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 Staff 
i 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

The Agency recognizes Industrial Economics, Inc. (IEc), for the overall organization and development of 

this report. Alan Barnosky, Phuc Phan, and Chris 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 3-26 
iii 

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 WIETS
ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This document presents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) analysis of the costs, 

benefits, and economic impacts of the proposed Hazardous 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 publishing this Economic Assessment (EA) in conjunction 

with the proposed rule and invites comments from the public on the data, methods, assumptions, and 

conclusions presented herein. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR REGULATORY ACTION 

Since March 1992, Organization for Economic Cooperation 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/FINAL 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 and exports of hazardous waste with OECD countries, 

shipments to Canada and Mexico are regulated under separate bilateral agreements. In addition, the 

United States regulates other transboundary movements 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 Council Decision C(2001)107/FINAL, as amended by 

C(2004)20. 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 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 spent lead-acid batteries (SLABs) 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. Because domestic shipment 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. 

Since the 2010 rulemaking, however, EPA and several non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have 

raised concerns over the lack of reporting and insufficient environmental and occupational 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: Implementation of OECD Council Decision C(92)39 Concerning the Control of Transfrontier 

Movements of Wastes Destined for Recovery Operations, Final Rule, Federal Register, 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. Better data will help the United States and other countries control the 

environmental and health risks associated with hazardous 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 with each provision, but rather adjust the types of 

entities held to each requirement by making entities currently subject to Subpart E and F requirements 

subject to Subpart H requirements. Changes to requirements for shipments currently subject to 40 CFR 

Part 262, Subpart E (i.e., exports to Canada, 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 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 notices 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 exporters and importers of hazardous waste and 

foreign facilities specifying the parties relevant to each shipment and the various legal 

responsibilities of each party involved. 

(5) Exception reports can be based on either 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 International 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 Environmental Cooperation, Hazardous Trade? An Examination of US-generated Spent Lead-Acid Battery Exports 

and Secondary Lead Recycling in Canada, Mexico, and the United States, April 2013, accessed at http://www3.cec.org/islandora/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, 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. 

(12) Exporters are no longer required to provide an extra copy of the manifest to the 

transporter and transporters are no longer required 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 elements as part of their Automated Export System 

(AES) filing requirements under 15 CFR 30.4. (This 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) characterization of U.S. foreign trade and the number of 

entities involved in the export and import of hazardous waste, including SLABs. EPA’s export annual 

reports and import RCRA manifests are key data sources for this characterization. Export annual reports 

provide information on hazardous waste exports, including the annual number of shipments and volume, 

and the number of U.S. entities exporting hazardous waste. 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 acting under 

arrangements with a U.S. waste facility to arrange 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 shipments 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 exports, 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 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 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 accounted for more than 80 percent of manifested import shipments of 

hazardous waste in 2011, Mexico accounted for approximately 10 percent of import shipments, and 

approximately three percent of hazardous waste imports were shipped from non-OECD countries. 

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. 

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS AND COST SAVINGS 

To assess the costs of the proposed rule, 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 recognized 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 existing regulations there are different requirements for 

the foreign trade of hazardous waste with these countries compared with other OECD countries. Canada and 

Mexico currently have bilateral waste agreements with the United States separate from the OECD multilateral 

waste agreement, and thus will be newly subject to various provisions of the proposed rule that currently 

apply to other OECD member countries. Therefore, this EA estimates impacts to exporters 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 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 average number of shipments sent to each destination. Depending on the context, the 

remainder of this analysis may similarly parse out exporters 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 entity 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. The 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 confirmation 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 recognized trader is located in a state that does not have an authorized agency that 

issues EPA ID numbers. As these costs are small, for illustrative purposes they are included as Agency costs in this EA. However, 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 efficiency 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 Destined 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 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. Costs for recognized traders are also small, and are apportioned into the cost 

estimates for importers and exporters, as recognized traders 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 addition 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 import requirements for OECD countries.
ES-8

OTHER REQUIRED ANALYSES 

As required by applicable statutes and executive orders, 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 determined 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 impacts 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 governments, 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 the 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 tribal 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 minority or low-income populations. Overall, the 

Agency anticipates that the rule would reduce 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 literature suggests, however, that the costs 

imposed on directly regulated sectors may raise production costs and put some specific jobs at 

risk, while at the same time environmental regulation 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 subject to other RCRA requirements. Combined, the 

 

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

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

proposed change to the import-export requirements 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 costs, benefits, and economic impacts of the proposed 

Hazardous Waste Export-Import Revisions Rule. This rule proposes to amend certain 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, assumptions, 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, EPA regulates the management, transportation, and 

ultimate disposal of those wastes. Tracking where wastes are generated and moved can help assure that 

wastes are not misplaced, lost, or unaccounted for. 

Since March 1992, 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/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 separate bilateral agreements. RCRA regulatory requirements 

for exports to Canada, Mexico, and 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 Council 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 from the U.S., and Import Consent Documentation to 

implement these updates and strengthen controls on SLABs 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 shipment 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: Implementation of OECD Council Decision C(92)39 Concerning the Control of Transfrontier 

Movements of Wastes Destined for Recovery Operations, Final Rule, Federal Register, 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 occupational health controls associated with transboundary 

movement of hazardous wastes, most notably regarding exports of SLABs to Canada and Mexico.9

 For 

example, in June 2011, Occupational 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 United States by exporting SLABs to Mexico.10 In April 2013, the 

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) issued a report on the trade of SLABs between the 

U.S., Mexico, and Canada, identifying potential underreporting 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 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. 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 outlined 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 associated with each provision, but rather adjust the 

types of entities held to each requirement by making entities currently subject to Subpart E and F 

requirements subject to Subpart H requirements. Changes to requirements for shipments currently subject 

to 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart E (i.e., exports to Canada, 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 Canada, Mexico, and non-OECD countries will be 

required to submit additional information 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 Fronteras Comunes, Exporting Hazards: U.S. Shipments of used lead acid 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 October 21, 2014. 

11 Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Hazardous Trade? An Examination of US-generated Spent Lead-Acid Battery Exports 

and Secondary Lead Recycling in Canada, Mexico, and the United States, April 2013, accessed at http://www3.cec.org/islandora/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 operation 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 notices 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 Canada, Mexico, and non-OECD counties will be 

affected by the first requirement. All exporters 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 exporters and importers of hazardous waste and 

foreign facilities specifying the parties relevant 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 subject to this new U.S. requirement, but U.S. 

exporters and importers of waste with Canada will not be impacted as Canadian regulations 

already require contracts between the Canadian 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 are only based off of RCRA manifests. This 

change will potentially impact export shipments 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 that 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 and 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. Similarly, 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 exchanging 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, and the relevant authorities of the exporting 

country. 

This requirement must be completed within three days of receiving a shipment of hazardous 

waste. Importers must also maintain a signed 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 requirement, so the expected net burden will be sending 

copies to EPA and to Environment Canada. Importers 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 send a confirmation of recovery or disposal to 

EPA, the exporter, and the relevant authority in the country of export for each 

shipment received. 

Importers receiving shipments from OECD countries are already subject to this requirement 

under existing U.S. regulations, and will therefore 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 countries will experience the full impact of this 

change as they are not currently required to send 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 subject 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 waste cannot be completed, the primary exporter 

must (1) instruct the transporter to either return the shipment to the exporter or to an 

alternative facility in the United States, and (2) submit an exception report to EPA. The 

proposed rule does not change any of these requirements with the exception of allowing the 

alternate facility to be in the country of import 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 shipments 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 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 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 from Canada, Mexico, and non-OECD countries 

subject to the additional limitation of samples weighing no more than 25kg to be exempt from 

export and import requirements. As a result, currently-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 required to give that copy to a Customs 

official. 

Exporters shipping wastes to any country subject 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 affect all export shipments currently subject to 

Subpart E or H. This paper submittal requirement is being dropped because it will be 

duplicative to the AES filing and information provided 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, exporters shipping to Canada, Mexico, and nonOECD countries must provide a copy of EPA’s Acknowledgment of Consent to the 

transporter for each hazardous waste shipment. The proposed rule eliminates this 

requirement. Exports to OECD countries other than 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 with 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 waste 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 instructions associated with EPA’s electronic 

document receiving system. EPA plans to develop enhancements to WIETS to receive these 

submittals, likely using the Agency-wide Central Data Exchange (CDX) system, which will 

facilitate the electronic submittal of required documents. The electronic system guides users 

through the registration and reporting procedures. 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 manifests, confirmation of recovery/disposal, 

movement documents, exception reports, annual reports, 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 requirement 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 required in Subpart H to fill in two additional 

fields for the export license and EPA consent number, 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 existing AES-required reporting is not in units of 
1-7

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 requirements 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. This 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 prepared this EA examining the rule’s costs, benefits, 

and other economic impacts. The data, methods, and results 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) identifies portions of the potentially regulated universe 

affected by individual rule provisions; (2) characterizes 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 that are likely to be affected by EPA’s proposed 

Hazardous Waste Export-Import Revisions Rule. The proposed 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 affected 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 with EPA on March 1 of each year, summarizing their 

shipments from the previous calendar year. EPA reviews 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 shipment contained SLABs, other solid wastes, or liquid 

hazardous wastes. 

This analysis relies primarily on EPA’s 2011 database to estimate the baseline scenario, because it 

includes the most recent calendar year for which EPA 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 shipments, exporter information (e.g., EPA ID number 
2-2

and address) and waste shipment detail are not available. 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 the 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 percent of exports in 2012 went to 

Canada and Mexico. Less than 0.1 percent of export 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 quantity 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 WASTE1 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 published, in which specific densities ranged from 8.35 to 12 pounds per gallon. 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 shipped to Mexico and 24 percent of shipments 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 WASTE1 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 published, in which specific densities ranged from 8.35 to 12 pounds per gallon. 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 information on the number of entities exporting hazardous 

waste. As described above, the 2011 data provide facility-level information, including the name, address, 

and EPA ID number. In contrast, the 2012 data contain 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 reports 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 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. 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) 

DESTINATION1

NUMBER OF U.S. 

EXPORTERS 

NUMBER OF U.S. SLAB 

EXPORTERS 

AVERAGE NUMBER OF 

SHIPMENTS PER 

EXPORTER 

Canada2,3 326 142 79

Mexico2,3 24 11 964

OECD Countries 31 16 80

Belgium4 2 0 9 

United Kingdom 1 1 1 

Germany4 2 0 7 

Japan5 1 0 4 

Korea5 23 14 103 

Spain6 1 1 55 

Sweden 1 0 2 

Non-OECD Countries 2 2 13

Peru6 1 1 25 

Philippines 1 1 1 

TOTAL 383 171 134

Notes: 

1. Three exporters shipped waste 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 one 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 exporters 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 383 count of exporters and not the 378 unique exporters where appropriate. 

2. While Canada and Mexico are OECD countries, under existing regulations there are different requirements for 

the foreign trade of hazardous waste with these countries compared with other OECD countries. Therefore, 

this EA estimates impacts to exporters (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 shipments to Belgium and Germany. 

5. One exporter sent shipments to Japan 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 export annual reports. Specifically, the data are limited 

to the total number of RCRA import manifests and the 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 domestically exempted from RCRA manifest requirements, 

so data on these imports could not be reflected in this analysis. The vast majority of imported hazardous 

waste is shipped from Canada and Mexico. Canada accounted for more than 80 percent of manifested 

import shipments of hazardous waste in 2011 and 2012, while Mexico accounted for approximately 10 

percent. About 3 to 4 percent of hazardous waste imports were shipped from non-OECD countries in both 

years. Some U.S. importers received shipments in one year but not the other; for example, the United 

States received imports from Bermuda, Korea, the Dominican Republic, and Singapore in 2012, but not in 

2011. Exhibits 2-5 and 2-6 report the number of manifested 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 manifests 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 manifests 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 ORIGIN1 NUMBER OF IMPORTERS 

AVERAGE NUMBER OF SHIPMENTS PER 

IMPORTER 

Canada2,3,4,5 35 69

Mexico2,3,5 11 31

OECD Countries 2 31

United Kingdom4 1 1 

Germany4 1 11 

Japan5 1 50 

Non-OECD Countries 3 37

Bahamas 1 11 

Malaysia5 1 11 

N Antilles 1 7 

Philippines5 1 82 

TOTAL 51 57

Notes: 

1. Four importers received waste from two or more countries as described 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 respective origins to accurately reflect the average number of 

shipments sent to each importer. Depending on the context, the remainder of this document may similarly 

parse out importers that receive from more than one country separately to accurately estimate costs 

associated with receiving from alternative 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 existing regulations there are different requirements for 

the foreign trade of hazardous waste with these countries compared with other OECD 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 shipments from Malaysia, the Philippines, Canada, Mexico, and Japan. 

Source: U.S. EPA RCRA manifests 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 annual reports to EPA, under existing regulations in 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart 

E, U.S. exporters must also notify EPA of their intent to send shipments of hazardous waste and obtain 

consent via EPA prior to their departure. EPA forwards 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 shipments of certain wastes to the United States for 

disposal or recovery. The countries of export then forward those notices to EPA for administrative review 

and processing. When EPA sends its consent to a notice 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 WIETS. This database provides an additional source of 

information on U.S. entities that intend to import/export hazardous waste. However, the WIETS data 

likely overstate the actual volume of foreign trade because facilities must estimate the quantity of 

hazardous waste they will manage over a 12-month period and cannot exceed the quantity declared in 

their import/export notice. First, the WIETS data overestimate 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/receive 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 exporters 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 illustrate 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 reported 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 data are available, 692 exporters submitted 1,684 notices 

to EPA. Of the total export notices obtained from WIETS, 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 reports 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 requested shipments data field in the WIETS database, EPA states the following: “The total number of 

shipments requested to use in analysis for specific waste stream. If no waste stream level info was listed in notice, the notice 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 report shows 50 shipments requested for each of the 10 waste streams.” This information was obtained 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 EXPORTERS1

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 average number of notices for each 

destination. Depending on the context, the remainder of this document may similarly parse out exporters that 

ship to more than one country separately to accurately estimate costs associated 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. facilities 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 reported in foreign export notices. Some of the difference 

between the foreign export notice data and the import manifest data may be due to the fact that foreign 

exporters overestimated the volume of hazardous waste they would ship to the United States. Another 

basis for the difference may be due to the imported 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 facility on 769 foreign export notices. Of the total 

number of foreign export notices obtained from WIETS, 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 total 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 respective origins to accurately reflect the average number of 

shipments sent to each importer. Depending on the context, the remainder of this document may similarly 

parse out importers that receive from more than one country separately 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 generally 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 million 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 country 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 System): 8548100540 

(lead-acid 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). 

16 The nominal export dollar amounts for were adjusted to $2013 dollars using the Bureau of Economic Analysis’ Annual Price Indexes for Gross 

Domestic Product (GDP). 
2-13

than half between 2011 and 2013. Exhibits 2-12 through 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 COUNTRY 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 2013

Tons of SLABs

Mexico Canada Rest of World
EXHIBIT 2-12. PROFILE OF U.S. EXPORTS OF SLABs (2011) 

COUNTRY 

WEIGHT 

(TONS) 

PERCENT 

OF TOTAL 

TOTAL DOLLAR 

VALUE ($2013) 

PERCENT 

OF TOTAL 

NUMB

BATTERIE

Mexico 377,218 74.4% $98,351,853 43.8% Canada 115,488 22.8% $110,566,992 49.2% Spain 10,399 2.1% $9,254,172 4.1% Korea 1,366 0.3% $1,717,122 0.8% Subtotal (Mexico and Canada) 492,706 97.2% $208,918,845 93.0% 2Subtotal (OECD, excluding Canada and Mexico)1 11,963 2.4% $12,081,581 5.4% Subtotal (non-OECD)2 2,266 0.4% $3,658,111 1.6% TOTAL 506,936 100% $224,658,537 100% 2Notes: 1. Including 8 additional OECD countries that are not reported above. 2. Including 42 non-OECD countries that are not reported above. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Data on Electronic Media. Based on exports of Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) co

acid storage batteries of a kind used for starting engines, for the recovery of lead) and 8548100580 (spent primary cells, spent spent electric storage batteries for recovery of lead, other than lead-acid storage batteries for starting engines). 
EXHIBIT 2-13. PROFILE OF U.S. EXPORTS OF SLABs (2012) 

COUNTRY 

WEIGHT 

(TONS) 

PERCENT 

OF TOTAL 

TOTAL DOLLAR 

VALUE ($2013) 

PERCENT 

OF TOTAL 

NUMB

BATTERIE

Mexico 372,215 88.8% $77,764,803 43.4% Canada 42,331 10.1% $93,816,698 52.4% Spain 3,191 0.8% $2,440,643 1.4% Korea 213 0.1% $73,858 0.5% Subtotal (Mexico and Canada) 414,546 98.9% $171,581,501 95.8% 2Subtotal (OECD, excluding Canada and Mexico)1 3,689 0.9% $5,539,223 3.1% Subtotal (non-OECD)2 1,076 0.3% $2,027,409 1.1% TOTAL 419,312 100% $179,148,133 100% 2Notes: 1. Including an additional 11 OECD countries that are not reported above. 

2. Including 37 non-OECD countries that are not reported above. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Data on Electronic Media. Based on exports of Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) c

acid storage batteries of a kind used for starting engines, for the recovery of lead) and 8548100580 (spent primary cells, spenspent electric storage batteries for recovery of lead, other than lead-acid storage batteries for starting engines).
EXHIBIT 2-14. PROFILE OF U.S. EXPORTS OF SLABs (2013) 

COUNTRY 

WEIGHT 

(TONS) 

PERCENT 

OF TOTAL 

TOTAL DOLLAR 

VALUE ($2013) 

PERCENT 

OF TOTAL 

NUMB

BATTERIE

Mexico 433,070 91.8% $83,300,763 44.5% Canada 33,177 7.0% $94,324,819 50.4% Spain 4,630 1.0% $4,081,259 2.2% Korea 92 0.0% $1,469,387 0.8% Subtotal (Mexico and Canada) 466,248 98.9% $177,625,582 95.0% 2Subtotal (OECD, excluding Canada and Mexico)1 5,128 1.1% $8,083,354 4.3% Subtotal (non-OECD)2 272 0.1% $1,276,813 0.7% TOTAL 471,647 100% $186,985,749 100% 2Notes: 1. Including an additional 14 OECD countries that are not reported above. 

2. Including 26 non-OECD countries that are not reported above. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Data on Electronic Media. Based on exports of Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) co

acid storage batteries of a kind used for starting engines, for the recovery of lead) and 8548100580 (spent primary cells, spent 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 Census 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 exported 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 data 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 551,000 tons of SLABs in 2012, compared to 419,000 

tons reported in the Census foreign trade data. 

 

 

17 SLAB exports to Canada were almost entirely automobile and industrial batteries, despite records of exports to Canada classified under HTS code 

8548102500 (“waste and scrap primary cells, primary batteries and electric storage batteries for the recovery of lead, not specified elsewhere”). 

Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation “Hazardous Trade? An Examination of US-generated Spent Lead-Acid Battery Exports 

and Secondary Lead Recycling in Canada, Mexico, and the United States.” 2013, p.25 
2-18

EXHIBIT 2-15. CENSUS AND EPA DATA ON U.S. EXPORTS OF SLABs (2011) 

COUNTRIES 

WEIGHT (TONS) NUMBER OF COUNTRIES 

CENSUS1 EPA2 DIFFERENCE CENSUS1 EPA2 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 

CENSUS1 EPA2 DIFFERENCE CENSUS1 EPA2 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 United States exported SLABs to 81 different countries 

between 2011 and 2013. These include 20 OECD member countries, as well as 61 non-OECD countries. 

Based on the U.S. Census data, Exhibit 2-17 provides the full list of countries where the United States 

exported SLABs to from 2011 through 2013. In contrast, 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, British Virgin Islands, Canada, Cayman Islands, Chile, China, Colombia, Congo 

(Brazzaville), Costa Rica, Curacao, Czech Republic, Dominica, 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 Antilles, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, 

Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Saint Maarten, South Africa, 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 likely to be affected by the proposed rule. Financial 

data on the potentially affected universe are limited 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 representative of these particular firms) and (2) many of these 

firms are privately-held, so financial data are not generally 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 data 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 trade 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 information from Dun & Bradstreet (D&B), a leading private 

source of commercial information. D&B collects financial, 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 importers through the parent company identified by D&B (or, if the 

company was foreign-owned, the largest U.S. subsidiary). 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 and importer information for 2012 was not available. Therefore, this EA relies on EPA’s 2011 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 aggregate financial data for all firms 

across a wide range of industries based on their NAICS code. However, these data likely overstate the 

number of exporters and importers of hazardous waste because these firms represent a small percentage 

of their respective industries. Furthermore, the average 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 for financial data on exporters and importers. 

Therefore, based on the review of financial information 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 waste. 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 available for less than one-quarter of firms in the 

potentially affected universe. 

Exhibit 2-18 summarizes data availability for a subset of firms in the regulated universe based on the 

review of D&B and other data sources. Financial data 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 

TOTAL1 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 import 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 exporting 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, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing 

324 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing 

336 Transportation Equipment 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 Electronic 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 approximately 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 firms 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 importing 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 Electronic 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 information 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 regulated 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 importing hazardous waste under the provisions set forth 

in the proposed Hazardous Waste Export-Import Revisions Rule, which are outlined in Chapter 1. This 

chapter begins with an overview of the regulated universe 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 chapter presents the total costs and cost savings of the 

proposed rule, and concludes with a discussion of the potential analytic limitations. 

UNIVERSE OF ENTITIES AFFECTED BY THE RULE 

As described in Chapter 2, the potentially affected universe includes U.S. exporters and importers 

involved in the foreign trade of hazardous waste. To assess the cost impacts of the proposed rule, this EA 

develops representative costs for potentially affected 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 importers 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; therefore, this is a high-end estimate. Less information is 

available for recognized traders. EPA estimates that one 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 themselves directly to EPA (e.g., they may not have an 

EPA ID number). These entities are not reported separately to avoid double-counting, but are reflected in 

the total number of exporters and importers. 

 

23 Based on self-reported information from EPA’s 2011 Biennial Report Database. 

24 Based on email communication with Phuc Phan of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation 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 existing regulations there are different requirements for 

the foreign trade of hazardous waste with these countries compared with other OECD countries. Canada and 

Mexico currently have bilateral waste agreements with the United States separate from the OECD multilateral 

waste agreement, and thus will be newly subject to various provisions of the proposed rule that currently 

apply to other OECD member countries. Therefore, this EA estimates impacts to exporters 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 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 average number of shipments sent to each destination. Depending on the context, the 

remainder of this analysis may similarly parse out exporters 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 entity 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 represent the incremental costs above and beyond the costs 

currently incurred in the baseline scenario—the world as it would exist absent the proposed rule. For each 

provision, this section describes differences in requirements 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. Some of these assumptions affect several components 
3-3

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 reflect the time required of managers, technicians, and 

other staff to complete various tasks. The costs associated with this time are estimated as a function of the 

hourly labor costs associated with various professional and clerical positions. Exhibits 3-2 and 3-3 report 

the fully loaded labor costs on a per-hour basis for 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 average wage data reported by the U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics for a full time employee working 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 required 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 2014-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-wages/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 proposed rule will require that these documents be 

submitted electronically into EPA’s waste import/export database, likely using EPA’s CDX system.25

Specifically, the proposed rule will require electronic 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 and export movement documents, exception reports for 

export shipments, annual reports for export shipments, 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 electronically sign each of these documents 

are discussed below. This may overestimate costs for submittals that 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 and 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 letter3 $1.18 

Copying4 $0.11 

Fax5 $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 Collection 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 Consent Documentation. 

 

25 A waiver may be available for companies that 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 associated with electronic submittal. This may overstate costs for 

a very small number of companies 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. The 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 costs 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 (PVc) from year t1 to T is measured in 2013 

dollars according to the following standard formula:27 

where Ct 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 across activities with varying time components and 

forecast periods.29 Annualized future impacts (APVc) 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 the 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-related activity, by entity type and country of 

destination/origin. 

 

27 To derive the present value of future impacts, t1 is 2015 and T is 2034, the final year of the forecast. This EA uses a 20-year forecast period. 

28 To discount and annualize costs, guidance provided by the OMB specifies the use of a real discount rate of seven percent. In addition, OMB 

recommends sensitivity analysis using other discount rates such as three percent, which some economists believe more appropriately 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 Management and 

Budget, “Draft 2003 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations; Notice,” 68 Federal Register 5492, February 3, 2003. 

29 When comparing annualized costs using different discount rates, the values may vary depending 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 higher annualized cost, as this depends on the 

timing of costs during the analytic time horizon. As described above, the annualization method involves two steps, which have countervailing 

influences on the magnitude of the annualized cost: the present value calculation and the standard annualization formula. In general, if the 

majority of costs are experienced in the upfront years, the annualized cost would be higher using a higher discount rate. However, 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 constant stream of 

payments, the annualized costs are 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 comply 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, using 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 requirements 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 will facilitate the electronic submittal of required 

documents. WIETS guides users through the registration and reporting procedures. Electronic submittal is 

required for all exporters and importers; 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 electronic 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 percent 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 the 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, plus the cost of printing and sending the document to 

EPA. In addition, EPA estimates that 10 percent of users will have to update their information each year 

 

30 Page B-1 of the Cost Assessment for the Final Rule on Exports and Imports of Hazardous Waste Destined for Recovery Among OECD Countries, 

Exports of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries from the U.S., and Import Consent Documentation: Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Office of 

Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 2009. 

31 Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 2002.06: "Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule", October 17, 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 affected universe using the SBA’s small business size 

standards is described in greater detail in Chapter 5. 

33 Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 2002.06: "Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule", October 17, 2014, Office 

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

34 Communication with William Noggle of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation 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 register to use the electronic system immediately after 

the promulgation of the rule. Under the previously 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 promulgation 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 REGISTRATION ($2013) USING A 7 PERCENT DISCOUNT 

RATE

ENTITY TYPE (COUNTRY OF 

DESTINATION/ORIGIN) 

[A] 

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

ENTITIES1

[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 exporter ships waste to both 

Canada and Mexico, half of the costs are incurred for shipments to Canada and half are incurred for shipments 

to Mexico. Therefore, costs are proportionally distributed (by country) for entities that trade with more than 

one country. 

Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

 

 

35 Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 2002.06: "Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule", October 17, 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, Subpart 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 shipments 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 transit, points of departure and entry for each country 

through which waste will be transported, the name and location of the receiving facility, and ultimate 

method for managing the waste. Additionally, Canadian regulations require that transporters and interim 

facilities be listed in each notice. Following notification, EPA will forward the notice to the regulatory 

authority of the receiving country and any transit countries for their review. Once the foreign authority 

consents to the shipment, EPA forwards an Acknowledgment of Consent to the exporter authorizing the 

shipment. According to EPA’s WIETS data for 2013, exporters 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 electronic submittal of export notices. This requires 

exporters to submit each export notice with an electronic 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 element. 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 exporters 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 for each listed party on the notice, all anticipated 

transporters for the shipments, any interim facilities to be used during the transfer of waste, and the 

OECD waste codes and recycling or disposal operation codes for all waste streams to be shipped. EPA 

does not have information to estimate the cost of adding this information to export notices and requests 

comment on the amount of time required to submit these additional 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 minutes it will take a technician to prepare an export 

notice under the current regulations).39 Exporters to Canada will not experience an additional burden from 

listing transporters and interim facilities, as these data elements are already required by Canadian 

regulations (thus, this EA estimates it will take an additional 20 minutes of a technician’s time to provide 

the required information for exports to Canada). 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. Once the electronic submittal is fully implemented, exporters will have the option to use 

 

37 Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 2002.06: "Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule", October 17, 2014, Office 

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

38 See Exhibit 2-3. Some entities may be counted 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 Hazardous Waste Generator Standards (Renewal), March 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 year. EPA estimates that 60 percent of exporters will be 

able to take advantage of this duplication feature 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 savings 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 submit 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 that do not result in foreign shipments. Specifically, 

as indicated in Chapter 2, more U.S. exporters submit notices than export hazardous waste each year. As a 

result of the proposed rule, these entities will incur costs associated with 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 submitting export notices. However, they will 

not incur subsequent costs related to physically exporting 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 recovery to their country’s authorities who forward these 

notices to EPA. This EA does not estimate costs impacts of the proposed rule for foreign exporters. 

However, if the country of export does not control the waste as a hazardous waste export, the proposed 

rule will require that the U.S. facility submit an import notice that requests consent from EPA on behalf of 

the foreign exporter. As with export notices, these import notices may cover multiple shipments of waste 

from the same foreign exporter to the same U.S. facility over a 12-month period. Canadian regulations 

require that exporters submit relevant 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 require 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. receiving facilities between 2011 and 2014, although 

 

40 See the below discussion of development costs for enhancements to WIETS in the section on Agency costs and cost savings. 

41 Communication with Laura Coughlan (EPA’s International and Transportation Branch) and Phuc Phan (EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation 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. receiving 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 approximately $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 typically 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 (approximately 5 percent of all foreign export notices) 

because U.S. receiving facilities have long-term contracts with foreign exporters and typically import the 

same wastes year after year. Thus, importers would 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 shipments 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 would experience a cost savings of $2,171. Exhibit 3-6 

reports the total costs and cost savings impacts 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 manager’s time, 1.8 hours of a technician’s time, and 0.1 hours of administrative time. On average, there 

are 719 data fields per export notice and 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 hours of a technician’s time, and 0.08 hours of administrative time from 

“Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 0976.16, 2013 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste 

Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification”, September 2012. 

46 Mailing costs for a standard letter include $0.49 for first class postage (www.usps.com) and the cost of an envelope ($0.03) (www.staples.com). 
EXHIBIT 3-6. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND COST SAVINGS ASSOCIATED WITH EXPORT AND IMPORT NOTICES ($2013) USING A DISCOUNT RATE

ENTITY TYPE (COUNTRY 

OF DESTINATION/ 

ORIGIN) 

[A]

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

ENTITIES1

[B] 

AVG. (MEAN) 

ANNUAL 

NUMBER OF 

NOTICES2

[C] 

AVG. (MEAN) 

NUMBER OF 

ONE-TIME 

NOTICES3

[D] 

AVG. (MEAN) 

NUMBER OF 

IMPORT 

MANIFESTS 

[E] 

ANNUALIZED 

COST PER NOTICE 

(COST SAVINGS 

FOR ONE-TIME 

NOTICES IN 

PARENTHESES) 

[F] 

ANNUALIZED 

COSTS 

(PER FACILITY) 

[G] 

ANNUALIZE

COST SAVIN

(PER FACILI

[H] 

Exporters (Canada) 326 2.6 N/A N/A $10.63 $27.12 $0 Exporters (Mexico) 24 1.4 N/A N/A $15.82 $22.56 $0 Exporters (Non-OECD) 2 1.0 N/A N/A $15.82 $15.82 $0 Exporters (OECD) 31 1.6 N/A N/A $0.56 $0.90 $0 Exporters (Other)4 318 2.4 N/A N/A Varies Varies $0 Importers (Canada) 35 3.4 0.2 69.1 ($37.48) $0 $57.54 Importers (Mexico)5 – 

costs associated with maquiladora shipments

11 9.1 N/A N/A $64.20 $583.62 $0 

Importers (Mexico)6 – 

cost savings associated with one-time notices

11 2.4 0.1 31.2 ($37.48) $0 $27.48 

Importers (Non-OECD) 3 1.6 0.1 37.0 ($37.48) $0 $30.45 Importers (OECD) 2 1.5 0.1 31.0 ($37.48) $0 $25.75 TOTAL 752 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Notes: 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 of one-time notices submitted by U.S. importer

all import notices received by EPA. 

4. The category “Exporters (Other)” indicates U.S. exporters (to any country) that submit notices but do not export any waste for the sam

U.S. EPA WIETS data, 2013. 

5. EPA estimates that U.S. receiving facilities will submit an average of 9.1 notices per year for maquiladora shipments. 

6. EPA received an average of 2.4 foreign export notices per U.S. receiving facility from non-maquiladora Mexican 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 cost 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 reports the total annualized costs associated with renotification under the proposed rule. 

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

RATE

ENTITY TYPE (COUNTRY 

OF DESTINATION/ORIGIN) 

[A]

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

ENTITIES1

[B] 

AVG. (MEAN) 

ANNUAL NUMBER 

OF NOTICES 

RESUBMITTED2

[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 Assurance 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, exporters 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 waste 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-notifications under 40 CFR Subparts E and H. 
3-13

The proposed rule will also require electronic submittal 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, the 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 mail 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 associated with electronic submittal is $2,098. Under 

the proposed rule, LQG exporters must also list OECD 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 also allow information (e.g., waste stream details) 

to be copied electronically from electronic export notices or from the U.S. Census Bureau’s AES, which 

could result in cost savings for some exporters. However, this EA does not estimate potential cost savings 

associated with electronic information sharing because EPA does not have precise data on the time 

savings associated with this activity. Exhibit 3-8 reports the costs and cost savings 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 

ENTITIES1

[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 waste must also submit any additional information to 

EPA requested by the country importing the waste. The proposed rule will not change this requirement or 

 

48 Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 0820.11 Hazardous Waste Generator Standards (Renewal), March 30, 2011. 

49 Includes postage for a 5 oz. package ($2.09) (http://www.stamps.com/whitepapers/2014-usps-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 submitted to EPA. Therefore, this EA estimates no change 

in exporter burden related to requirements for additional reports. 

Contracts 

Under the proposed rule, contracts must be signed 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 maintained. 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 contracts 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 eliminates 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 are already exempt from this requirement and are 

therefore not estimated to experience any impacts related to this requirement. Exhibit 3-9 reports total 

cost savings to exporters as a result of the 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 Exports and Imports of Hazardous Waste Destined for Recovery Among OECD Countries, Exports of Spent 

Lead-Acid Batteries from the U.S., and Import Consent Documentation: Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 2009. 
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 regulations, exporters must submit an exception report to EPA if either 

(1) a shipment of waste is returned to the United States, (2) written confirmation of receipt of the waste 

from the recovery facility is not received within 45 days from the date that 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 the 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 approximately $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 therefore are not factored in this EA. The shipping 

and materials-related cost savings are estimated based 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 from Canada, exporters may use the existing Canadian 

 

53 Based on figures from EPA’s International Compliance Assurance Division, provided by Phuc Phan of EPA’s Office of Resource Conservation and 

Recovery on June 5, 2014. 
3-16

movement document to fulfill this requirement. Similarly, 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 wastes 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 Mexico 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 requirement and will experience no additional cost burden to 

complete the document, but will incur costs to send 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 manager’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, the estimated burden is $1.18 in postage (for one 

international letter). 

The proposed rule also requires U.S. receiving facilities to submit movement documents electronically. 

This requires importers to provide an electronic signature, which imposes an additional burden of 30 

seconds per document (or $0.56). Electronic submission will 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 subject 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 Canada and Mexico will experience cost savings 

associated with electronic submittal of movement documents 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 movement 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 average 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 Hazardous Waste Generator Standards (Renewal), March 30, 2011. 

55 See discussion above in cost of materials. 
EXHIBIT 3-10. ANNUALIZED COSTS AND COST SAVINGS OF INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT/TRACKING DOCUMENT REQ

USING A 7 PERCENT DISCOUNT RATE

ENTITY TYPE (COUNTRY OF DESTINATION / 

ORIGIN) 

[A] 

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

ENTITIES 

[B] 

AVG. (MEAN) 

ANNUAL 

NUMBER OF 

AFFECTED 

SHIPMENTS 

PER FACILITY 

[C] 

ANNUALIZED 

COST PER 

SHIPMENT 

[D] 

ANNUALIZED 

COST 

(PER 

FACILITY) 

[E] 

ANNUALIZED 

COST 

SAVINGS 

(PER 

FACILITY) 

[F] 

Exporters (Canada) 0 0 $0 $0 $0 Exporters (Mexico) 24 964 $52.28 $50,371 $0 $1Exporters (Non-OECD) 2 13 $52.28 $680 $0 Exporters (OECD) 0 0 $0 $0 $0 Importers (Canada) 35 69 $1.73 $120 $0 Importers (Mexico) 11 31 $72.20 $2,251 $0 Importers (Non-OECD) 3 37 $72.20 $2,671 $0 Importers (OECD) 2 31 $0.56 $17 $16 TOTAL 77 N/A N/A N/A N/A $1Notes: 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 authority 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 change in burden as a result of the proposed rule. 

Fourteen U.S. importers are estimated to spend about 25 minutes per shipment from Mexico and nonOECD countries to prepare and send a confirmation of recovery 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 also requires the importer to submit this document to 

EPA electronically. This requires the importer to provide 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. Furthermore, under the proposed rule EPA will allow exporters or 

importers using a Canadian confirmation of recycling or disposal to use one document to list multiple 

shipments identified by their movement document number, waste line number, and the date of recycling 

or disposal. This may reduce the number of documents 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 primarily shipping costs rather than labor costs. 

However, any cost savings are uncertain. 

Exporters to Canada, Mexico, and non-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 administrative time, or approximately $3.61 per shipment.58 Exhibit 3-11 

reports the total annualized costs of the confirmation of recovery or disposal requirements. 

 

56 Hourly burden based on Cost Assessment for the Final Rule on Exports and Imports of Hazardous Waste Destined for Recovery Among OECD 

Countries, Exports of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries from the U.S., and Import Consent Documentation: Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 2009. 

57 Burden estimate based on Cost Assessment for the Final Rule on Exports and Imports of Hazardous Waste Destined for Recovery among OECD 

Countries, Exports of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries from the U.S., and Import Consent Documentation: Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 2009. 

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 completed, the primary exporter must (1) re-notify EPA 

of any changes specified in the initial notification sent to EPA, (2) instruct the transporter to either return 

the shipment to the exporter or to an alternative facility 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 import or transit that the shipment must be returned. 

Since the proposed rule does not change the existing industry 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 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 from Canada, Mexico, and non-OECD countries subject 

to the additional limitation of samples weighing no more than 25kg to be exempt from export and import 

requirements. As a result, currently-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. 
3-20

While the change in the number of exempted shipments is uncertain, this EA assumes that four 

previously-exempted shipments (two export shipments 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 result in $111 in total annual costs for exporters and $190 

in total annual costs for importers. However, exporters will also save $9.23 each year by avoiding 

requirements related to the AOC document. Transporters will experience approximately $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 wastes 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 subject 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 Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery on May 8, 2014. 

60 Cost Assessment for the Final Rule on Exports and Imports of Hazardous Waste Destined for Recovery Among OECD Countries, Exports of Spent 

Lead-Acid Batteries from the U.S., and Import Consent Documentation: Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 2009. 

61 U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics, “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 additional 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 for 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 estimates that these exporters are filing in AES for all 

shipments under current Census regulations. Therefore, 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 their authorized state agency or EPA regional office 

(for states that do not issue EPA ID numbers) requesting 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 are recognized traders, suggesting that about four recognized traders will be 

impacted by the proposed rule. This EA assumes the 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 traders 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 significant cost for EPA will be the development and 

maintenance of the electronic submittal system. These 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 enhancements 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 takes approximately three minutes to file an AES record. Including automated Canadian import data, AES 

received approximately 98.5 percent of its information from automated sources. Supporting Statement, U.S. Department of Commerce, 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 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste 

Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification, September 2012. 

64 EPA cost estimates for the development and operation & maintenance of the electronic system are from the Word document “EPA FTEs 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 January 15, 

2015. This information is attached as Appendix B of this EA. The Agency costs for the 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 further estimates that the recurring O&M costs for the 

enhancements to WIETS will be between $96,750 and $161,250 per year after its development. Finally, 

EPA estimates that it will require between approximately 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 receive and process documents from importing and exporting 

facilities that were not previously regulated under various provisions of the rule. Specifically EPA will 

need to (a) receive and record international movement documents, (b) receive and maintain confirmation 

of recovery and disposal provided by recovery facilities, and (c) process requests for EPA ID numbers 

from recognized traders (for locations 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 entering notice data prior to processing notices. 

Exporters and importers that trade with Mexico and 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 documents 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 confirmation of recovery or disposal for hazardous waste 

shipments between the United States and Canada, Mexico, 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 information collection request number 0820.11, hazardous waste generator standards (renewal), March 30, 2011. 

67 Cost Assessment for the Final Rule on Exports and Imports of Hazardous Waste Destined for Recovery Among OECD Countries, Exports of Spent 

Lead-Acid Batteries from the U.S., and Import Consent Documentation, May 2009, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, Office of Solid 

Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

68 Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 0976.16, “2013 Hazardous Waste Report, Notification of Regulated Waste 

Activity, and Part A Hazardous Waste Permit Application and Modification,” September 19, 2012. 

69 Requests for an EPA ID number will only go to EPA if the recognized trader is located in a state that does not have an authorized agency that 

issues EPA ID numbers. As these costs are small, for illustrative purposes they are included as Agency costs in this EA. However, 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 located 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 exporter 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 associated 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 experience a cost savings of 1,000 hours per year for 

avoided inquiries and 1,684 hours per 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 reduce the time required for staff to manually enter 

information from export annual reports into WIETS. Specifically, 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 year. Therefore, after the promulgation of the rule, 

this EA estimates that Agency staff will experience a cost savings of 1,512 hours for avoided data entry 

associated with export annual reports. Therefore, the 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 associated 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 Annual 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 associated with the movement document and the 

confirmation of recovery/disposal requirements. Agency 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 Destined 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 broker is located in a state that does not have an authorized agency that issues EPA ID 

numbers. As these costs are small, for illustrative purposes they are included as Agency costs in this EA. However, a portion of 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, and 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 exhibit, 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 THE 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 time 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 years, 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 proposed 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 seven percent (see 

OMB, Circular A-4, 2003). 
3-26

results may be sensitive to the selection of the discount 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 Destined 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 analysis are subject to several uncertainties, many of 

which were noted above. Additional 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 importers 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 relatively less common. Alternatively, facilities may 
3-27

experience greater cost savings than are quantified in this chapter, which may result in lower 

transaction costs and greater trade of hazardous materials with foreign nations. 

 Market characteristics of industry sector 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 analytic baseline, such affects may yield more or 

fewer entities involved in international trade or the number and volume of shipments. 

 Importer- and exporter-specific characteristics 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 available to incorporate such considerations into the 

estimation of costs. Therefore, while costs are estimated 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 shipments (and notices) per entity. Thus, the average per 

entity cost estimates reported in this EA may either 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 ultimate disposal of those wastes. Tracking where wastes are generated 

and moved can help assure that wastes are not misplaced, 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 mechanisms for communication and coordination among the 

regulatory entities of the different nations involved in these transactions (e.g., improved coordination 

between EPA and CBP on export shipments). 

Chapter 3 describes the costs and cost savings associated with the proposed Hazardous Waste ExportImport Revisions Rule. 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 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 qualitative benefits that cannot be quantified. First, it 

describes human health benefits due to increased compliance with existing regulations. Then, it describes 

benefits associated with increased regulatory efficiency as well as improved monitoring and information 

tracking. 

HUMAN HEALTH BENEFITS FROM INCREASED COMPLIANCE WITH EXISTING REGULATIONS 

The proposed rulemaking will provide human health benefits by curtailing undocumented exports of 

SLABs from the United States. The United States currently 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 manner consistent with the standards of the importing 

country. 

There is evidence that some exporters of SLABs are 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/hazard/international/exports2.htm on February 5, 2015. 
4-2

for in EPA data.73 It is likely that many, if not all, of these shipments were made without the consent of 

the importing country because EPA currently seeks 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 undocumented, un-consensual exports.

The proposed rule will make it difficult to export wastes, including SLABs, without receiving prior 

consent from importing countries. It will require exporters 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 reducing the harm due to lead exposure in countries 

that receive undocumented, un-consented shipments of SLABs, as these shipments are likely treated 

under conditions below those required by the receiving countries. 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 adults, and behavioral problems, brain damage, and liver and kidney 

damage in children.76

BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED REGULATORY EFFICIENCY 

The proposed Hazardous Waste Export-Import Revisions Rule 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 into 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 manifests, and OECD movement documents. This 

requirement enables EPA to more precisely monitor 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 likelihood 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/hazard/international/exports2.htm on February 5, 2015. 

75 Secretariat of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Hazardous Trade? An Examination of US-generated Spent Lead-Acid Battery Exports 

and Secondary Lead Recycling in Canada, Mexico, and the United States, April 2013, accessed at http://www3.cec.org/islandora/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/superfund/lead/health.htm accessed on February 5, 2015. 
4-3

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

Implementation of the proposed rule enables greater oversight by EPA and the other countries on 

the individual import and export shipments, and requires timely disposal or recovery of the waste 

shipment within one year of shipment delivery. 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 environmental controls. EPA will also be able to share these 

electronically submitted data with the states and 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., greater 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 import related requirements more consistent with current importexport requirements required for shipments between OECD countries. This would ensure that the 

procedures required for OECD shipments would apply to all imports and exports of hazardous 

waste (including SLABs). It would also remove requirements that are duplicative or inconsistent 

with OECD procedures. 

Furthermore, while not a direct benefit of the proposed 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 labor burden associated with electronic submittal; (2) 

elimination of the need to call an EPA notice officer 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 reports due to using data from export notices or AES. These costs savings 

are not reflected in the EA because EPA does not have relevant data to quantify these benefits. EPA 

requests public comments on the benefits discussed in this chapter. 

 

77 Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Practices and Options for Environmentally Sound Management of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries within 

North America, December 2007, accessed at http://www3.cec.org/islandora/en/item/2323-practices-and-options-environmentally-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 Orders, 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 quantification of costs and benefits 

of regulating with and without the proposed rule; 

 Regulatory flexibility: focuses on the potential effects of the proposed rule on small entities; 

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

 Unfunded mandates: examines the implications of the proposed rule with respect to unfunded 

mandates; 

 Federalism: considers potential issues related to state sovereignty; 

 Tribal governments: extends the discussion of federal unfunded mandates to include impacts on 

Native American tribal governments 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 Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), must determine whether 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 million or more or adversely affect in a material 

way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, 

public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; 

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another 

agency; 
5-2

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 

rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the 

principles set forth in the Executive Order. 

Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, as affirmed in Executive Order 13563, the Agency has 

determined that this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action because it contains novel policy 

issues, as defined under part 3(f)(4) of the Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866. Any changes made in 

response to OMB recommendations have been documented 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 discount rate or $2.24 million using a 3 percent discount 

rate. This is significantly below the $100 million threshold 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 some costs and benefits are difficult to quantify, 

propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 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 certain 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 exports 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., generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 

flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice 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 significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. Based on EPA’s RFA/SBREFA analytic guidance, 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 entities affected by the rule 

as small and assess impacts for these entities. As described in previous chapters of this EA, however, 

detailed data necessary for the assessment 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 percentage of all firms in their respective industries 

(thus, industry-wide data may not be generally representative 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 Insideview.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 all 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-wide 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 (“Specialized freight (except Used Goods) Trucking LongDistance”). 

In the absence of company-specific information, this EA utilizes the average 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 impacts. 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 exporters 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 relies 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 concern.” Small Business Size Standards are specified 

for individual 6-digit NAICS codes, and defined by either annual revenues or number of 

employees depending on the industry. These size standards were compared against the company 

financial or employment data described 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 Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, 

November 2006. 

80 SBA’s small business size standards accessed at http://www.sba.gov/content/small-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 affected entity of the proposed 

rule are presented in Chapter 3. To be conservative, 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 represented by exporters and importers of hazardous waste and 

the relevant small business size standard for each industry. More than 60 industries are identified (using 

6-digit NAICS codes). The small business size standards range from less than $7 million to less than 

$35.5 million in annual revenues or less than 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 STANDARD1

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 1,000 
5-6

NAICS 

CODE NAICS DEFINITION 

TYPES OF 

ENTITIES 

IDENTIFIED 

SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD1

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 10.0 
5-7

NAICS 

CODE NAICS DEFINITION 

TYPES OF 

ENTITIES 

IDENTIFIED 

SMALL BUSINESS SIZE STANDARD1

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/small-business-size-standards on 

January 22, 2014.

Exhibit 5-2 shows that there are 299 U.S. firms exporting hazardous waste, of which approximately 33 

percent are small entities according to SBA’s small business 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 that 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 materials for sending documents to EPA prior to the full 

implementation of the electronic submittal system. Therefore, to assess whether the 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 annualized 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 annual revenues to make this determination. 

The exhibit shows that the average costs of the proposed 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 with, 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 overstates 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 

ESTABLISHMENTS1

PERCENTAGE OF 

ESTABLISHMENTS 

THAT ARE 

CONSIDERED “SMALL 

BUSINESSES” 

NUMBER OF 

SMALL 

ENTITIES 

AVERAGE ANNUAL 

REVENUES FOR 

SMALL ENTITIES 

($2013, MILLIONS) 

Exporters2 299 378 33% 125 $8.2 

Importers2 34 45 43% 19 $28.7 

Transporters3 564 564 80% 451 $1.9 

Recognized 

Traders4 4 4 30% 1 $1.6 

Notes: 

1. U.S. EPA Export and Import 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 likely 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 firm was determined to be a large multinational company with annual 

revenues exceeding $40 billion, owning two U.S. exporters 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 percent 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) – Large1 2 $411,163 N/A N/A 

Exporters (Mexico) – Small2 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 reports the estimated costs for two entities that were 

determined to be owned by a large multinational company with annual revenues exceeding $40 billion based 

on D&B data. For these exporters, the first year costs of the proposed rule are less than 0.01 percent of 

annual revenues. 

2. The shaded “Exporters (Mexico) – Small” row reports the average costs per entity excluding one outlier firm 

(two exporters) that accounts for approximately 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 exporters may not be owned by small businesses. However, financial data are not 

available for all potentially affected entities 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 employment impacts of regulatory policy. Specifically, 

Executive Order 13563 states, “Our regulatory system must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our 

environment while promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.” 

Consistent with the requirements of the Executive Order, this EA considers the employment impacts of 

the proposed rule. Ideally, this EA would include 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 quality. Meeting this new demand can result in increased demand for the various 

factors of production (including labor) available to the 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 demand for labor and other factors of production used to 
5-10

produce the market output. Thus, as described in Morgenstern, Pizer, and Shih (2002), the net effect of an 

environmental regulation on employment in regulated sectors and the overall economy is indeterminate.82

The costs imposed on directly regulated sectors may raise production costs and put some specific jobs at 

risk, while at the same time environmental regulation 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 rulemaking 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 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 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 Statement” 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 assessment 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 economy such as productivity, economic growth, 

employment, job creation, international competitiveness; and 

5. Description and summary of agency’s prior consultation 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 transporters 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 Versus 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 state 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 have substantial direct effects on states, on the relationship between the 

federal government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

Pursuant to the consultation process of Executive Order 13132, this section evaluates whether the 

proposed rule may “impose substantial direct compliance costs” on state and local governments. EPA’s 

2008 guidance for compliance with Executive Order 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 does not estimate any costs of the proposed rule for 

state and local governments because there are no direct costs anticipated for state agencies and no 

government-owned entities were identified in the regulated universe. Thus, the proposed rule would not 

result in substantial direct compliance costs, as defined in the EPA guidance, for entities owned by state 

and local governments. 

EPA does not estimate that the proposed rule would 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 “Consultation and Coordination with Indian 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 proposed 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 environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and 

 

83 The two methods are from “EPA’s Action Development Process -- Guidance on Executive 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 populations 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 of hazardous waste, thus benefiting minority and lowincome populations. As the rule encourages environmentally sound recovery of hazardous wastes, it will 

likely reduce the risks associated with treatment, disposal, and recovery. In addition, by strengthening 

notification, tracking, and reporting requirements, the proposed rule will ensure that hazardous wastes are 

managed at facilities with appropriate technologies and controls. 

CHILDREN’S HEALTH PROTECTION ANALYSIS 

Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children 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 disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory 

action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the 

planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially 

effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. 

EPA does not anticipate that the proposed rule would lead to a disproportionate negative impact on 

children. As described in the Environmental Justice section above, the rule improves the information 

available to EPA through notification, tracking, and reporting requirements, and provides for 

environmentally sound disposal and recovery. Therefore, EPA expects that the rule would reduce adverse 

impacts on children’s health, both in the United 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 Order, 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 energy production or consumption. In addition, with 

annualized net costs of approximately $1.77 million per year, this rule is not considered an economically 

significant action under Executive Order 12866. 

Changes in the management of hazardous waste resulting from the proposed rule are not expected to 

significantly impact energy production or distribution, as these changes relate only to reporting. More 

stringent reporting requirements may lead to changes in the management practices of hazardous waste in 

foreign countries, although the effect of these changes on energy use and generation is uncertain and 

likely to be minimal. Aside from the potential change 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 energy 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. Combined, the proposed change to the import-export 

requirements 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. 
A-1

APPENDIX A | COST IMPACTS BY YEAR 
EXHIBIT 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 

2015 $130,288 $23,918 $51,308 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $32016 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $32017 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $32018 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $32019 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $32020 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $32021 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $32022 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $32023 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $32024 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $32025 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $32026 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $32027 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $32028 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $32029 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $32030 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $32031 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $32032 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $32033 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $32034 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $3

Total (Undiscounted) $130,288 $79,298 $454,163 $3,285 $4,229 $0 $0 $0 $223 $24,945,821 $3,830,571 $0 $6,40Present 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 $4,90Present 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 $3,63Annualized (3% discount rate) $8,502 $4,285 $23,168 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $32Annualized (7% discount rate) $11,494 $4,768 $23,859 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $32
EXHIBIT 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 

2015 $130,288 $23,918 $51,308 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 2016 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 2017 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 2018 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 2019 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 2020 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 2021 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 2022 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 2023 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 2024 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 2025 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 2026 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 2027 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 2028 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 2029 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 2030 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 2031 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 2032 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 2033 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 2034 $0 $2,915 $21,203 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 

Total (Undiscounted) $130,288 $79,298 $454,163 $3,285 $4,229 $0 $0 $0 $223 $24,945,821 $3,830,571 $0 $6,405 Present 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 

Present 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 

Annualized (3% discount rate) $8,502 $4,285 $23,168 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 Annualized (7% discount rate) $11,494 $4,768 $23,859 $164 $211 $0 $0 $0 $11 $1,247,291 $191,529 $0 $320 
EXHIBIT A-3: COST SAVINGS OF THE PROPOSED RULE BY 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 

2015 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $2016 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $2017 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $2018 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $2019 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $2020 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $2021 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $2022 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $2023 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $2024 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $2025 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $2026 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $2027 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $2028 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $2029 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $2030 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $2031 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $2032 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $2033 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $2034 $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $

Total (Undiscounted) $0 $0 $49,180 $0 $41,957 $0 $9,002,057 $208 $645 $645 $0 $36Present Value Total (3% discount rate) $0 $0 $37,681 $0 $32,147 $0 $6,897,285 $159 $494 $494 $0 $28Present Value Total (7% discount rate) $0 $0 $27,874 $0 $23,780 $0 $5,102,184 $118 $365 $365 $0 $20Annualized (3% discount rate) $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $1Annualized (7% discount rate) $0 $0 $2,459 $0 $2,098 $0 $450,103 $10 $32 $32 $0 $1
B-1

APPENDIX B | EPA COST ESTIMATES FOR ENHANCEMENTS TO WIETS 

PURPOSE 

The costs provided below are conservative estimates 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 WIETS/Customs (ACE-ITDS) interface.84

NOTE: Cost estimates do not reflect WCF for 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 above) 

• 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 document 

entitled “EPA FTEs and Costs for import-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 alternate 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 FTEs, 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-system export notice submission] 

- Annual O&M: $195K - $324K 

[+ Optional $11.25K – 18.75K for system-to-system export notice submission]