic submittal of export notices (or renotifications) into WIETS is already under development and would be completed absent the proposed rule. Exhibit 3-7 repo rts the total annualized costs associated with renotification under the proposed rule.

EXHIBIT 3-7. ANNUALIZED COSTS OF RE-NOTIFIC ATION ($2013) USING A 7 PERCENT DISCOUNT
RATE

ENTITY TYPE (COUNTRY OF DESTINATION/ORIGIN) [A] NUMBER OF AFFECTED ENTITIES 1 [B] AVG. (MEAN) ANNUAL NUMBER OF NOTICES RESUBMITTED 2 [C] ANNUALIZED COST PER

NOTICE

[D] ANNUALIZED COSTS (PER FACILITY) [E=C×D] TOTAL COSTS [F=B×E] Exporters (Canada) 326 0.8 $0.56 $0.46 $149 Exporters (Mexico) 24 0.5 $0.56 $0.26 $6 Exporters (Non-OECD) 2 0.3 $0.56 $0.18 $0 Exporters (OECD) 31 0.5 $0.56 $0.29 $9
TOTAL 383 N/A N/A N/A $164
Notes: 1. U.S. EPA, Export Annual Reports, 2011. 2. Re-notification rate from U. S. EPA International Compliance Assuranc e Division, provided by Phuc Phan of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on June 5, 2014. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Annual Report 

### Under both existing and proposed regulations, exporte rs must submit an annual report to EPA detailing the types, quantities, frequencies, and destination of all hazardous waste exports. During even-numbered years, large quantity generators (LQGs) must also provide a description of all efforts made during the previous years to reduce quantities of hazardous w aste produced. EPA’s RCRAInfo database shows that approximately 87 percent of U.S. hazardous waste exporters are LQGs.

47

Numbers from EPA’s International Compliance Assurance Division, provided by Phuc Phan of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, June 5, 2014. Includes re-notificatio ns under 40 CFR Subparts E and H.3-13 

### The proposed rule will also require electronic subm ittal of annual reports. This will require each annual report to be signed electronically. An electronic signature is estimated to take 30 seconds of a technician’s time and will cost $0.56 per exporter. Therefore, th e total annualized cost of submitting annual reports electronically is approximately $211. Electronic submittal will also result in cost savings for exporters. Specifically, under existing regulations this EA estimates that 378 exporters will need to ma il one 9x12 package to EPA each year in order to comply with this provision. 48 

### The shipping and materials cost for submitting an annual report is $5.55 per facility. 49 

### Therefore, the total annual cost savings associat ed with electronic subm ittal is $2,098. Under the proposed rule, LQG exporters must also list OE CD waste codes for all shipments in addition to RCRA waste codes. This EA estimates that exporters already have this information and the cost to include it in their annual reports is negligible. EPA requests comment on whether including OECD waste codes as part of the annual export report represents more than a negligible incremental burden to exporters. The electronic annual reports in WIETS may al so allow information (e.g., waste stream details) to be copied electronically from electronic export no tices or from the U.S. Census Bureau’s AES, which could result in cost savings for some exporters. Howe ver, this EA does not estimate potential cost savings associated with electronic information sharing becau se EPA does not have precise data on the time savings associated with this activity. Exhibit 3-8 repo rts the costs and cost savin gs associated with annual reports.

EXHIBIT 3-8. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND COST SAVINGS OF ANNUAL REPORT REQUIREMENTS ($2013) USING A 7 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

ENTITY TYPE (COUNTRY OF DESTINATION/ORIGIN) [A] NUMBER OF AFFECTED ENTITIES 1 [B] ANNUALIZED COST PER REPORT

[C] ANNUALIZED COSTS SAVINGS

PER REPORT [D] TOTAL COSTS [E=B×C] TOTAL COST SAVINGS [F=B×D] Exporters (Canada) 325

$0.56 $5.55 $182 $1,803 Exporters (Mexico) 24 $13 $130 Exporters (Non-OECD) 2 $1 $8 Exporters (OECD) 28 $16 $156 TOTAL 378 N/A N/A $211 $2,098
Notes: 1. U.S. EPA, Export Annual Reports, 2011. Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Additional Reports 

### Under existing regulations, exporters of hazardous wast e must also submit any additional information to EPA requested by the country importing the waste. The proposed rule will not cha nge this requirement or

48 Supporting Statement for EPA Information Co llection Request Number 0820.11 Hazardous Wa ste Generator Standards (Renewal), March 30, 2011.

49

Includes postage for a 5 oz. package ($2.09) ( http://www.stamps.com/whitepapers/2014-us ps-postage-rate-increase-guide.pdf ), certified mail fee ($3.30) ( http://www.certified-mail-envelopes .com/2009-usps-certified-mail-rates/ ), and cost of a manila envelope ($0.16) ( www.staples.com ).3-14 

### the manner through which such information is submitte d to EPA. Therefore, this EA estimates no change in exporter burden related to re quirements for additional reports.

Contracts 

### Under the proposed rule, contracts must be signe d between exporters of hazardous waste and receiving facilities specifying the legal responsibilities of each party involved in the shipment. Currently, there are no requirements for contracts in the United States under 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart E. However, Canadian regulations require that such contracts be mainta ined. This EA therefore assumes that shipments to Canada will not experience any additional burden as a result of this provision. EPA assumes that other entities involved in the foreign trade of hazardous waste currently sign similar contracts that would satisfy the proposed requirements, and therefore estimates no additional incremental burden for these shipments. 50 

### EPA requests comment on whether such cont racts are regularly used by industry to document their shipping arrangements.

Provide Acknowledgment of Consent to Transporter 

### Under existing regulations, exporters must provide a copy of EPA’s AOC to the transporter for each hazardous waste shipment. The proposed rule eliminat es this requirement. Therefore, 352 exporters to Canada, Mexico, and non-OECD countries will likely experience a cost savings associated with the relaxing of this requirement. 51 

### Each exporter is expected to save $9.23 per shipment as a result of this provision, including 0.25 hours of administrative time ($9.01) and $0.22 in O&M costs. 52 

### Exporters to OECD countries other than Canada and Mexico ar e already exempt from this requirement and are therefore not estimated to experience any impacts rela ted to this requirement. Exhibit 3-9 reports total cost savings to exporters as a result of th e proposed change to the AOC requirements.

50

Based on correspondence with Phuc Phan of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, July 11, 2014.

51 See Exhibit 2-3.

52

Cost Assessment for the Final Rule on Expo rts and Imports of Hazardous Waste Destined for Recovery Among OE CD Countries, Expor ts of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries from the U.S., and Import Consent Documentation: Office of Resource Conservation and Re covery, Office of So lid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency, May 2009.3-15 EXHIBIT 3-9. ANNUALIZED COST SAVINGS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONSENT REQUIREMENTS ($2013) USING A 7 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

ENTITY TYPE (COUNTRY OF DESTINATION / ORIGIN) [A] NUMBER OF AFFECTED ENTITIES [B] ANNUAL NUMBER OF SHIPMENTS PER FACILITY [C] ANNUALIZED COST SAVINGS PER SHIPMENT [D] ANNUALIZED COST SAVINGS (PER FACILITY) [E=C×D] TOTAL COST SAVINGS [F=B×E] Exporters (Canada) 326 79 $9.23 $725 $236,352 Exporters (Mexico) 24 964 $9.23 $8,896 $213,511 Exporters (Non-OECD) 2 13 $9.23 $120 $240 Exporters (OECD) 0 80 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL 352 N/A N/A N/A $450,103
Notes: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Exception Reports 

### Under both existing and proposed regul ations, exporters must submit an exception report to EPA if either (1) a shipment of waste is returned to the United St ates, (2) written confirmation of receipt of the waste from the recovery facility is not recei ved within 45 days from the date th at the waste was accepted by the initial transporter, or (3) the primary exporter does not receive written confirmation within 90 days from the acceptance of the waste that the waste was received by the consignee. EPA estimates that approximately 20 exception reports will be submitted each year. 53 

### Whereas exception reports for Subpart E are currently based on the RCRA manifest, under th e proposed rule exception reports will be based on either RCRA manifests or OECD movement documents. The proposed rule also requires exception reports to be submitted electronically with an electronic signature. Providing an electronic signature requires approximately 30 seconds of a technician’s time (or approximately $0.56) per report. Therefore, the requirement that exception reports be submitted electronically will result in a total cost to exporters of approxi mately $11 per year. Electronic submission may reduce the technical labor, shipping, and materials-related costs associated with sending paper reports to EPA. The cost savings for technical labor as a result of the reduced burden associated with electronic submittal are uncertain and th erefore are not factored in this EA. The shipping and materials-related cost savings are estimated b ased on the cost of mailing a standard domestic letter ($0.52 for a stamp and an envelope). Therefore, on an aggregate annual basis, electronic submittal of exception reports will result in a total cost savings of approximately $10.

International Movement/Tracking Document 

### Under the proposed rule, exporters must ensure that a movement document accompanies all shipments of hazardous waste. The movement document must include a signed certification, as well as all information required for notification. For shipments to and fro m Canada, exporters may use the existing Canadian

53

Based on figures from EPA’s Inte rnational Compliance Assurance Division, provided by Phuc Phan of EPA’s Office of Resource Con servation and Recovery on June 5, 2014.3-16 

### movement document to fulfill this requirement. Si milarly, exporters to OECD countries (with the exception of Canada and Mexico) are already required to complete this document. Costs to exporters to Mexico and non-OECD countries will increase as a result of this provision. Exporters to Mexico send an average of 964 shipments per year, while exporters to non-OECD countries send an average of 13 shipments per year. The estimated cost to complete a movement document is $52.28 per shipment. This cost burden reflects 0.5 hours of technical labor and 0. 5 hours of administrative time, plus $0.55 in O&M
costs. 54


### Under the existing regulations in 40 CFR 254.71(d), U.S. receiving facilities must also send a copy of the OECD movement document for import shipments subject to Subpart H. The proposed rule would require all U.S. receiving facilities to send a signed copy of the movement document to EPA, the foreign generator of the waste, and the relevant authorities of the exporting country and any transit countries within three days of receiving a shipment of hazardous waste. Importers must also maintain a signed copy of the movement document. This EA estimates that 14 importers receiving w astes from Mexico and nonOECD countries will experience an increase in costs as a result of this provision. Importers receiving waste from OECD countries other than Canada and Mexi co must already comply with this requirement and will experience no increase in cost. Similarly, importers receiving waste from Canada can use the Canadian movement document to fulfill this require ment and will experience no additional cost burden to complete the document, but will incur costs to se nd a copy to EPA and Environment Canada. For each affected receiving facility importing shipments from Mexico or non-OECD countries, the estimated cost to complete a movement document, send a copy to the relevant parties, and maintain a copy is $71.64 per shipment. This cost burden reflects 0.1 hours of a mana ger’s time, 0.5 hours of a technician’s time, and 0.6 hours of administrative time, plus $2.36 in postage (for two international letters). 55 

### For each affected receiving facility importing shipments from Canada, th e estimated burden is $1.18 in postage (for one international letter). The proposed rule also requires U.S. receiving f acilities to submit movement documents electronically. This requires importers to provide an electronic si gnature, which imposes an additional burden of 30 seconds per document (or $0.56). Electronic submission w ill also result in cost savings for importers that currently send paper copies of these documents to EPA. Because importers receiving shipments from Canada, Mexico, and non-OECD countries are not subj ect to this requirement in the baseline, these facilities will experience no cost savings as a result of the proposed rule. However, U.S. importers of hazardous waste from OECD countries other than Ca nada and Mexico will experience cost savings associated with electronic submittal of movement doc uments to EPA. Under the proposed rule, shipping and materials cost savings are estimated based on sending the mailing of a standard domestic letter ($0.52 for a stamp and an envelope per m ovement document will no longer be incurred. This EA estimates that only two U.S. receiving facilities would experience cost savings associated with electronic submittal and these facilities each submit an averag e of 31 documents per year. Exhibit 3-10 reports the annualized costs and cost savings associated with this provision.

54

Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 0820.11 Hazardou s Waste Generator Standards (Renewal), Marc h 30, 2011.

55

See discussion above in cost of materials.3-17EXHIBIT 3-10. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND COST SAVINGS OF INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT/TRACKING DOCUMENT REQUIREMENTS ($2013)USING A 7 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATEENTITY TYPE (COUNTRY OF DESTINATION /ORIGIN)[A]NUMBER OFAFFECTEDENTITIES[B]AVG. (MEAN)ANNUALNUMBER OFAFFECTEDSHIPMENTSPER FACILITY[C]ANNUALIZEDCOST PERSHIPMENT[D]ANNUALIZEDCOST(PERFACILITY)[E]ANNUALIZEDCOSTSAVINGS(PERFACILITY)[F]TOTALCOSTS[G=B×E]TOTAL COSTSAVINGS[H=B×F]Exporters (Canada) 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Exporters (Mexico) 24 964 $52.28 $50,371 $0 $1,208,912 $0Exporters (Non-OECD) 2 13 $52.28 $680 $0 $1,359 $0Exporters (OECD) 0 0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Importers (Canada) 35 69 $1.73 $120 $0 $4,206 $0Importers (Mexico) 11 31 $72.20 $2,251 $0 $24,765 $0Importers (Non-OECD) 3 37 $72.20 $2,671 $0 $8,014 $0Importers (OECD) 2 31 $0.56 $17 $16 $35 $32TOTAL 77 N/A N/A N/A N/A $1,247,291 $32Notes:Numbers may not sum due to rounding.3-18 Confirmation of Recovery or Disposal 

### Under the proposed rule, U.S. receiving facilities must prepare and send a confirmation of recovery or disposal to EPA, the exporter, and the relevant au thority in the country of origin for each shipment received. U.S. exporters must also maintain a copy of the confirmation of recovery or disposal from the foreign importing facility for three years. Importers and exporters involved in the foreign trade of hazardous waste with Mexico, Canada, and non-OECD countries will experience an increase in cost burden as a result of these additional recordkeeping requirements. Importers receiving shipments from OECD countries other than Canada and Mexico are already subject to this requirement under existing regulations, and will therefore not experience a chan ge in burden as a result of the proposed rule. Fourteen U.S. importers are estimated to spe nd about 25 minutes per shipment from Mexico and nonOECD countries to prepare and send a confirmation of r ecovery or disposal to EPA, the exporter, and the foreign trade authority in the country of origin. 56 

### Each affected shipment for importers from Mexico and non-OECD countries is estimated to impose a cost burden of $24.85. This estimate accounts for 0.2 hours of technical labor and 0.25 hours of administrative time. It also includes $2.36 in O&M costs to mail two standard international letters. The proposed rule al so requires the importer to submit this document to EPA electronically. This requires the importer to pr ovide an electronic signature, which imposes a cost burden of 30 seconds per document (or $0.56). 57


### Thirty five U.S. importers are already required under Canadian regulations to prepare and send a confirmation of recovery or disposal to the foreign exporter, and therefore only incur costs to send a copy to EPA and Environment Canada. Fu rthermore, under the proposed ru le EPA will allow exporters or importers using a Canadian confirmation of recyclin g or disposal to use one document to list multiple shipments identified by their movement document numbe r, waste line number, and the date of recycling or disposal. This may reduce the number of documen ts sent to EPA; however it is uncertain how many entities would take advantage of this added flexibility or how many confirmations of recovery or disposal they would submit to EPA. The incremental costs are pr imarily shipping costs rather than labor costs. However, any cost savings are uncertain. Exporters to Canada, Mexico, and n on-OECD countries will also incur costs related to maintaining a copy of the confirmation of recovery or disposal under the proposed rule. The estimated cost to maintain a copy of this document is 0.1 hours of administra tive time, or approximately $3.61 per shipment. 58 

### Exhibit 3-11 reports the total annualized costs of the confir mation of recovery or disposal requirements.

56

Hourly burden based on Cost Assessment fo r the Final Rule on Exports and Imports of Hazardous Waste Destined for Recovery Amon g OECD Countries, Exports of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries from the U.S., an d Import Consent Documentation: O ffice of Resource Conservatio n and Recovery, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 2009.

57

Burden estimate based on Cost Assessment for the Final Rule on Exports and Imports of Hazardou s Waste Destined for Recovery am ong OECD Countries, Exports of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries from the U.S., an d Import Consent Documentation: O ffice of Resource Conservatio n and Recovery, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 2009.

58 Ibid.3-19 EXHIBIT 3-11. ANNUALIZED COSTS OF CONFIRMATION OF RECOVERY OR DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS ($2013) USING A 7 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

ENTITY TYPE (COUNTRY OF DESTINATION/ORIGIN) [A] NUMBER OF
AFFECTED
ENTITIES [B] ANNUAL NUMBER
OF SHIPMENTS
PER FACILITY [C] ANNUALIZED
COST (PER SHIPMENT) [D] ANNUALIZED
COST (PER FACILITY) [E=C×D] TOTAL COSTS [F=B×E] Exporters (Canada) 326 79 $3.61 $283 $92,288 Exporters (Mexico) 24 964 $3.61 $3,474 $83,369 Exporters (Non-OECD) 2 13 $3.61 $47 $94 Exporters (OECD) 0 0 $0 $0 $0 Importers (Canada) 35 69 $1.74 $120 $4,206 Importers (Mexico) 11 31 $25.41 $792 $8,716 Importers (Non-OECD) 3 37 $25.41 $940 $2,821 Importers (OECD) 2 31 $0.56 $17 $35 TOTAL 401 N/A N/A N/A $191,529
Notes: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Return of Wastes 

### When a shipment of hazardous waste cannot be comple ted, the primary exporter must (1) re-notify EPA of any changes specified in the initia l notification sent to EPA, (2) instruct the transporter to either return the shipment to the exporter or to an alternative f acility in the United States, and (2) submit an exception report to EPA. The proposed rule does not change any of these requirements, but specifies that instructions to the transporter be made via mail, fax, or email and that shipments be returned within 90 days of receiving notification from the country of impor t or transit that the shipment must be returned. Since the proposed rule does not change the existing i ndustry practices, there will not be any cost or cost savings associated with the return of wastes.

Exemption for Wastes Destined for Laboratory Analysis 

### Amber control procedures regulate the processing of most hazardous waste in the United States. Under existing regulations in 40 CFR Part 261, domestic shipments of hazardous waste sent for laboratory analysis are exempt from hazardous waste requirements if they fall within certain weight limits. Existing weight limits for exempted waste shipments range from 1kg for acute hazardous waste to 10,000kg of media contaminated with non-acute hazardous waste. Exporters and importers shipping hazardous waste samples for laboratory analysis to and from OECD countries are already subject to the additional limitation that the samples weigh no more than 25k g to be exempt from Subpart H export and import requirements (e.g., notice, movement document). Th e proposed rule makes exporters and importers shipping samples for laboratory analysis to and from Canada, Mexico, and non-OECD countries subject to the additional limitation of samples weighing no mo re than 25kg to be exempt from export and import requirements. As a result, currently-exempt shipme nts may no longer be exempt. EPA is requesting comment on the number of currently exempt shipments that will be impacted by this change.3-20 

### While the change in the number of exempted sh ipments is uncertain, this EA assumes that four previously-exempted shipments (two export shipme nts and two import shipments) will no longer be exempted each year after the implementation of the proposed rule. 59 

### As a result, importers and exporters will be subject to requirements related to the OECD movement document and confirmation of recovery, as described elsewhere in this chapter. This will resu lt in $111 in total annual co sts for exporters and $190 in total annual costs for importers. However, expor ters will also save $9.23 each year by avoiding requirements related to the AOC document. Trans porters will experience a pproximately $20 in total annual costs related to signing and maintaining the OECD movement document for the four affected shipments. These costs include 0.2 hours of technical labor and 0.1 hours of administrative time required to sign and maintain copies of the movement document. 60 

### Exhibit 3-12 reports the costs and cost savings associated with the exemption for wast es destined for laboratory analysis.

EXHIBIT 3-12. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND COST SAVINGS OF EXEMPTION OF WASTES DESTINED FOR LABORATORY ANALYSIS ($2013) USING A 7 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

ENTITY TYPE (COUNTRY OF DESTINATION/ORIGIN) [A] NUMBER OF
AFFECTED
ENTITIES [B] AVG. ANNUAL
NUMBER OF
AFFECTED
SHIPMENTS PER
FACILITY [C] ANNUALIZED
COST OF
MOVEMENT
DOCUMENT (PER SHIPMENT) [D] ANNUALIZED
COST SAVINGS
OF AOC
DOCUMENT (PER SHIPMENT) [E] TOTAL
COSTS [F=B×C×D] TOTAL
COST
SAVINGS [G=B×C×E] Exporters (Canada) 326 0.003 $55.33 $9.23 $58 $10 Exporters (Mexico) 24 0.040 $55.33 $9.23 $52 $9 Exporters (Non-OECD) 2 0.001 $55.33 $0 $0 $0 Exporters (OECD) 0 0.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Importers (Canada) 35 0.048 $94.90 $0 $160 $0 Importers (Mexico) 11 0.022 $94.90 $0 $23 $0 Importers (Non-OECD) 3 0.026 $94.90 $0 $7 $0 Importers (OECD) 2 0.000 $0 $0 $0 $0 Transporters 564 0.007 $4.95 $0 $20 $0
TOTAL 401 N/A N/A N/A $320 $18
Notes: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

Automated Export System Filing Requirements 

### Under existing regulations, exporters of waste s ubject to RCRA consent requirements must enter shipment data into the AES for each shipment. Over 100 data fields are collected in the AES, 61 

### and each

59

Based on email communication with Phuc Phan of EPA’s Offi ce of Resource Conservation and Recovery on May 8, 2014.

60

Cost Assessment for the Final Rule on Expo rts and Imports of Hazardous Waste Destined for Recovery Among OE CD Countries, Expor ts of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries from the U.S., and Import Consent Documentation: Office of Resource Conservation and Re covery, Office of So lid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environm ental Protection Agency, May 2009.

61 U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Stat istics, “List of Elements Collected in the Automated Export System,” access at

https://www.census.gov/foreign -trade/aes/documentlibrary /aesparticipantsdata.html on April 24, 2014.3-21 

### entry takes approximately three minutes to complete. 62 

### Under the proposed rule, hazardous waste exporters will be required to fill in two additional fields for the export license and EPA consent number, and conditionally required to fill in three additiona l fields related to the RCRA hazardous waste manifest tracking number, exported quantity, and reporting units. The exporter burden related to the entry of these additional data fields is assumed to be negligible (a few seconds per data element for each exporter). This provision would also set new requirements fo r CRTs exported for recycling under 40 CFR 261.39. Based on EPA’s 2013 WIETS data, 12 exporters submitted notices for CRTs, which represent less than one percent of all requested shipments. EPA estimat es that these exporters are filing in AES for all shipments under current Census regulations. Therefor e, there is no incremental burden for complying with the AES requirements under the proposed rule.

Obtain EPA Identification Numbers 

### The proposed rule will require all recognized traders involved in the arrangement of export or import of hazardous waste to obtain an EPA ID number. This EA estimates that completing the required form will take a total of 30 minutes for the recognized trader to complete. Thus each affected recognized trader will incur a one-time cost of $37.48 to submit a letter to th eir authorized state agency or EPA regional office (for states that do not issue EPA ID numbers) request ing an EPA ID number (approximately $3.31 on an annualized basis, using a 7 percent discount rate). 63 

### While EPA data do not allow for a precise estimate of the number of affected recognized traders, this EA estimates that one percent of all entities classified as importers and exporters ar e recognized traders, suggesting that about four recognized traders will be impacted by the proposed rule. This EA assumes th e number of recognized traders is split equally among exporters and importers. In total, this provision is estimated to cost $13 on an annualized basis. EPA requests comment on the number of recognized trad ers arranging for the import or export of hazardous waste that would not otherwise be required to have an EPA ID number and may be affected by this provision of the proposed rule.

Agency Costs and Cost Savings 

### To implement the proposed rule, the most signi ficant cost for EPA will be the development and maintenance of the electronic submittal system. Thes e costs are uncertain; therefore this EA presents Agency costs as a range. Any costs of the CDX system are not described in this EA because it exists now, would still exist absent the rule, and was developed to facilitate electronic submittal of data between EPA data systems and other entities such as the regulated community and other governments. However, EPA estimates that the initial development of enhancemen ts to WIETS to facilitate electronic submittal of export and import reports (specifically related to the proposed rule) will cost between $188,750 and $311,250. 64 

### EPA also estimates that it will require between approximately 700 and 1,170 labor hours for

62

The U.S. Census Bureau estimates it take s approximately three minutes to file an AE S record. Including automated Canadian impo rt data, AES received approximately 98.5 percent of its information from automated so urces. Supporting Statement, U.S. Department of Commerc e, U.S. Census Bureau, Automated Export System (AES) Program, OMB Control No. 0607-0152.

63

Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 0976.16, "2013 Haza rdous Waste Report, Notification of Regu lated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modifica tion, September 2012.

64

EPA cost estimates for the development and operation & maintenance of the electronic system are from the Word document “EPA FT Es and Costs for import-export rule RANGES Jan 8 2015.docx” provided by Phuc Phan of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on J anuary 15, 2015. This information is attached as Appendix B of this EA. The Agency costs for th e proposed rule exclude items 1, 5, and 10 from Appendix B as these features exist now and would exist absent the rule.3-22 

### staff technicians to implement the system at a cost ranging from $39,076 to $65,127. 65 

### This EA assumes that the development costs are entirely incurred in the first year of the rule’s promulgation and the system will have a useful lifespan of 20 years. EPA furt her estimates that the recurring O&M costs for the enhancements to WIETS will be betw een $96,750 and $161,250 per year af ter its development. Finally, EPA estimates that it will require between approx imately 1,500 and 2,500 hours to manage the enhancements to WIETS after their implementation at a cost ranging from $83,015 to $138,359 per year. Thus, the annualized cost for the enhancement of WIETS is between $184,005 and $306,381 using a 7 percent discount rate. Under the proposed rule, EPA will need to recei ve and process documents from importing and exporting facilities that were not previously regulated under va rious provisions of the rule. Specifically EPA will need to (a) receive and record international moveme nt documents, (b) receive and maintain confirmation of recovery and disposal provided by recovery f acilities, and (c) process requests for EPA ID numbers from recognized traders (for locati ons where the state agency does not issue EPA ID numbers). Finally, EPA will experience cost savings associated with no longer answering phone calls related to submission of export notices and with no longer manually ente ring notice data prior to processing notices. Exporters and importers that trade with Mexico a nd non-OECD countries will have to comply with the movement document requirements. As discussed above, exporters and importers that trade with Canada and other OECD countries are already required to use movement documents, and those U.S. facilities receiving shipments from OECD countries other than Canada or Mexico must submit signed movement documents to EPA. EPA estimates that it requires 0.25 hours of a manager’s time to review an export movement document and 0.5 hours to review an import movement document. 66 

### EPA estimates it will review 23,152 export documen ts and 2,872 import documents each year, resulting in a total annual cost of approximately $474,000.

EPA will also need to review and maintain a confir mation of recovery or disposal for hazardous waste shipments between the United States and Canada, Me xico, and non-OECD countries. This EA estimates there are a total of 51,624 such shipments each year. EPA estimates the cost to compile and maintain this information is 0.1 hours of administrative time per shipment. 67 

### Therefore, the total estimated annual cost is approximately $110,000. Finally, EPA estimates that four hazardous waste recognized traders will request EPA ID numbers under the proposed rule. EPA estimates it will require 0.35 hours of staff time to review and document the submitted information and 0.5 hours of administrative time to generate an EPA ID number and send this number to each recognized trader. 68,69 

### Therefore, EPA estimates it will cost approximately $120 on a

65 EPA labor costs are estimated using the loaded hourly labor rates described in Chapter 3.

66

Supporting statement for EPA in formation collection request number 0820.11, hazardous waste generator standards (renewal), Mar ch 30, 2011.

67

Cost Assessment for the Final Rule on Expo rts and Imports of Hazardous Waste Destined for Recovery Among OE CD Countries, Expor ts of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries from the U.S., and Impo rt Consent Documentation, May 2009, Office of Resource Co nservation and Recovery, Of fice of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

68

Supporting Statement for EPA Information Co llection Request Number 0976.16, “2013 Haza rdous Waste Report, Notification of Regu lated Waste Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Appl ication and Modification ,” September 19, 2012.

69

Requests for an EPA ID number will only go to EPA if the reco gnized trader is located in a state that does not have an authori zed agency that issues EPA ID numbers. As these costs are sm all, for illustrative purposes they are i ncluded as Agency costs in this EA. Howeve r, a portion of this burden could be on state agencies, depending on the location of the recognized traders.3-23 

### one-time basis (or $11.53 on an annualized basis) to issue EPA ID numbers to recognized traders. This assumes none of the four recognized traders are locate d in authorized states that issue EPA ID numbers, and thus is a conservative estimate. Since the electronic submittal system will provide technical guidance and tracking information to users, EPA estimates it will no longer have to respond to export er inquiries related to the submittal of notices. EPA estimates that such inquiries require 1,000 hours of Agency staff time each year. Furthermore, electronic submittal will reduce the Agency burden asso ciated with manual entry of export notices. As described in Chapter 2, EPA receives approximately 1,684 notices per year and requires one hour to manually enter information from each export notice into WIETS. Therefore, after the promulgation of the rule, this EA estimates that Agency staff will expe rience a cost savings of 1,000 hours per year for avoided inquiries and 1,684 hours pe r year for avoided data entry associated with export notices (the average hourly labor cost for a GS-13 trade officer is $55.50).

EPA also estimates that electronic submittal will re duce the time required for staff to manually enter information from export annual reports into WIETS. Sp ecifically, EPA estimates that it takes four hours per annual report to receive and process annual reports into a database. As described in Chapter 2, EPA receives approximately 378 export annual reports each y ear. Therefore, after the promulgation of the rule, this EA estimates that Agency staff will experience a cost savings of 1,512 hour s for avoided data entry associated with export annual reports. Therefore, th e total estimated annualized cost savings for EPA associated with electronic submittal is approximately $233,000. Exhibit 3-13 reports the total annualized Agency costs and cost savings asso ciated with the proposed rule.

EXHIBIT 3-13. AGENCY COSTS AND COST SAVINGS ($2013)

ACTIVITY [A] ANNUAL COSTS ANNUAL COST SAVINGS [D] LOW-END [B] HIGH-END [C]
WIETS Enhancements System Development (Year 1) $188,750 $311,250 N/A Labor Costs for Development, Implementation, and Testing (Year 1) $39,076 $65,127 N/A O&M Costs (Year 2+) $96,750 $161,250 N/A Labor Costs for O&M (Year 2+) $83,015 $138,359 N/A
Document Review Receive and Record Movement Documents – Exports (All Years) $379,600 N/A Receive and Record Movement Documents – Imports (All Years) $94,179 N/A Receive and Maintain Confirmation of Recovery/Disposal (All Years) $109,691 N/A Issue EPA ID Number for Recognized traders (Year 1) $122 N/A Agency Activities Avoided Due to Electronic Submittal Respond to Inquiries for Export Notices (All Years) N/A $55,504 Manual Data Entry for Export Notices (All Years) N/A $93,469 Manual Data Entry for Export Annua l Reports (All Years) N/A $83,922 TOTAL (ANNUALIZED, 7 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE) $767,485 $889,861 $232,895
Notes: Numbers may not sum due to rounding.3-24 RESULTS 

### Exhibit 3-14 reports the total costs and cost savings of the proposed rule by provision. Costs are reported on an annualized basis, using a seven percent discount rate. As the exhibit shows, the most significant costs to industry under the proposed rule are as sociated with the movement document and the confirmation of recovery/disposal requirements. Agen cy costs reflect the development and maintenance costs for enhancements to WIETS, the burden of reviewing and maintaining records of movement documents and confirmations of recovery/disposal, and issuing EPA ID numbers to recognized traders. 70 

### Agency cost savings include the burden reduction of responding to inquiries and manual data entry in WIETS associated with export notices.

EXHIBIT 3-14. TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE BY PROVISION ($2013) USING
A 7% DISCOUNT RATE

ROW [A] PROVISION [B] TOTAL
ANNUALIZED
COSTS

[C] TOTAL
ANNUALIZED
COST SAVINGS [D] NET COSTS [E=C-D] 1 Reading the Rule $11,494 $0 $11,494 2 CDX Registration $4,768 $0 $4,768 3 Export/Import Notices $23,859 $2,459 $21,400 4 Re-notifications $164 $0 $164 5 Annual Report $211 $2,098 ($1,886) 6 Additional Reports $0 $0 $0 7 Contracts $0 $0 $0 8 Provide Acknowledgment of Consent to Transporter $0 $450,103 ($450,103) 9 Exception Report $11 $10 $1 10 Movement Document $1,247,291 $32 $1,247,259 11 Confirmation of Recovery/Disposal $191,529 $32 $191,496 12 Return of Wastes $0 $0 $0

13 Exemption for Wastes Dest ined for Laboratory Analysis $320 $18 $302
14 AES Requirements $0 $0 $0 15 Obtain EPA IDs (recognized traders) $13 $0 $13
16 Sub-total: Industry Costs $1,479,660 $454,753 $1,024,907 17 Agency Costs (low-end) $767,485 $232,895 $534,591 18 Agency Costs (high-end) $889,861 $232,895 $656,967
19 TOTAL (low-end) $2,247,145 $687,648 $1,559,498
20 TOTAL (high-end) $2,369,521 $687,648 $1,681,874 Notes: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. Numbers in parentheses indicate a net cost savings.

70

Requests for an EPA ID number will only go to EPA if the brok er is located in a state that does not have an authorized agency that issues EPA ID numbers. As these costs are small, for illust rative purposes they are included as Age ncy costs in this EA. However, a portion o f this burden could be on state agencies, depending on the location of the brokers.3-25 

### Exhibit 3-15 reports the distributional costs of the proposed rule across the different entity types (i.e., exporters, importers, transporters, a nd government). As described earlier in this chapter, the costs for recognized traders are reflected in the costs for exporters and importers ; therefore, they are not reported separately to avoid double-counting. As shown in the exhi bit, the net cost impacts of the proposed rule are the greatest for U.S. exporters of hazardous waste. The net cost impacts for U.S. importers are generally less than for exporters (with the exception for U.S. receiving facilities that import from Mexico). The estimated net cost impacts for transporters are minimal.

EXHIBIT 3-15. TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS OF TH E PROPOSED RULE BY ENTITY TYPE ($2013)
USING A 7% DISCOUNT RATE

ROW [A] ENTITY TYPE [B] TOTAL
NUMBER OF

ENTITIES [C] TOTAL
ANNUALIZED
COSTS

[D] TOTAL
ANNUALIZED
COST SAVINGS [E] NET COSTS [F=D-E] 1 Exporters (Canada) 326 $121,498 $238,170 ($116,671) 2 Exporters (Mexico) 24 $1,294,326 $213,655 $1,080,672 3 Exporters (Non-OECD) 2 $1,544 $248 $1,295 4 Exporters (OECD) 31 $1,156 $157 $999 5 Importers (Canada) 35 $9,806 $2,014 $7,792 6 Importers (Mexico) 11 $40,276 $302 $39,973 7 Importers (Non-OECD) 3 $10,933 $91 $10,842 8 Importers (OECD) 2 $102 $116 ($14) 9 Transporters 564 $20 $0 $20
10 Sub-total: Industry Costs 998 $1,479,660 $454,753 $1,024,907 11 EPA (low-end) N/A $767,485 $232,895 $534,591 12 EPA (high-end) N/A $889,861 $232,895 $656,967
13 TOTAL (low-end) N/A $2,247,145 $687,648 $1,559,498
14 TOTAL (high-end) N/A $2,369,521 $687,648 $1,681,874
Notes: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. Numbers in parentheses indicate a net cost savings.

SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS 

### This EA reports cost impacts of the proposed rule using a real discount rate of 7 percent. Some economists believe the social rate of ti me preference is actually closer to 3 percent. The real rate of return on long-term government debt may provide a reasonable proxy for the rate the average saver uses to discount future consumption. Over the last thirty year s, this rate has averaged approximately 3.1 percent in real terms on a pre-tax basis. 71 

### Recurring annual costs are not influenced by the choice of a discount rate. However, since the cost impacts of the propo sed rule include one-time capital expenditures, the

71 The U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requires Federal agencies to report results using discount rates of three and s even percent (see OMB, Circular A-4, 2003).3-26 

### results may be sensitive to the selection of the discoun t rate. Exhibit 3-16 reports the total costs and cost savings of the proposed rule by provision using a 3 percent discount rate.

EXHIBIT 3-16. TOTAL ANNUALIZED COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE BY PROVISION ($2013) USING
A 3% DISCOUNT RATE

ROW [A] PROVISION [B] TOTAL
ANNUALIZED
COSTS

[C] TOTAL
ANNUALIZED
COST SAVINGS [D] NET COSTS [E=C-D] 1 Reading the Rule $8,502 $0 $8,502 2 CDX Registration $4,285 $0 $4,285 3 Export/Import Notices $23,168 $2,459 $20,709 4 Re-notifications $164 $0 $164 5 Annual Report $211 $2,098 ($1,886) 6 Additional Reports $0 $0 $0 7 Contracts $0 $0 $0 8 Provide Acknowledgment of Consent to Transporter $0 $450,103 ($450,103) 9 Exception Report $11 $10 $1 10 Movement Document $1,247,291 $32 $1,247,259

11 Exemption for Wastes Dest ined for Laboratory Analysis $320 $18 $302
12 Confirmation of Recovery/Disposal $191,529 $32 $191,496 13 Return of Wastes $0 $0 $0 14 AES Requirements $0 $0 $0 15 Obtain EPA IDs (recognized traders) $10 $0 $10
16 Sub-total: Industry Costs $1,475,492 $454,753 $1,020,739 17 Agency Costs (low-end) $766,379 $232,895 $533,484 18 Agency Costs (high-end) $888,096 $232,895 $655,201
19 TOTAL (low-end) $2,241,871 $687,648 $1,554,223
20 TOTAL (high-end) $2,363,588 $687,648 $1,675,940 Notes: Numbers may not sum due to rounding. Numbers in parentheses indicate a net cost savings.

ADDITIONAL ANALYTIC LIMITATIONS 

### While the analysis presented in this chapter provides reasonable estimates of the costs associated with the proposed rule, the data and methods used in this anal ysis are subject to several uncertainties, many of which were noted above. A dditional significant limitations are outlined below.

 Changes in market dynamics resulting from the proposed rule are unknown. To the extent that the proposed rule imposes new costs on impor ters and exporters of hazardous waste, facilities may decide to engage to a lesser extent in the international trade of these materials. This could result in more or less hazardous waste being processed in the United States, depending on whether exports or imports of waste become re latively less common. Alternatively, facilities may3-27 

### experience greater cost savings than are quantifie d in this chapter, which may result in lower transaction costs and greater trade of h azardous materials with foreign nations.

 Market characteristics of industry secto r are held static over forecast period. Similarly, the analysis does not endeavor to account for broader market forces that may affect this industry sector over the forecast period. Relative to the anal ytic baseline, such affects may yield more or fewer entities involved in international trade or the number and volume of shipments.

 Importer- and exporter-specific char acteristics not accounted for. In practice, import and export documentation and tracking methods vary by industry and between individual facilities in the same industry. Sufficient data are not availabl e to incorporate such considerations into the estimation of costs. Therefore, while costs are est imated separately for importers and exporters by the countries they trade with, they do not account for facility-specific differences. Furthermore, there is a wide range in the number of shipment s (and notices) per entity. Thus, the average per entity cost estimates reported in this EA may e ither overstate or understate costs for individual importers and exporters.4-1 

### CHAPTER 4 | ASSESSMENT OF BENEFITS

DISCUSSION OF NON-MONETIZED BENEFITS 

### As described in Chapter 1, EPA designates certain secondary materials as hazardous wastes, noting that they can pose threats to human health and the environment. Under RCRA, EPA regulates the management, transportation, and u ltimate disposal of those wastes. Tracking where wastes are generated and moved can help assure that wastes are not misplace d, lost, or unaccounted for. This regulation refines EPA’s system for tracking those wastes, to ensure that transportation across national borders does not increase the risk of exposure to the environmental and health hazards of the wastes. The regulations also are intended to serve the goal of improving mech anisms for communication and coordination among the regulatory entities of the different nations involve d in these transactions (e.g., improved coordination between EPA and CBP on export shipments). Chapter 3 describes the costs and cost savings asso ciated with the proposed Hazardous Waste ExportImport Revisions Rule. The monetized cost savings in this EA include (1) th e Agency burden reduction associated with the electronic submittal of notices, (2 ) elimination of the requirement for one-time import notices, and (3) removal of the requirement for exporters of hazardous waste to provide an acknowledgment of consent document to transporters and the requirement for transporters to give a copy of the manifest to customs officials at the port of exit. In addition to the benefits described in Chapter 3, this chapter discusses additional categories of qualitativ e benefits that cannot be quantified. First, it describes human health benefits due to increased co mpliance with existing regulations. Then, it describes benefits associated with increased regulatory effici ency as well as improved monitoring and information tracking.

HUMAN HEALTH BENEFITS FROM INCREASED COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING REGULATIONS 

### The proposed rulemaking will provide human health be nefits by curtailing undocumented exports of SLABs from the United States. The United States curr ently requires exporters of wastes to receive consent from the relevant foreign authorities before making a shipment. 72 

### This requirement is to ensure that exported wastes will be disposed of in a ma nner consistent with the standards of the importing country. There is evidence that some exporters of SLABs ar e circumventing these requirements. U.S. exports of SLABs are tracked by both EPA and the Census Bureau . For the years 2011 and 2012, Census data show exports of SLABs to 37 non-OECD countries equaling over 1,000 tons each year that are not accounted

72

Requirements for exports of waste to Canada and Mexico are found at CFR 262 Subpart E, accessed at http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazar d/international/exports2.htm on February 5, 2015.4-2 

### for in EPA data. 73 

### It is likely that many, if not all, of th ese shipments were made without the consent of the importing country because EPA currently seek s consent on behalf of U.S. exporters. 74


### It is likely that SLABs exported without consent are recycled or disposed of under conditions below the standards of the importing countries. According to a report on SLAB exports by the CEC, an office created by NAFTA, one of the forces likely driving SLAB exports is the costs of complying with the stringent environmental standards within the United States. 75 

### These costs are likely driving both consensual, documented exports and un documented, un-consensual exports. The proposed rule will make it difficult to expor t wastes, including SLABs, without receiving prior consent from importing countries. It will require export ers to present an EPA consent number, for which the consent of the destination country is required, to the Census Bureau’s Automated Export System before any shipment departs. The proposed rule also requires exporters to have contracts to manage the waste in place and to submit information about each entity that will handle the waste to EPA before a shipment is made. These measures should ensure that SLABs and other exported wastes are managed up to the standards of the importing country. The proposed rule should improve human health by re ducing the harm due to lead exposure in countries that receive undocumented, un-consented shipment s of SLABs, as these shipments are likely treated under conditions below those required by the receiving c ountries. Due to the lack of data on health benefits EPA could not quantify the effects of lead exposure, which include: fatigue, insomnia, nerve damage and high blood pressure in a dults, and behavioral problems, br ain damage, and liver and kidney damage in children. 76

BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED REGULATORY EFFICIENCY 

### The proposed Hazardous Waste Export-Import Revisions Ru le may result in cost savings associated with greater regulatory efficiency. These include the following:

 Enhanced EPA tracking of exporter, importer, and recognized trader activities. The proposed rule will offer improved access and ability to track compliance with terms of consent and export/import requirements. Additionally, there may be fewer errors in export notices due to data entry enhancements and guidance built in to EPA’s WIETS. The proposed rule will also require that all recognized traders of hazardous waste obtain an EPA ID number to prepare export notices, export annual reports, import manif ests, and OECD movement documents. This requirement enables EPA to more precisely m onitor entities responsible for each hazardous waste shipment entering or exiting the United States. EPA anticipates that better monitoring of these waste handling activities will reduce the like lihood of exposure to these wastes.

73

See tables 2-15 and 2-16 of this EA.

74

Requirements for exports of waste to Canada and Mexico are found at CFR 262 Subpart E, accessed at http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazar d/international/exports2.htm on February 5, 2015.

75

Secretariat of the Commission for Environmen tal Cooperation, Hazardous Trade? An Exam ination of US-generated Spent Lead-Acid B attery Exports and Secondary Lead Recycling in Canada, Mexico , and the United States, April 2013, accessed at http://www3.cec.org/isl andora/en/item/11220- hazardous-trade-examination-us-generated-spent-lead-acid-battery-exports-and on October 21, 2014.

76

See, for example, http://www.epa.gov/supe rfund/lead/health.htm accessed on February 5, 2015.4-3 

###  Reduction of risks associated with recov ery and disposal of hazardous wastes. Implementation of the proposed rule enables great er oversight by EPA and the other countries on the individual import and export shipments, and requi res timely disposal or recovery of the waste shipment within one year of shipment deliv ery. Thus, the rule encourages timely and environmentally sound recovery or disposal of hazardous wastes, thereby reducing the risks associated with long term storage/accumulation.

 Improved ability to acquire information regarding the individual shipments of hazardous waste shipments exported from the United States and the management by the foreign destination facilities. Currently there is a lack of data regarding individual export shipments to provide the assurance that hazardous waste exported to other countries is recycled in properly licensed facilities in an environmentally sound manner. 77 

### The additional individual tracking requirements will ensure that hazardous wastes are managed at the approved facilities with appropriate technologies and envi ronmental controls. EPA will also be able to share these electronically submitted data with the states a nd the public, improving overall transparency.

 Increased regulatory efficiency. The proposed rule clarifies the roles of parties involved in the international trade of hazardous wastes (e.g., gr eater process transparency for exporters and importers). In addition, the rule clarifies the definitions of primary exporter, AOC, export, and import, as used in existing regulations. Finally, the rule implements technical corrections and clarifications for existing requirements relating to various transporter exemptions and the return of rejected shipments.

 Consistency with export and import requirements for OECD countries. The proposed rule would make existing export and im port related requirements more c onsistent with current importexport requirements required for shipments between OECD countries. This would ensure that the procedures required for OECD shipments would a pply to all imports and exports of hazardous waste (including SLABs). It would also remove re quirements that are duplicative or inconsistent with OECD procedures. Furthermore, while not a direct benefit of the prop osed rule electronic submittal of notices may result in greater regulatory efficiency for entities involved in the foreign trade of hazardous waste. The potential cost savings include the following: (1) reduced la bor burden associated with electronic submittal; (2) elimination of the need to call an EPA notice offi cer with information requests; (3) improved access and ability to track the status of documents, receipts, and approvals; and (4) reduced labor burden associated with preparing export annual repor ts due to using data from export notices or AES. These costs savings are not reflected in the EA because EPA does not ha ve relevant data to qua ntify these benefits. EPA requests public comments on the benefits discussed in this chapter.

77

Commission for Environmental Coop eration, Practices and Options for Environmentally Sound Manage ment of Spent Lead-Acid Batter ies within North America, December 2007, accessed at http://www3.cec.org/islandora/en/item/2323-pra ctices-and-options-env ironmentally-soundmanagement-spent-lead- acid-batteries-en.pdf on October 15, 2014.5-1 

### CHAPTER 5 | OTHER REQUIRED ANALYSES

As required by applicable statutes and Executive Orde rs, this chapter summarizes EPA’s analysis of equity considerations and other regulatory concerns associated with the proposed rule. This chapter assesses potential impacts, with respect to the following issues:

 

### Regulatory planning and review : requires examination and quantif ication of costs and benefits of regulating with and without the proposed rule;

 

### Regulatory flexibility: focuses on the potential effects of th e proposed rule on small entities;

 

### Employment impacts: assesses the potential impact of the proposed rule on employment;

 

### Unfunded mandates: examines the implications of the propo sed rule with respect to unfunded

mandates;

 

### Federalism: considers potential issues relate d to state sovereignty;

 

### Tribal governments: extends the discussion of federal unfun ded mandates to include impacts on

Native American tribal governm ents and their communities;

 

### Environmental justice: considers potential issues for minority and low-income populations;

 

### Children's health protection: examines the potential impact of the proposed rule on the health of

children;

 

### Energy Impacts: examines the impacts of the proposed rule on energy use, supply, and

distribution; and

 

### Joint impacts of rules: considers the combined effect of the proposed rule with other regulations affecting foreign trade.

REGULATORY PLANNING AND REVIEW 

### Under Executive Order 12866 [58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)], as amended by Executive Order 13563, the Agency, in conjunction with the Office of Mana gement and Budget’s (OMB’s) Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), must determine whethe r a regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to OMB review and the full requirements of the Executive Order. Executive Order 12866 defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 m illion or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, produc tivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise inte rfere with an action take n or planned by another
agency;5-2 

### (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitleme nts, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, as affirmed in Executive Order 13563, the Agency has determined that this proposed rule is a signifi cant regulatory action because it contains novel policy issues, as defined under part 3(f)(4) of the Order. Acco rdingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) fo r review under Executive Order 12866. Any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been doc umented in the docket for this action. Findings for this EA indicate that the rule, as proposed, is projected to result in aggregate annualized costs of approximately $2.26 million using a 7 percent disc ount rate or $2.24 million using a 3 percent discount rate. This is significantly below the $100 million th reshold established under part 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order. The proposed rule is therefore not considered to be an economically significant action. In addition to calling for assessment of regulatory costs, the Executive Order also requires Federal agencies to assess benefits and, “recognizing that so me costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned de termination that the benefits of the intended regulation justify its costs.” 78 

### As described in Chapter 3 of this EA, monetization of all the rule’s benefits is not possible given limitations in the available data . This EA, however, estimates that the proposed rule would lead to quantifiable annualized cost savings of $492,000 using a 7 percent discount rate or $495,000 using a 3 percent discount rate associated with the relaxation of certain requirements and Agency benefits associated with the electronic submission of notices, annual reports, and other documents. In addition, the rule would lead to certa in benefits that cannot be quantified. These include increased efficiency and convenience of electronic submission, enhanced tracking of hazardous waste transportation recognized trader activities, increased regulatory efficiency, consistency with trade requirements for OECD countries, reduction of risks associated with the treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes, and improved ability to acquire information regarding ex ports and imports of hazardous waste.

REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY 

### The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et seq., gene rally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to no tice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute. This analysis must be completed unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significan t economic impact on a subs tantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. Based on EPA’s RFA/SBREFA analytic gui dance, a rule is not expected to result in a

78

See Section 1(b)(6) of Executive Order 12866.5-3 

### significant economic impact for a substantial number of small entities if the costs of the regulation per entity are less than one percent of annual revenues. 79


### Ideally, assessment of the rule’s small entity impacts would identify specific entiti es affected by the rule as small and assess impacts for these entities. As describe d in previous chapters of this EA, however, detailed data necessary for the assess ment of regulatory impacts for individual entities are not available. Financial data on the potentially affected universe are limited because (1) firms exporting and importing hazardous waste, including SLABs, represent a small per centage of all firms in their respective industries (thus, industry-wide data may not be generally represen tative of these particular firms) and (2) many of these firms are privately-held, so financial data are not generally available. As described in Chapter 2, this EA relies on information from D&B, and other online commercial financial data websites, including Manta.com, Hoovers.com, and Insi deview.com. This EA relies on the average company revenues for exporters and importers to assess the cost impacts of the proposed rule since company-specific data were not available for a ll entities in the regulated universe. This EA also relies on aggregate industry financial data from the U. S. Economic Census. In contrast with the exporter and importer data, this EA estimates that industry-wi de data are more likely to be representative for recognized traders and transporters involved in the foreign trade of hazardous waste. Additionally, since EPA does not have a complete list of transporters and recognized traders, it is not possible to obtain company-specific data. For recognized traders, this EA uses average revenues for NAICS code 488510 (“Freight Transport Arrangement”) from the 2007 Economic Census. For transporters, it uses revenue data for NAICS code 484230 (“Specializ ed freight (except Used Goods) Trucking LongDistance”). In the absence of company-specific in formation, this EA utilizes the aver age cost impacts of the proposed rule for certain classes of entities in conjunction with average revenue and employment data from a variety of sources to gauge potential small entity im pacts. The steps in this process are as follows: 1) Identify affected entities and industries . As described in Chapter 2, EPA’s 2011 annual report data provide facility-level information for exporte rs and importers, including the name, address, and EPA ID number of exporters and importers. This EA also estimates the number of transporters and recognized traders that may be affected by the proposed rule. 2) Estimate number of entities that are small. To identify the number of small entities in the potentially affected universe, this EA reli es on the SBA’s Small Business Size Standards. 80 

### These standards “represent the largest size that a business (including its subsidiaries and affiliates) may be to remain classified as a small business concer n.” Small Business Size Standards are specified for individual 6-digit NAICS codes, and defi ned by either annual revenues or number of employees depending on the industry. These size standards were compared against the company financial or employment data describ ed above to identify small businesses. 3) Estimate average annual revenues of affected small entities. This EA relies on financial data from D&B and other commercial sources, as well as the U.S. Economic Census, to estimate the

79

U.S. EPA, Final Guidance for EPA Rulewrit ers: Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforceme nt Fairness Act, November 2006.

80

SBA’s small business siz e standards accessed at http://www.sba.gov/content/s mall-business-size-standards on January 22, 2014.5-4 

### annual revenues of small entities by dividing the total revenues of entities below the SBA threshold by the total number of entities within each industry. 4) Estimate regulatory costs per small entity. The average costs per affect ed entity of the proposed rule are presented in Chapter 3. To be con servative, these costs represent an upper bound for the average costs per small entity because they reflect costs incurred by both large and small entities. In reality, the average costs for a small entity will be much lower (for example, small entities would have a smaller number of CDX registrants and a smaller average number of notices and shipments per year than a larger entity).

Exhibit 5-1 shows the range of industries represente d by exporters and importers of hazardous waste and the relevant small business size standard for each i ndustry. More than 60 industries are identified (using 6-digit NAICS codes). The small business size sta ndards range from less than $7 million to less than $35.5 million in annual revenues or less th an 100 to less than 1,500 employees.5-5 EXHIBIT 5-1. DETERMINATION OF SMALL BUSINESSES IN EXPORT AND IMPORT INDUSTRIES
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED RULE

NAICS
CODE NAICS DEFINITION TYPES OF
ENTITIES
IDENTIFIED SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD 1

REVENUE ($ MILLIONS) NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES 211111 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction Exporters 500 212291 Uranium-Radium-Vanadium Ore Mining Importers 500 213112 Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations Exporters 35.5 311999 All Other Miscellaneous Food Manufacturing Exporters 500 324110 Petroleum Refineries Exporters 1,500 325120 Industrial Gas Manufacturing Exporters 1,000 325180 Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing Exporters 1,000

325194 Cyclic Crude, Intermediate, and Gum and Wood Chemical Manufacturing Exporters 750

325199 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Exporters 1,000
325211 Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing Exporters 750 325510 Paint and Coating Manufacturing Exporters 500

325612 Polish and Other Sanitation Good Manufacturing Importers 500

325992 Photographic Film, Paper, Plate and Chemical Manufacturing Exporters 500

326113 Unlaminated Plastics Film and Sheet (except Packaging) Manufacturing Importers 500

326150 Urethane and Other Foam Product (except Polystyrene) Manufacturing Exporters 500
327213 Glass Container Manufacturing Exporters 750

331110 Iron and Steel Mills and Ferroalloy Manufacturing Exporters 1,000

331313 Alumina Refining and Primary Aluminum Production Exporters and Importers 1,000

331410 Nonferrous Metal (except Aluminum) Smelting and Refining Exporters 1,000

331492 Secondary Smelting, Refining, and Alloying of Nonferrous Metal (except Copper and Aluminum) Exporters and Importers 750

331512 Steel Investment Foundries Exporters 500 332618 Other Fabricated Wire Product Manufacturing Importers 500 332911 Industrial Valve Manufacturing Exporters 500

332994 Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufacturing Exporters 1,000
333517 Machine Tool Manufacturing Importers 500 334210 Telephone Apparatus Manufacturing Importers 1,0005-6 NAICS
CODE NAICS DEFINITION TYPES OF
ENTITIES
IDENTIFIED SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD 1

REVENUE ($ MILLIONS) NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES

334519 Other Measuring and Controlling Device Manufacturing Exporters 500
335314 Relay and Industrial Control Manufacturing Exporters 750 335911 Storage Battery Manufacturing Exporters 500

336320 Motor Vehicle Electrical and Electronic Equipment Manufacturing Exporters 750

336360 Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing Exporters 500

336412 Aircraft Engine and Engine Parts Manufacturing Exporters 1,000

336413 Other Aircraft Part and Auxiliary Equipment Manufacturing Exporters 1,000

339112 Surgical and Medical Instrument Manufacturing Exporters and Importers 500

423510 Metal Service Centers and Other Metal Merchant Wholesalers Exporters 100

423610 Electrical Apparatus and Equipment, Wiring Supplies, and Related Equipment Merchant Wholesalers Exporters 100

423620 Household Appliances, Electric Housewares, and Consumer Electronics Merchant Wholesalers Importers 100

423860 Transportation Equipment and Supplies (except Motor Vehicle) Merchant Wholesalers Exporters 100

423930 Recyclable Material Merchant Wholesalers Exporters and Importers 100

424210 Drugs and Druggists’ Sundries Merchant Wholesalers Exporters 100

424690 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant Wholesalers Exporters 100
441110 New Car Dealers Exporters 200 488119 Other Airport Operations Exporters 30.0 522220 Sales Financing Exporters 35.5 525910 Open-End Investment Funds Exporters 30.0 531190 Lessors of Other Real Estate Property Exporters 25.5 541512 Computer Systems Design Services Exporters 25.5

541611 Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services Exporters 14.0

541711 Research and Development in Biotechnology Exporters and Importers 500
561110 Office Administrative Services Exporters 7.0 561210 Facilities Support Services Exporters 35.5 561910 Packaging and Labeling Services Exporters 10.05-7 NAICS
CODE NAICS DEFINITION TYPES OF
ENTITIES
IDENTIFIED SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD 1

REVENUE ($ MILLIONS) NUMBER OF
EMPLOYEES 561990 All Other Support Services Exporters 10.0 562111 Solid Waste Collection Exporters 35.5

562112 Hazardous Waste Collection Exporters and Importers 35.5
562119 Other Waste Collection Importers 35.5
562211 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal Exporters and Importers 35.5

562219 Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal Exporters and Importers 35.5
562920 Materials Recovery Facilities Exporters 19.0 721110 Hotels (except Casino Hotels) and Motels Exporters 30.0 813910 Business Associations Exporters 7.0
Notes: 1. SBA’s small business size standards accessed at http://www.sba.gov/content/s mall-business-size-standards on January 22, 2014.



### Exhibit 5-2 shows that there are 299 U.S. firms e xporting hazardous waste, of which approximately 33 percent are small entities according to SBA’s small busin ess size standards. This analysis also estimates that there are 34 U.S. firms importing hazardous waste, of which 45 percent are small entities. EPA estimates that there are 564 transporters involved in foreign shipping of hazardous wastes. Based on average firm revenues, 80 percent of transporters are estimated to be small entities. The number of recognized traders is uncertain, but this EA estimates th at only four firms will be affected by the proposed rule. Of these, only one is estimated to be a small entity. Exhibit 5-3 reports the average costs of the proposed rule by entity type. As discussed in Chapter 3, the industry costs of the proposed rule are estimated to be higher in the first year than in later years due to the one-time, upfront costs of the rule (e.g., reading and understanding the rule and obtaining an EPA ID number) and, in some cases, the cost of shipping mate rials for sending documents to EPA prior to the full implementation of the electronic submittal system. Ther efore, to assess whether th e costs of proposed rule represent a significant impact to a substantial number of small entities, this regulatory flexibility analysis compares the first-year costs (as opposed to the annu alized costs) with the average annual revenues of small entities. Furthermore, to be conservative, this EA compares the total costs of the proposed rule (rather than the net costs) against annua l revenues to make this determination. The exhibit shows that the average costs of the pro posed rule (on a per entity basis) will not exceed one percent of annual revenues for any entity type. While this EA accounts for differences in exporters and importers according to the countries they trade w ith, EPA does not have sufficient data to further disaggregate cost impacts by entity size (i.e., large versus small entities). Therefore, the average cost incorporating both large and small entities likely overst ates the actual cost impacts to small businesses. This conservative cost estimate still does not exceed one percent of annual revenues for a small business.5-8 EXHIBIT 5-2. PROFILE OF SMALL ENTITIES

ENTITY TYPE TOTAL NUMBER OF FIRMS TOTAL NUMBER OF ESTABLISHMENTS 1 PERCENTAGE OF ESTABLISHMENTS THAT ARE CONSIDERED “SMALL BUSINESSES” NUMBER OF SMALL ENTITIES AVERAGE ANNUAL REVENUES FOR SMALL ENTITIES ($2013, MILLIONS) Exporters 2 299 378 33% 125 $8.2 Importers 2 34 45 43% 19 $28.7 Transporters 3 564 564 80% 451 $1.9 Recognized Traders 4 4 4 30% 1 $1.6

Notes: 1. U.S. EPA Export and Impo rt Annual Reports, 2011. 2. Financial data obtained from Dun & Bradstreet , Hoovers.com, Insideview.com, and Manta.com. 3. 2007 Economic Census, NAICS Code 484230. Establishment and Firm Size: Summary Statistics by Revenue Size of Establishments for the United States accessed at http://www.census.gov/econ/census/ on August 1, 2014. 4. 2007 Economic Census, NAICS Code 488510. Establishment and Firm Size: Summary Statistics by Revenue Size of Establishments for the United States accessed at http://www.census.gov/econ/census/ on August 1, 2014.



### The exhibit also shows that the proposed rule will lik ely have the largest cost impact for exporters to Mexico. However, these costs are driven in part by an outlier firm that accounts for 75 percent of all SLAB exports to Mexico (and 64 percent of all hazardous waste shipments to Mexico). 81 

### Based on financial data from D&B, this fi rm was determined to be a larg e multinational company with annual revenues exceeding $40 billion, owning two U.S. expo rters that ship to Mexico. Excluding these two exporters, the estimated average costs per entity are $21,862 (versus $54,303 per year). Thus, the estimated cost impacts will be less than 0.3 per cent of average annual revenues for a small business.

81 U.S. EPA Export Annual Reports, 2011.5-9 EXHIBIT 5-3. COST IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE ON SMALL ENTITIES

ENTITY TYPE (AND COUNTRY OF DESTINATION/ORIGIN) TOTAL
NUMBER OF

ENTITIES AVG. COSTS (PER ENTITY) AVERAGE ANNUAL
REVENUES FOR
SMALL ENTITIES ($2013, MILLIONS) AVERAGE COST PER
ENTITY AS A
PERCENTAGE OF
ANNUAL REVENUES Exporters (Canada) 326 $755 $8.2 0.01% Exporters (Mexico) 24 $54,303 $8.2 0.66% Exporters (Mexico) – Large 1 2 $411,163 N/A N/A Exporters (Mexico) – Small 2 22 $21,862 $8.2 0.27% Exporters (Non-OECD) 2 $1,035 $8.2 0.01% Exporters (OECD) 31 $334 $8.2 <0.01% Importers (Canada) 35 $582 $28.7 <0.01% Importers (Mexico) 11 $4,619 $28.7 0.02% Importers (Non-OECD) 3 $3,903 $28.7 0.01% Importers (OECD) 2 $190 $28.7 <0.01% Transporters 564 <$100 $1.9 <0.01% Recognized Traders 4 $37 $1.6 <0.01%
Notes: 1. The shaded “Exporters (Mexico) – Large” row report s the estimated costs for two entities that were determined to be owned by a large multinational co mpany with annual revenues exceeding $40 billion based on D&B data. For these exporters, the first year cost s of the proposed rule are less than 0.01 percent of annual revenues. 2. The shaded “Exporters (Mexico) – Sm all” row reports the aver age costs per entity excl uding one outlier firm (two exporters) that accounts for approximat ely 75 percent of SLAB shipments to Mexico. These costs may be more representative of the costs likely to be incurred by small businesses. Based on SBA’s small business size standards, some of these 22 exporter s may not be owned by small business es. However, financial data are not available for all potentially affected en tities to make this determination.

EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS 

### Executive Order 13563 “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review” (76 FR 3821; January 18, 2011) requires Federal agencies to consider the employ ment impacts of regulatory policy. Specifically, Executive Order 13563 states, “Our regulatory system mu st protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.” Consistent with the requirements of the Executive Orde r, this EA considers the employment impacts of the proposed rule. Ideally, this EA would incl ude a quantitative assessment of these impacts, but insufficient data are available to quantify changes in employment associated with the rule. This EA, therefore, presents a qualitative assessment of the rule’s potential employment impacts. In general, an environmental regulation can be understood as an increase in demand for a particular output: environmental qualit y. Meeting this new demand can result in increased demand for the various factors of production (including labor) available to th e economy. However, the regulated sector generally relies on revenues generated by their other market outputs to cover the costs of supplying increased environmental quality. This can lead to reduced dema nd for labor and other factors of production used to5-10 

### produce the market output. Thus, as described in Morgenst ern, Pizer, and Shih (2002), the net effect of an environmental regulation on employment in regulat ed sectors and the overall economy is indeterminate. 82 

### The costs imposed on directly regulated sectors may ra ise production costs and put some specific jobs at risk, while at the same time environmental regulati on may create jobs in the regulated sector or other sectors, such as the environmental protection sector. Because the costs of this rule are relatively low, both in aggregate and on a per-establishment basis, and because the number of effected entities is relatively low, EPA believes it is unlikely that it would result in significant employment impacts.

UNFUNDED MANDATES ANALYSIS 

### Among its other purposes and federal agency rulema king requirements, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) requires federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governme nts and on the private sector, to determine whether any proposed rulemaking may result in “any Federal ma ndate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year.” Section 202 of UMRA requires federal agencies that propose rules that are likely to exceed this expenditure threshold to prepare a “Written Statem ent” containing the following five components, supply the statement to OMB, and summarize it in the Federal Register:

1. Identification of the applicable authorizing federal law;

2. Qualitative and quantitative ass essment of the anticipated costs and benefits of the rule including the costs and benefits to state, local, and tribal governments or the private sector, and an analysis of whether federal resources may be available to pay these costs;

3. Estimates of future compliance costs and any disproportionate budgetary effects;

4. Estimates of effects on the national econom y such as productivity, economic growth, employment, job creation, international competitiveness; and

5. Description and summary of agency’s prior c onsultation with elected representatives of the affected state, local, and tribal governments.

The total annualized net costs of the proposed rule are $1.77 million, using a 7 percent discount rate. Determining the private sector and state/local/tribal government shares of these costs requires information on the extent to which regulated entities are owned by these three groups. In compiling the list of U.S. importers and exporters, this EA did not identify any entities that were owned by state, local, or tribal governments. The number of transporte rs and recognized traders that are owned by state, local, or tribal governments is uncertain. Based on the magnitude of the rule’s estimated cost impacts, the estimated cost of the rule would not result in annual expenditures exceeding $100 million for the private sector or state, local, and tribal governments, separately or in aggregate.

82 Source: Richard D. Morgenstern, William A. Pizer, and Jhih-Shyang Shih. (2002) “Jobs Ve rsus the Environment: An Industry-Level Perspective.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 412-436.5-11 FEDERALISM ANALYSIS 

### The 1999 Federalism Executive Order 13132 furthers the policies of UMRA by establishing federalism principles, federalism policymaking criteria, and a st ate and local government consultation process for the development of federal regulations with implications for federalism. These include regulations and other federal policies and actions that ha ve substantial direct effects on states, on the relationship between the federal government and the states, or on the distri bution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Pursuant to the consultation process of Executiv e Order 13132, this section evaluates whether the proposed rule may “impose substantial direct comp liance costs” on state and local governments. EPA’s 2008 guidance for compliance with Executive Or der 13132 describes two numerical methods for evaluating whether an EPA rule may have federalism implications with respect to “substantial direct compliance costs”: 83



### 1. The $25 million test . Annualized direct compliance cost expenditures to state and local governments in aggregate of $25 million or more.

2. The one percent test. Annualized direct compliance costs faced by state and local governments are likely to equal or exceed 1percent of their annual revenues.
As indicated in the UMRA discussion above, this EA do es not estimate any costs of the proposed rule for state and local governments because there are no dir ect costs anticipated for state agencies and no government-owned entities were identif ied in the regulated universe. Thus, the proposed rule would not result in substantial direct compliance costs, as defi ned in the EPA guidance, for entities owned by state and local governments. EPA does not estimate that the proposed rule w ould affect the relationship between the federal government and the states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132 and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local governments, however, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from state and local officials.

TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS ANALYSIS 

### Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consu ltation and Coordination with Indi an Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.” As indicated in the UMRA discussion above, EPA does not estimate any costs of the proposed rule for state and local governments. Based on these results, the propo sed rule is not expected to impose a substantial burden on tribal governments.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ANALYSIS 

### Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmen tal justice part of their mission by identifying and

83

The two methods are from “EPA’s Action Development Process -- Guidance on Executiv e Order 13132: Federalism,” OPEI Regulatory Development Series, Nov 2008, at http://intranet.epa.gov/ adplibrary/documents/federalismguide11-00-08.pdf

.5-12 

### addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority po pulations and low-income populations in the United States. Among other actions, the Order directs agencies to improve research and data collection regarding health and environmental effects in minority and low-income communities. EPA does not estimate that the proposed rule would result in disproportionately high or adverse impacts for minority or low-income populations. Overall, the Agency anticipates that the rule would reduce any adverse effects associated with the management ofhazardous waste, thus benefiting minority and lowincome populations. As the rule encourages environm entally sound recovery of hazardous wastes, it will likely reduce the risks associated with treatment, dis posal, and recovery. In addition, by strengthening notification, tracking, and reporting requirements, the proposed rule will ensure that hazardous wastes are managed at facilities with appropr iate technologies and controls.

CHILDREN’S HEALTH PROTECTION ANALYSIS 

### Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Childr en from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR. 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under Executive Order 12866, or (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a di sproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planne d regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible altern atives considered by the Agency. EPA does not anticipate that the proposed rule would lead to a disproportionate negative impact on children. As described in the Environmental Justi ce section above, the rule improves the information available to EPA through notification, tracki ng, and reporting requirements, and provides for environmentally sound disposal and recovery. Therefor e, EPA expects that the rule would reduce adverse impacts on children’s health, both in the Un ited States and in foreign countries.

ENERGY IMPACT ANALYSIS 

### Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations that Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (May 18, 2001), addresses the need for regulators to more fully consider the potential energy impacts of regulatory action. Under this Executive Orde r, agencies are required to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects when a regulatory action may have significant adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use, including impacts on price and foreign supplies. Additionally, the requirements obligate agencies to consider reasonable alternatives to regulatory actions with adverse effects and the impacts that such alternatives might have on energy supply, distribution, or use. The proposed rule would not directly regulate ener gy production or consumption. In addition, with annualized net costs of approximately $1.77 million per y ear, this rule is not considered an economically significant action under Executive Order 12866. Changes in the management of hazardous waste resu lting from the proposed rule are not expected to significantly impact energy production or distributio n, as these changes relate only to reporting. More stringent reporting requirements may lead to chang es in the management practices of hazardous waste in foreign countries, although the effect of these cha nges on energy use and generation is uncertain and likely to be minimal. Aside from the potential cha nge in waste management practices described above,5-13 

### the requirements of the rule would have minimal impact on energy consumption; therefore, the rule is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on ener gy supply, distribution, or use. In addition, no measurable adverse impacts are expected on energy prices or foreign supplies.

JOINT IMPACTS OF RULES 

### Some of the exporters, importers, transporters, and recognized traders regulated by the proposed rule are also subject to other RCRA requirements. Combin ed, the proposed change to the import-export requirements and existing regulations for hazardous wast e generators and transporters would ensure that the management of waste by these entities subject to both sets of regulations is protective of human health and the environment.A-1 

### APPENDIX A | COST IMPACTS BY YEARA-2EXHIBIT A-1: COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE BY PROVISION AND YEAR (LOW-END, 7% DISCOUNT RATE)

YEAR READING THE RULE CDX REGISTRATION NOTIFICATION RE-NOTIFICATIONS ANNUAL REPORT ADDITIONAL REPORTS CONTRACTS ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONSENT EXCEPTION REPORT MOVEMENT DOCUMENT CERTIFICATE OF RECOVERY/DISPOSAL RETURN OF WASTES EXEMPTION FOR WASTES DESTINED FOR LABORATORY ANALYSIS AES REQUIREMENTS OBTAIN EPA IDs (RECOGNIZED TRADER S) AGENCY COSTS TOTAL2015 $130,288 $23,918 $51,308 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $150 $811,418$2,456,6092016 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $763,235$2,226,8792017 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $763,235$2,226,8792018 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $763,235$2,226,8792019 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $763,235$2,226,8792020 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $763,235$2,226,8792021 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $763,235$2,226,8792022 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $763,235$2,226,8792023 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $763,235$2,226,8792024 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $763,235$2,226,8792025 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $763,235$2,226,8792026 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $763,235$2,226,8792027 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $763,235$2,226,8792028 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $763,235$2,226,8792029 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $763,235$2,226,8792030 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $763,235$2,226,8792031 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $763,235$2,226,8792032 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $763,235$2,226,8792033 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $763,235$2,226,8792034 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $763,235$2,226,879Total(Undiscounted)$130,288 $79,298 $454,163 $3,285 $4,229 $0 $0 $0 $223 $24,945,821 $3,830,571 $0 $6,405 $0 $150 $15,312,877$44,767,313Present Value Total(3% discount rate)$130,288 $65,668 $355,014 $2,517 $3,240 $0 $0 $0 $171 $19,113,238 $2,934,945 $0 $4,908 $0 $150 $11,743,839$34,353,979Present Value Total(7% discount rate)$130,288 $54,044 $270,453 $1,862 $2,397 $0 $0 $0 $127 $14,138,787 $2,171,090 $0 $3,630 $0 $150 $8,699,903$25,472,731Annualized(3% discount rate)$8,502 $4,285 $23,168 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $10 $766,379$2,241,871Annualized(7% discount rate)$11,494 $4,768 $23,859 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $13 $767,485$2,247,145A-3EXHIBIT A-2: COSTS OF THE PROPOSED RULE BY PROVISION AND YEAR (HIGH-END, 7% DISCOUNT RATE)

YEAR READING THE RULE CDX REGISTRATION NOTIFICATION RE-NOTIFICATIONS ANNUAL REPORT ADDITIONAL REPORTS CONTRACTS ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONSENT EXCEPTION REPORT MOVEMENT DOCUMENT CERTIFICATE OF RECOVERY/DISPOSAL RETURN OF WASTES EXEMPTION FOR WASTES DESTINED FOR LABORATORY ANALYSIS AES REQUIREMENTS OBTAIN EPA IDs (RECOGNIZED TRADERS) AGENCY COSTS TOTAL2015 $130,288 $23,918 $51,308 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $150 $959,969$2,605,1592016 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $883,078$2,346,7232017 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $883,078$2,346,7232018 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $883,078$2,346,7232019 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $883,078$2,346,7232020 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $883,078$2,346,7232021 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $883,078$2,346,7232022 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $883,078$2,346,7232023 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $883,078$2,346,7232024 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $883,078$2,346,7232025 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $883,078$2,346,7232026 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $883,078$2,346,7232027 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $883,078$2,346,7232028 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $883,078$2,346,7232029 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $883,078$2,346,7232030 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $883,078$2,346,7232031 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $883,078$2,346,7232032 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $883,078$2,346,7232033 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $883,078$2,346,7232034 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $0 $883,078$2,346,723Total(Undiscounted)$130,288 $79,298 $454,163 $3,285 $4,229 $0 $0 $0 $223 $24,945,821 $3,830,571 $0 $6,405 $0 $150 $17,738,454$47,192,890Present ValueTotal (3% discountrate)$130,288 $65,668 $355,014 $2,517 $3,240 $0 $0 $0 $171 $19,113,238 $2,934,945 $0 $4,908 $0 $150 $13,609,003$36,219,144Present ValueTotal (7% discountrate)$130,288 $54,044 $270,453 $1,862 $2,397 $0 $0 $0 $127 $14,138,787 $2,171,090 $0 $3,630 $0 $150 $10,087,107$26,859,935Annualized(3% discount rate)$8,502 $4,285 $23,168 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $10 $888,096$2,363,588Annualized(7% discount rate)$11,494 $4,768 $23,859 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 $0 $13 $889,861$2,369,521A-4EXHIBIT A-3: COST SAVINGS OF THE PROPOSED RULEBY PROVISION AND YEAR (7% DISCOUNT RATE)

YEAR READING THE RULE CDX REGISTRATION NOTIFICATION RE-NOTIFICATIONS ANNUAL REPORT ADDITIONAL REPORTS CONTRACTS ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF CONSENT EXCEPTION REPORT MOVEMENT DOCUMENT CERTIFICATE OF RECOVERY/DISPOSAL RETURN OF WASTES EXEMPTION FOR WASTES DESTINED FOR LABORATORY ANALYSIS AES REQUIREMENTS OBTAIN EPA IDs (RECOGNIZED TRADER S) AGENCY COSTS TOTAL2015 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $18 $0 $0 $232,895$687,6482016 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $18 $0 $0 $232,895$687,6482017 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $18 $0 $0 $232,895$687,6482018 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $18 $0 $0 $232,895$687,6482019 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $18 $0 $0 $232,895$687,6482020 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $18 $0 $0 $232,895$687,6482021 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $18 $0 $0 $232,895$687,6482022 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $18 $0 $0 $232,895$687,6482023 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $18 $0 $0 $232,895$687,6482024 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $18 $0 $0 $232,895$687,6482025 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $18 $0 $0 $232,895$687,6482026 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $18 $0 $0 $232,895$687,6482027 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $18 $0 $0 $232,895$687,6482028 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $18 $0 $0 $232,895$687,6482029 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $18 $0 $0 $232,895$687,6482030 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $18 $0 $0 $232,895$687,6482031 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $18 $0 $0 $232,895$687,6482032 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $18 $0 $0 $232,895$687,6482033 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $18 $0 $0 $232,895$687,6482034 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $18 $0 $0 $232,895$687,648Total(Undiscounted)$0 $0 $49,180 $0 $41,957 $0 $9,002,057 $208 $645 $645 $0 $369 $0 $0 $4,657,896 $13,752,956Present Value Total(3% discount rate)$0 $0 $37,681 $0 $32,147 $0 $6,897,285 $159 $494 $494 $0 $283 $0 $0 $3,568,833 $10,537,377Present Value Total(7% discount rate)$0 $0 $27,874 $0 $23,780 $0 $5,102,184 $118 $365 $365 $0 $209 $0 $0 $2,640,001 $7,794,897Annualized(3% discount rate)$0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $18 $0 $0 $232,895 $687,648Annualized(7% discount rate)$0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $18 $0 $0 $232,895 $687,648B-1 

### APPENDIX B | EPA COST ESTIMA TES FOR ENHANCEMENTS TO WIETS

PURPOSE 

## The costs provided below are conservative estimate s to develop and maintain enhancements to WIETS to accommodate electronic submittal of the nine import and export reports listed below as well as to accommodate the WI ETS/Customs (ACE-ITDS) interface. 84



## NOTE: Cost estimates do not reflect WCF fo r NCC costs. This cost is approximately $30K annually. 1. Export Notices

• FTEs (development): 0.75 – 1.25

• FTEs (O&M): 1.5 – 2.5 (not including 1.25 additional FTE for first year after implementation)

• Sub-Total Development: $197,000 - $247,000

• Yearly O&M: $63,750 – $106,250 (does not include elevated first year O&M costs) Optional: Additional cost to build system-to-system

• FTEs (development): 0 (leverage FTE from a bove)

• FTEs (O&M): 0 (leverage FTE from above)

• Sub-Total Development: $130,000 - $202,000

• Yearly O&M: $11,250 - $18,750 2. Export Exception Reports

• FTEs (development): 0.075 – 0.125

• FTEs (O&M): 0.003 – 0.005

• Sub Total Development: $11,250 – $18,750

• Yearly O&M: $1,500 - $2,500 3. Export Confirmations of Receipt

• FTEs (development): 0.075 – 0.125

• FTEs (O&M): 0.16875 – 0.28125

• Sub Total Development: $35,000 - $50,000

• Yearly O&M: $60,000 - $100,000 4. Export Completion of Recovery Reports

• FTEs (development): 0 (leverage FTE from #3 above)

• FTEs (O&M): 0.16875 – 0.28125

• Sub Total Development: $18,750 - $31,250

• Yearly O&M: $0 (assume we can couple O&M of this data flow with #3)

84

This appendix was provided by Phuc Phan of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on January 15 , 2015 as a Word do cument entitled “EPA FTEs and Costs for impo rt-export rule RANGES Jan 8 2015.docx”.B-2 

## 5. Export Annual Reports

• FTEs (development): 0.075 – 0.125

• FTEs (O&M): 0.1125 – 0.1875

• Sub Total Development: $48,750 - $81,250

• Yearly O&M: $11,250 – $18,750 6. Import Notices When Export not Hazardous in Country of Export

• FTEs (development): 0.0375 – 0.0625

• FTEs (O&M): 0.075 – 0.125

• Sub-Total Development: $45,000 - $75,000

• Yearly O&M: $11,250 – $18,750 7. Import Confirmations of Receipt

• FTEs (development): 0.075 – 0.125

• FTEs (O&M): 0.15 – 0.25

• Sub Total Development: $22,500 – $37,500

• Yearly O&M: $11,250 – $18,750 8. Import Confirmations of Recovery

• FTEs (development): 0 (leverage FTE from report #7 above)

• FTEs (O&M): 0.15 – 0.25

• Sub Total Development: $15,000 - $30,000

• Yearly O&M: $11,250 – $18,750 9. Import notifications regarding need to make a lternate arrangements or need to return waste shipment

• FTEs (development): 0.075 – 0.125

• FTEs (O&M): 0.0015 – 0.0025

• Sub Total Development: $41,250 - $68,750

• Yearly O&M: $1,500 - $2,500

10. ACE-ITDS

• FTEs (development): 0.075 – 0.125

• FTEs (O&M): 0.075 – 0.125

• Sub Total Development: $80,000 - $162,000

• Yearly O&M: $23,000 - $38,000

TOTAL: - FTE (development): 1.24 FTEs – 2.06 F TEs, equivalent of 2,574 – 4,290 labor hours - FTE (O&M): 2.40 FTEs – 4.01 FTEs, equivalent of 5,001 – 8,336 labor hours - Development: $515K - $802K [+ Optional $130K - $202K for system-to-syst em export notice submission] - Annual O&M: $195K - $324K [+ O ptional $11.25K – 18.75K for system-to-syst em export notice submission]