SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR 

EPA INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUEST NUMBER 2382.01 

REPORTING AND RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPOSED 

RULE ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF NON-HAZARDOUS SECONDARY 

MATERIALS THAT ARE SOLID WASTE

Economics and Risk Analysis Staff 

Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N. W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

April 13, 2010 
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION........................................1 

1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection .....................................................1 

1(b) Short Characterization .............................................................................................1 

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION...............................................................2 

2(a) Need and Authority for the Collection.....................................................................2 

2(b) Practical Utility and Users of the Data ....................................................................2 

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER 

 COLLECTION CRITERIA ................................................................................................2 

3(a) Nonduplication.........................................................................................................2 

3(b) Public Notice............................................................................................................2

3(c) Consultations............................................................................................................3

3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection.........................................................................3 

3(e) General Guidelines...................................................................................................3 

3(f) Confidentiality .........................................................................................................3 

3(g) Sensitive Questions..................................................................................................3 

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED.................................4 

4(a) Respondents and NAICS Codes ..............................................................................4 

4(b) Information Requested.............................................................................................5 

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED -- AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION 

METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT.........................................6 

5(a) Agency Activities.....................................................................................................6 

5(b) Small Entity Flexibility............................................................................................6 

6. ESTIMATING THE HOUR AND COST BURDEN OF THE COLLECTION.................7 

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden................................................................................7 

6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs ..................................................................................7 

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs .....................................................................8 

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs .........................8 

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs...................................................................10 

6(f) Reason for Change in Burden................................................................................11 

6(g) Burden Statement...................................................................................................11 
ii 

EXHIBITS 

Exhibit 1: Estimated Respondent Burden and Cost......................................................................13 

Exhibit 2: Estimated Agency Burden and Cost ............................................................................14 

Exhibit 3: Estimated Average Burden per Respondent ................................................................15 
1 

1. IDENTIFICATION OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTION 

1(a) Title and Number of the Information Collection 

This information Collection Request (ICR) is entitled “Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements for the Proposed Rule on The Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary 

Materials That Are Solid Waste,” EPA ICR Number 2382.01. 

1(b) Short Characterization 

Section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the promulgation of regulations to 

control emissions of specific hazardous air pollutants from “major sources” within defined 

source categories.1,2 One such regulation, promulgated in September 2004, is the National 

Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional 

Boilers and Process Heaters (the “Boilers Rule”), which established Maximum Achievable 

Control Technology (MACT) standards for this source category. Section 129 of the CAA 

directed EPA to promulgate regulations to control emissions of nine specified pollutants from 

“solid waste incineration units.” EPA did so in December 2000 with the publication of the final 

Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing 

Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units (the “CISWI Rule”). Units 

regulated under Section 129 cannot be subject to any rule promulgated under Section 112. 

In September 2005, in response to a subsequent petition for reconsideration, EPA 

amended the CISWI Rule when it promulgated revised definitions for “solid waste,” 

“commercial or industrial waste,” and “commercial and industrial solid waste incineration unit” 

(the “CISWI Definitions Rule”). As part of the CISWI Definitions Rule, EPA made a distinction 

between solid waste incinerators and boilers, characterizing the former as units that are designed 

and operated to discard materials through high temperature combustion. However, EPA excluded 

from the definition of a solid waste incinerator those units designed to recover energy for “useful 

purposes such as steam generation or process heating.” 

In July 2007, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated and 

remanded to EPA both the CISWI Definitions Rule and the Boilers Rule. In vacating the 

definitions rule, the Court noted that, despite the potential reasonableness of the functional 

distinction between boilers and incinerators, the CAA is unambiguous in its requirement that 

EPA regulate any commercial or industrial incinerator that combusts any solid waste material, as 

a solid waste incineration unit regardless of whether the waste is burned as a “fuel.” The Court 

also concluded that EPA erred in excluding from the CISWI Definitions Rule units that combust 

solid waste for the purposes of energy recovery and including these units in the Boilers Rule. In 

 1 A “major source” is any stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit considering controls, in 

the aggregate, at least 10 tons per year of any hazardous air pollutant or at least 25 tons per year of any combination 

of hazardous air pollutants. 

2 The Clean Air Act also requires EPA to identify and list the area source categories (sources that are not 

major sources) that represent 90 percent of the emissions of the 30 urban air toxics associated with area sources and 

subject them to standards under the Section 112(d) of the Act. EPA’s Urban Air Toxics Strategy is summarized in 

Federal Register, Vol 64, No. 137, 38706, July 19, 1999. 
2 

short, revision to the Definitions Rule necessitates a revision to the Boilers Rule as well, since 

the former will result in a different set of units that will be subject to the latter. 

EPA’s response to the Court’s decision requires a clear determination of which nonhazardous, “secondary materials”3

 constitute RCRA Subtitle D “solid waste” in order to clarify 

when the combustion of these materials would be regulated pursuant to CAA Section 129 (as 

opposed to potential regulation under Section 112 if a combustion unit burns materials that are 

not solid waste when combusted). Thus, EPA has developed the Proposed Rule for the 

identification of non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid waste. 

This ICR is a description of the information collection requirements for combustion units 

that use non-hazardous secondary materials that are solid wastes. 

2. NEED FOR AND USE OF THE COLLECTION 

2(a) Need and Authority for the Collection 

The requirements covered in this ICR are necessary for EPA to identify non-hazardous 

secondary materials that are solid waste when combusted and to enforce Sections 112 and 129 of 

the Clean Air Act. EPA is proposing the establishment of these information collection 

requirements under the authority of Subtitle D of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

(RCRA). 

2(b) Practical Utility and Users of the Data 

EPA will use the collected information to ensure that non-hazardous secondary materials 

that are solid wastes are managed as such and that combustion units that use these materials are 

regulated under Section 129 of the Clean Air Act. In particular, EPA will use information 

collected pursuant to the Proposed Rule’s petition process requirements to assess whether the 

materials included in each petition are solid wastes. 

3. NONDUPLICATION, CONSULTATIONS, AND OTHER COLLECTION 

CRITERIA 

3(a) Nonduplication 

None of the information required by the Proposed Rule would duplicate information 

required by existing RCRA regulations. 

3(b) Public Notice 

In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, EPA will open a 45 day public 

comment period at the time that this Proposed Rule is published in the Federal Register. To 

 3

 A “secondary material” is any material that is not the primary product of a manufacturing or commercial 

process, including but not limited to post-consumer material, post-industrial material, and scrap. 
3 

assist the public in commenting on the proposal, EPA raised a number of issues in the preamble 

to the Proposed Rule and asked for the public to comment on them. At the end of the comment 

period, EPA will review public comments received in response to the notice and will address 

comments received, as appropriate. 

3(c) Consultations

EPA consulted and collected information from interested parties over the course of 

several months to support the Proposed Rule. EPA solicited and received comments on the 

Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and addresses these comments in the preamble to the 

Proposed Rule.4 EPA also met and communicated with industry associations, generators and 

users of the materials potentially affected by the rule, as well as other interested parties. The 

summaries of the meetings and telephone conversations with interested parties are available in 

the docket for the Proposed Rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329). 

 3(d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection

EPA has carefully considered the burden imposed upon the regulated community by the 

Proposed Rule. EPA is confident that those activities required of respondents are necessary, and 

to the extent possible, the Agency has attempted to minimize the burden imposed. EPA believes 

strongly that, if the minimum information collection requirements of the Proposed Rule are not 

met, neither industry nor EPA will be able to ensure that non-hazardous secondary materials that 

are solid wastes are managed in a manner that is protective of human health and the 

environment. 

3(e) General Guidelines

This ICR adheres to the guidelines stated in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 

OMB’s implementing regulations, EPA’s ICR Handbook, and other applicable OMB guidance. 

3(f) Confidentiality

Section 3007(b) of RCRA and 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B, which defines EPA’s general 

policy on public disclosure of information, contain provisions for confidentiality. However, the 

Agency does not anticipate that businesses will assert a claim of confidentiality covering all or 

part of the Proposed Rule. If such a claim is asserted, EPA must and will treat the information in 

accordance with the regulations cited above. EPA also will assure that this information 

collection complies with the Privacy Act of 1974 and OMB Circular 108. 

3(g) Sensitive Questions

No questions of a sensitive nature are included in the information collection requirements 

associated with the Proposed Rule. 

 4

 The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available in Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 1, January 2, 

2009, pp. 41-61. 
4 

4. THE RESPONDENTS AND THE INFORMATION REQUESTED 

4(a) Respondents and NAICS Codes

The following is a list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 

codes associated with the facilities most likely to be affected by the information collection 

requirements covered in this ICR. 

NAICS NAICS Category 

111 Crop Production 

113 Forestry and Logging 

114 Fishing, Hunting, and Trapping 

115 Support Activities for Agriculture and Forestry 

211 Oil and Gas Extraction 

212 Mining (Except Oil and Gas) 

221 Utilities 

237 Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction 

311 Food Manufacturing 

312 Beverage and Tobacco Product Manufacturing 

313 Textile Mills 

314 Textile Product Mills 

316 Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing 

321 Wood Product Manufacturing 

322 Paper Manufacturing 

323 Printing and Related Support Activities 

324 Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing 

325 Chemical Manufacturing 

326 Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing 

327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Manufacturing 

331 Primary Metal Manufacturing 

332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 

333 Machinery Manufacturing 

334 Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing 

335 Electrical Equipment, Appliance and Component Manufacturing 

336 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing 

337 Furniture and Related Product Manufacturing 

339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing 

423 Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods 

424 Nondurable Goods Merchant Wholesalers 

441 Motor Vehicle and Parts Dealers 

446 Health and Personal Care Stores 

451 Sporting Good, Hobby, Book and Music Stores 

481 Air Transportation 

482 Rail Transportation 

486 Pipeline Transportation 

488 Support Activities for Transportation 

493 Warehousing and Storage 

522 Credit Intermediation and Related Activities 

541 Professional, Scientific and Technical Services 

561 Administrative and Support Services 

562 Waste Management and Remediation Services 

611 Educational Services 
5 

NAICS NAICS Category 

622 Hospitals 

721 Accommodation 

811 Repair and Maintenance 

921 Public Administration 

928 Public Administration 

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers 

regarding entities likely to be impacted by this action. 

4(b) Information Requested 

This section describes information collection requirements applicable to entities that 

would be affected by the Proposed Rule. 

Petition Process 

(i) Data items: 

Under the Proposed Rule, the Administrator may grant a non-waste determination that a 

non-hazardous secondary material fuel that has not been managed within the control of the generator has 

not been discarded, and is indistinguishable in all relevant aspects from a fuel product, and thus, is not a 

solid waste when used as a fuel in a combustion unit. To receive consideration, a petitioner must 

request a case-specific non-waste determination. While the process is voluntary, it requires the 

petitioner to provide information describing how the secondary materials satisfy the legitimacy 

criteria, along with analysis of certain market, human and environmental health, and other 

factors. 

 (ii) Respondent activities: 

In order for EPA to grant the non-waste determination, a petitioner must show (1) 

evidence of the material’s treatment in the marketplace as a fuel, product, or intermediate rather 

than a waste; (2) evidence that the secondary material’s chemical and physical characteristics are 

comparable to commercial fuels, products, or intermediates; (3) the market’s capacity to use the 

material in a reasonable time frame; and (4) evidence that the material’s constituents are not 

discarded to the air, water, or land, from the point of generation to the combustion of the 

secondary material, at significantly higher levels than would otherwise be released (from both a 

statistical perspective and an environmental and health risk perspective). 

Notification 

The Proposed Rule does not contain any notification requirements. 

Rule Familiarization (Reading the Regulations) 

(i) Data items: 
6 

None. 

(ii) Respondent activities: 

 It is expected that entities potentially affected by the Proposed Rule will read it to assess 

how it may affect their operations. 

Title V Permitting 

In addition, under the Proposed Rule, some combustion units that are currently regulated 

under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act will be regulated under Section 129. For a limited 

number of units, this change in regulatory status could potentially trigger the permitting 

requirements of Title V of the Clean Air Act. 

Title V permitting requirements apply to all major emissions sources, cement kilns, and 

electric arc furnace steelmaking facilities/units.5

 Therefore, many of the units potentially 

affected by the rule are already required to obtain a Title V permit. The data available to the 

Agency do not indicate that any units will be newly subject to the Title V permitting requirement 

as a result of the Proposed Rule. Therefore, this ICR does not examine any activities associated 

with Title V permitting. 

5. THE INFORMATION COLLECTED—AGENCY ACTIVITIES, COLLECTION 

METHODOLOGY, AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 

5(a) Agency Activities 

As discussed above, EPA is proposing a self-implementing approach that requires 

facilities to determine whether a given material meets EPA’s proposed non-waste criteria. The 

Agency is also proposing the establishment of a petition process under which facilities may seek 

clarity on whether the materials that they burn are considered solid wastes. Therefore, under this 

proposal EPA will process and review the petitions of facilities seeking non-waste 

determinations and decide whether the information provided in each petition warrants a nonwaste determination.

Because the Proposed Rule contains no notification requirements, the Agency will not 

engage in notification review under the rule. 

5(b) Small Entity Flexibility 

The self-implementing approach for non-waste determinations proposed by EPA would 

provide small entities with flexibility to minimize their information collection burdens under the 

Proposed Rule. Under this approach, small entities would not be required to submit any 

 5 40 CFR Part 270 includes detailed information on the requirements of the Title V permitting program. 
7 

paperwork to EPA or state agencies and would have the flexibility to develop their own 

individualized approaches for determining whether the materials that they burn meet the nonwaste criteria included in the Proposed Rule. 

6. ESTIMATING THE HOUR AND COST BURDEN OF THE COLLECTION 

6(a) Estimating Respondent Burden

 In Exhibit 1, EPA estimates the respondent burden associated with the new paperwork 

requirements in the Proposed Rule. As shown in the Exhibit, EPA estimates that the total onetime respondent burden for the new requirements in the rule varies between 1 hour per year (per 

respondent) and approximately 703 hours per year (per respondent), depending on whether the 

facility incurs solely rule familiarization costs, or whether it also incurs petition process costs. 

 6(b) Estimating Respondent Costs 

Exhibit 1 summarizes the total costs of the information collection activities associated 

with the Proposed Rule. As indicated in the exhibit, these range from $64 per respondent for 

rule familiarization to $71,440 for the petition process for non-waste determinations. Where 

applicable, these cost estimates reflect the cost of labor as well as operations and maintenance 

(O&M) costs. 

Labor Costs 

For purposes of this analysis, EPA estimates an average hourly respondent labor cost of 

$94 for legal staff, $73 for managerial staff, $47 for technical staff, and $26 for clerical staff. 

These hourly labor costs were obtained from the following sources: 

• Hourly Wage: Bureau of Labor Statistics, occupational earnings data for 2008.6

• Benefits Percentage: U.S. Department of Labor data on benefits as a percentage 

of total compensation.7

• Overhead: Expressed as a percent of wages, as summarized in the regulatory 

impact analysis for the 2008 Definition of Solid Waste Final Rule.8 

 6

 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational earnings tables: United States, December 2007 – January 2009 

(average reference date July 2008), Table 3 Full-time civilian workers: Mean and median hourly, weekly, and 

annual earnings and mean weekly and annual hours, accessed at 

http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ncswage2008.htm#Wage_Tables, October 28, 2009. 

7

 U.S. Department of Labor, "Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—June 2009," USDL 09-1098, 

September 10, 2009. Derived from percent of total compensation breakout for "civilian workers" as presented in 

Table 2. 

8

 U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis USEPA’s 2008 Final Rule Amendments To The Industrial 

Recycling Exclusions Of the RCRA Definition Of Solid Waste, September 25, 2008. Exhibit B-1. 
8 

Annual Capital and Operation & Maintenance Costs

Capital costs usually include any produced physical good necessary to provide the 

required information, such as machinery, computers, and other equipment. EPA does not 

anticipate that respondents will incur capital costs in carrying out the information collection 

requirements of the Proposed Rule. 

O&M costs are those costs associated with materials and services procured for the 

information collection requirements included in the ICR. For this ICR, O&M costs may include 

material testing for the petition process, as well as the costs of supplies used in the preparation of 

each petition (e.g., photocopies). 

6(c) Estimating Agency Burden and Costs

Exhibit 2 below presents the estimated Agency burden and costs associated with the 

requirements covered in this ICR. We estimate that EPA would incur a one-time cost of 

approximately $40,300 per respondent for the petition process. 

6(d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs 

Respondent Universe 

The number of affected entities varies by information collection activity, as summarized 

below: 

Rule Familiarization: EPA estimates that 1,461 facilities will incur rule familiarization 

costs under the Proposed Rule. This estimate is based upon information compiled by 

EPA on the non-hazardous secondary materials burned by individual combustion units 

potentially affected by either of the following rulemakings: (1) the proposed Standards of 

Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration (CISWI) Units (the CISWI Rule); 

and (2) the proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (the major source Boilers 

Rule).9,10 

Petition Process: EPA assumes that those facilities that currently burn secondary 

materials considered to be waste under the Proposed Rule will undergo the petition 

process for non-waste determination if the material is not burned within the control of the 

 9

 U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Draft combustor database in support of the 

proposed CISWI Rule, April 14, 2009 and U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Draft 

combustor database in support of the proposed major source Boilers Rule, March 20, 2009. 

10 EPA is also issuing proposed National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area 

Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers (the area source Boilers Rule). The vast majority of such 

units, however, are not designed to burn secondary materials and will therefore not be affected by the proposed 

NHSM rule. 
9 

generator. Based on the unit-level information compiled by EPA for the proposed CISWI 

Rule and the proposed major source Boilers Rule, the Agency estimates that a total of 

168 facilities will submit petitions to the Agency.11 

Respondent Burden and Cost

Based on the universe data presented above, EPA estimates the respondent burden 

associated with all of the new information collection requirements covered in this ICR in Exhibit 

1. A discussion of the assumptions used in developing these burden estimates follows. 

Rule Familiarization

As shown in Exhibit 1, EPA estimates that 1,461 potentially affected facilities will read 

the rule. Based on the ICR for another recent RCRA rulemaking, we estimate that the per 

facility burden for rule familiarization is one hour and that the cost per facility for rule 

familiarization is $64.12 

Petition Process

As shown in Exhibit 1, EPA estimates that 168 potentially affected facilities will file 

petitions for non-waste determinations. Specifically, EPA assumes that all facilities that burn 

non-hazardous secondary materials considered to be solid waste when combusted under the 

Proposed Rule will file petitions for non-waste determinations. Similar to reading the 

regulations, it is assumed that this represents a one-time cost per facility. 

We estimate the burden and cost of the petition process based on the estimated burden 

and cost for existing petition processes whereby parties may request exclusions similar to the 

non-waste determinations established in the Proposed Rule. For example, the Supporting 

Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 1189.20: Identification, Listing and 

Rulemaking Petitions (Renewal) includes estimates of the per facility burden of petition 

submissions for hazardous waste exclusions or variances from solid waste or boiler 

determinations. Because of the similarities between these petition processes and the process for 

obtaining a non-waste determination, this ICR uses the burden estimates contained in the 

Supporting Statement as an indicator of the per-facility burden of petitioning for a non-waste 

determination under the Proposed Rule. Specifically, we rely on two sets of burden estimates 

within the Supporting Statement: the 40 CFR 260.22 delisting petition, whereby petitioners 

request that EPA amend 40 CFR 261 to exclude a waste produced at a particular facility from 

classification as a hazardous waste; and a subpart of the petition for variance from classification 

as a solid waste, whereby a petitioner must fulfill the relevant criteria in 40 CFR 260.31(c) and 

show that a reclaimed material is not a solid waste because it will be further reclaimed. 

 11 U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, op cit.. 

12 U.S. EPA, Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 2324.01 Reporting 

and Recordkeeping Requirements for the Proposed Rule in Adding Pharmaceuticals to the Universal Waste Rule 

(Proposed Rule), September 2008, Exhibit 1. 
10 

The delisting petition requires that the petitioner demonstrate that the secondary material 

does not contain concentrations of certain substances that would classify it as a hazardous waste. 

This procedure includes estimating the quantity and variability of waste generation, describing in 

detail the equipment used to measure chemical content, and testing the material for hazardous 

contaminants. The delisting petition’s requirements are analogous to the criterion under the 

Proposed Rule that a material must have chemical and physical characteristics similar to 

commercial fuels, products, or intermediates to be considered a legitimate alternative fuel. The 

estimated burden per facility for this process is approximately 560 hours for each facility itself, 

and the estimated cost is $64,800. 

The petition for variance from classification as a solid waste requires that a material be 

commodity-like. The petitioner must show that the material (1) has been processed, (2) requires 

further processing, (3) is analogous to raw material, (4) is handled to minimize loss, (5) is 

valuable, and (6) has an available market. These requirements are similar to several aspects of 

the petition process included in the Proposed Rule, including (1) evidence of the material’s 

treatment in the marketplace as a fuel, product, or intermediate; (2) the market’s capacity to use 

the material in a reasonable time frame; and (3) evidence that the material’s constituents are not 

discarded to the air, water, or land, from the point of generation to the combustion of the 

secondary material, at significantly higher levels than would otherwise be released (from both a 

statistical perspective and an environmental and health risk perspective) (i.e., that it is treated as 

a valuable commodity). The estimated per facility burden of this petition process is 

approximately 142 hours (for the facility itself), and the estimated cost per facility is $6,700. 

Summing these components, we estimate that the average respondent burden for the 

petition process is 702 hours per facility and that the cost is $71,440 per facility. 

6(e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Costs

Respondent Burden and Costs

In Exhibit 1, EPA presents the total respondent burden and cost for each of the two 

paperwork requirements associated with the Proposed Rule (i.e., rule familiarization and the 

petition process for non-waste determinations). As described above, these paperwork 

requirements apply to units and facilities that burn non-hazardous secondary materials. The total 

respondent burden and costs for these requirements are as follows: 

Rule Familiarization

All potentially affected facilities will incur the one-time cost of reading the rule. EPA 

estimates that the hours burden of rule familiarization is 1,461 hours and that the associated cost 

is $93,600. 
11 

Petition Process

Facilities that burn non-hazardous secondary materials that are considered solid waste 

under the Proposed Rule are expected to incur the one-time cost of petitioning for non-waste 

determination. The estimated (one-time) hours burden for respondents is 118,000 hours and the 

estimated (one-time) cost of the petition process for respondents is approximately $12 million. 

Agency Burden and Costs 

Exhibit 2 summarizes the total Agency burden and cost associated with the paperwork 

requirements for the Proposed Rule. As indicated in the exhibit, the Agency’s burden and costs 

relate to the petition process for non-waste determinations included in the Proposed Rule. The 

one-time burden realized by the Agency for the petition process included in the Proposed Rule is 

approximately 127,000 hours. EPA estimates that the cost incurred by the Agency under the 

petition process is approximately $6.8 million.

6(f) Reasons for Change in Burden 

As described in this ICR, EPA expects that the Proposed Rule will result in an increase in 

burden to users of non-hazardous secondary materials and the Agency itself. This increase in 

burden reflects specific paperwork requirements established by the Proposed Rule (e.g., the 

petition process for non-waste determinations). EPA has determined that these paperwork 

requirements are necessary for informed assessments of the waste status of certain secondary 

materials, and to ensure that non-hazardous secondary materials are managed in a manner that is 

consistent with their status as a waste or non-waste under the Proposed Rule. 

6(g) Burden Statement 

 Exhibit 3 summarizes the average burden associated with each of the paperwork 

requirements associated with the Proposed Rule, presented separately for regulated entities and 

EPA. The paperwork requirements reflected in the exhibit include one-time activities for (1) the 

petition process for non-waste determinations included in the Proposed Rule and (2) rule 

familiarization. 

 As indicated in Exhibit 3, we estimate the total burden associated with one-time activities 

as a range for regulated entities and EPA. This is because the burden per respondent depends on 

whether the respondent files a petition for non-waste determination. 

 To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided 

burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the 

use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under 

Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329, which is available for online viewing at 

www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the RCRA Docket in the EPA Docket Center 

(EPA/DC), EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. The 
12 

EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-

1744, and the telephone number for the RCRA Docket is (202) 566-0270. An electronic version 

of the public docket is available at www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view 

public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access 

those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, 

select “search,” then key in the Docket ID Number identified above. Also, you can send 

comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Please 

include the EPA Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329 and OMB Control Number 

2050-new in any correspondence. 
13

Exhibit 1 - Estimated Respondent Burden and Cost 

 Hours and Costs per Respondent INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY 

Legal $94/Hr 

Manager. $73/Hr 

Tech.. 

$47/Hr 

Cler. $26/Hr 

Respon. Hours 

Labor Cost1

Capital/ Startup Cost 

O & M Cost 

Cost per Respondent 

Number oResponde

RULE FAMILIARIZATION – Read the rule (one-time burden and cost) Affected Facilities 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.0 1.02 $64.0 $0.0 $0.0 $64 1,461 PETITION PROCESS (one-time)Affected Facilities 0.0 20.3 669.5 12.2 702.0 $33,1063 $0.0 $38,3343 $71,441 168 

1 Hourly Wages: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational earnings tables: United States, December 2007 – January 2009 (average referen

Full-time civilian workers: Mean and median hourly, weekly, and annual earnings and mean weekly and annhttp://www.bls.gov/ncs/ncswage2008.htm#Wage_Tables, October 28, 2009. Benefits Percentage: U.S. Department of Labor, "Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—June 2009," USDL 09-1098, Septembe

percent of total compensation breakout for "civilian workers" as presented in Table 2. Overhead Percentage: U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis USEPA’s 2008 Final Rule Amendments To The Industrial Recycling Exclusio

Of Solid Waste, September 25, 2008. Exhibit B-1. 

2 Hours for Rule Familiarization: U.S. EPA, Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 2324.01 Rep

Requirements for the Proposed Rule in Adding Pharmaceuticals to the Universal Waste Rule (Proposed Rule), September 2008, Exhibit 1.

3 Petition Process Costs: Derived from U.S. EPA, Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 1189.20: 

Rulemaking Petitions (Renewal), December 2007. Values from this source adjusted to year 2008 dollars. 

4 Uncertainty Regarding Number of Respondents for the Petition Process: As described in previous sections of this document, EPA assum

affected by the proposed CISWI rule and the proposed major source Boilers Rule will submit petitions to EPA for a non-waste determinconsidered to be a solid waste under the proposed rule and if the material is burned outside the control of the generator. Based on these cond

that 168 facilities will submit petitions. In reality, the number of petitions that will be submitted is uncertain and dependent on several fa

assess (e.g., the operational characteristics of individual facilities). Therefore, as a sensitivity analysis, EPA also estimated the costs of th

petition submission information for other petition processes established under RCRA. Based on data for the variance from classification aEPA previously estimated that 10 petitions will be submitted on an annual basis for that variance (see U.S. EPA, Supporting Statement for ERequest Number 1189.20: Identification, Listing and Rulemaking Petitions (Renewal), December 2007). In addition, EPA’s review of hazardRCRA found that, on average, 45 petitions were submitted per year between 1980 and 1999 for de-listings (see U.S. EPA, RCRA Hazardous 

20 Years, June 2002). Based on these values, the annual one-time respondent costs for the petition process would be approximately $0.7 milli
14 

Exhibit 2 - Estimated Agency Burden and Cost 

 Hours and Costs per Respondent INFORMATION COLLECTION ACTIVITY 

Leg. $94/Hr 

Mgr. $73/Hr 

Tech. $47/Hr 

Cler. $26/Hr 

Respon. Hours 

Labor Cost1

Capital/ Startup Cost 

O & M Cost 

Total Cost per Respondent 

Number of Responden

PETITION PROCESS (one-time burden and cost)Affected Facilities 86.9 76.3 532.6 61.2 757.0 $40,2732 $0.0 $0.0 $40,273 168 

1 Hourly Wages: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Occupational earnings tables: United States, December 2007 – January 2009 (average 

Table 3 Full-time civilian workers: Mean and median hourly, weekly, and annual earnings and mean weekly and an

http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ncswage2008.htm#Wage_Tables, October 28, 2009. Benefits Percentage: U.S. Department of Labor, "Employer Costs for Employee Compensation—June 2009," USDL 09-1098, Sept

from percent of total compensation breakout for "civilian workers" as presented in Table 2. Overhead Percentage: U.S. EPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis USEPA’s 2008 Final Rule Amendments To The Industrial Recycling 

Definition Of Solid Waste, September 25, 2008. Exhibit B-1. 

2 Petition Process Costs: U.S. EPA, Supporting Statement for EPA Information Collection Request Number 1189.20: Identification

Petitions (Renewal), December 2007. The costs obtained from this source were not stated in 2008 dollars. They were inflated u

Statistics May 2008 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates and GDP price deflators. 

3 Uncertainty Regarding Number of Respondents for the Petition Process: As described in previous sections of this document, EPA assum

affected by the proposed CISWI rule and the proposed major source Boilers Rule will submit petitions to EPA for a non-waste determinconsidered to be a solid waste under the proposed rule and if the material is burned outside the control of the generator. Based on these cond

that 168 facilities will submit petitions. In reality, the number of petitions that will be submitted is uncertain and dependent on several faassess (e.g., the operational characteristics of individual facilities). Therefore, as a sensitivity analysis, EPA also estimated the costs of th

petition submission information for other petition processes established under RCRA. Based on data for the variance from classification aEPA previously estimated that 10 petitions will be submitted on an annual basis for that variance (see U.S. EPA, Supporting Statement for ERequest Number 1189.20: Identification, Listing and Rulemaking Petitions (Renewal), December 2007). In addition, EPA’s review of hazardRCRA found that, on average, 45 petitions were submitted per year between 1980 and 1999 for de-listings (see U.S. EPA, RCRA Hazardous 

20 Years, June 2002). Based on these values, the annual one-time Agency costs for the petition process would be approximately $0.4 million 
15 

Exhibit 3 

Estimated Average Burden per Respondent (hours)

Regulated Entities E

Burden for one-time activities1 1 to 703 0 to 

Petition Process (one-time burden) 702 7Rule Familiarization (one-time burden) 1 

Notes: Burden for one-time activities presented as a range for regulated entities and EPA because the burden will depend on whether a regulated enwaste determination.