Document ID: EPA-HQ-TRI-2009-0602-0004
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2009-09-04T04:00Z

Analysis of the Estimated Burden and Cost of the Articles Exemption
Clarification Proposed Rule; Community Right to Know Toxic Chemical
Release Reporting

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Environmental Information

April 27, 2009

	

1.0 	INTRODUCTION

	 The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), also
known as Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
of 1986 (SARA), created a broad range of emergency response planning and
reporting requirements for manufacturers, processors, and users of toxic
chemicals in the United States. 42 U.S.C. §§ 11001-11050.  Under
section 313 of EPCRA, certain facilities are required to submit annual
reports to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
to States on their release, transfer, and waste management activities of
certain toxic chemicals if they are manufactured, processed, or
otherwise used above thresholds amounts.  In addition, the Pollution
Prevention Act (PPA) of 1990 requires these same facilities to report
pollution prevention, recycling, and other waste management information
for these same chemicals.  EPA maintains the data collected under EPCRA
section 313 and the PPA in a database known as the Toxics Release
Inventory (TRI).1

Manufacturing, processing or otherwise use of a toxic chemical are
threshold activities that trigger reporting to the TRI program.  After a
regulated facility determines it has performed a threshold activity with
a listed chemical, that facility then calculates quantities of the
chemical that are manufactured, processed, or otherwise used at the
facility to determine if the threshold quantity has been exceeded and
reporting is required.  

In 1988, EPA promulgated an articles exemption from threshold quantity
calculations and reporting requirements for manufactured items that
contain toxic chemicals (53 FR 4500). The term “article” is defined
as a manufactured item that: (1) is formed to a specific shape or design
during manufacture; (2) has end use functions dependent in whole or in
part upon its shape or design during end use; and (3) does not release a
toxic chemical under normal conditions of processing or use of that item
at the facility or establishments (40 C.F.R section 372.3).

The articles exemption states that if a toxic chemical is present in an
article at a covered facility, a person is not required to consider the
quantity of the toxic chemical present in such article when determining
whether an applicable threshold has been met.  This exemption applies
whether the person received the article from another person or the
person produced the article.  However, this exemption applies only to
the quantity of the toxic chemical present in the article.  If the toxic
chemical is manufactured (including imported), processed, or otherwise
used at the covered facility other than as part of the article, in
excess of an applicable threshold, the person is required to report on
that chemical.  If a release of a toxic chemical occurs as a result of
the processing or use of an item at the facility, that item does not
meet the definition of article (40 C.F.R. section 372.38(b)).

	EPA proposes to take two actions relating to the articles exemption
under the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) program.  First, EPA proposes
to formally remove a paragraph of guidance dealing with releases due to
natural weathering of products that appeared in the Reporting Forms and
Instructions (RF&I) from 1988 to 2001.  This guidance was absent from
the Reporting Forms and Instructions after 2001, but formal notice of
its removal was never issued.  EPA here provides notice that this
language has been removed and may not be relied on by reporting
facilities.  Second, EPA is proposing an interpretation of how the
articles exemption applies to the Wood Treating Industry, specifically
to treated wood that has completed the treatment process.  We are
requesting comment on both of these actions.  

2.0  	ESTIMATED NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL REPORTS AND FACILITIES

	As noted above, the proposed rule is only expected to create additional
burden for the Wood Preservation industry.  This industry (NAICS 321114)
consists of “establishments primarily engaged in (1) treating wood
sawed, planed, or shaped in other establishments with creosote or other
preservatives such as chromated copper arsenate to prevent decay and to
protect against fire and insects and/or (2) sawing round wood poles,
pilings, and posts and treating them with preservatives (US Census
Bureau, 2003).”  At issue in the proposed rule is the potential
release (during storage) and subsequent reporting of TRI chemicals
listed in Table 1 below that are used by wood preservers. 

TABLE 1

TRI CHEMICALS USED BY WOOD PRESERVERS AND POTENTIALLY RELEASED IN
STORAGE

(NAICS 321114)

TRI Compound	Wood Preservative and Active Ingredient	Not Listed as an
Active Ingredient in a Wood Preservative

Constituent of Creosote	Found in Pentachlorophenol	Registered as a
Pesticide Ingredient	Found in Wood Finishing Products

3-IODO-2-PROPYNYL BUTYLCARBAMATE	3-iodo-2-propynyl butyl carbamate 	 
 	 	 

AMMONIA	Ammoniacal copper zinc arsenate (ACZA) - Ammonia and 

Ammoniacal copper citrate - Ammonia	 	 	 	 

ARSENIC AND ARSENIC COMPOUNDS	Ammoniacal copper zinc arsenate (ACZA) -
Arsenic pentoxide

Chromated copper arsenate (CCA) - Arsenic pentoxide	 	 	 	 

BIS(TRIBUTYLTIN) OXIDE	Bis(tri-n-butyltin) Oxide	 	 	 	 

CHLOROTHALONIL 	Chlorothanlonil

Chlorothanlonil/chlorpyrifos	 	 	 	 

CHROMIUM AND CHROMIUM COMPOUNDS	Ammoniacal copper arsenate (ACA) -
Chromium trioxide

Chromated copper arsenate (CCA) - Chromium trioxide

Acid copper chromate (ACC) - Chromium trioxide	 	 	 	 

COPPER AND COPPER COMPOUNDS	Copper naphthenate - Copper naphthenate 

Oxine copper - Copper-8-quinolinolate

Ammoniacal copper arsenate (ACA) - Copper oxide

Ammoniacal copper zinc arsenate (ACZA) - Copper oxide

Chromated copper arsenate (CCA) - Copper oxide

Acid copper chromate (ACC) - Copper oxide

Ammoniacal copper quat - Copper oxide

Copper bis(dimethyldithiocarbamate) - Bivalent copper

Ammoniacal copper citrate - Copper oxide

Copper azole - Copper	 	 	 	 

CREOSOTE	Creosote	 	 	 	 

Nickel Compounds	Oxine copper - Nickel-2-ethylhexanoate	 	 	 	 

PENTACHLOROPHENOL	Pentachlorophenol	 	 	 	 

Propiconazole	Propiconazole	 	 	 	 

SODIUM DIMETHYLDI-

THIOCARBAMATE	Copper bis(dimethyldithiocarbamate) - Sodium
dimethyldithiocarbamate	 	 	 	 

ZINC COMPOUNDS	Zinc naphthenate - Zinc naphthenate

Ammoniacal copper zinc arsenate (ACZA) - Zinc oxide	 	 	 	 

BENZENE	 	Creosote	 	Pesticide	 

BIPHENYL	 	Creosote	 	Pesticide	 

NAPHTHALENE	 	Creosote	 	Pesticide	 

PHENOL	 	Creosote	 	Pesticide	 

TOLUENE	 	Creosote	 	Pesticide	 

XYLENE (MIXED ISOMERS)	 	Creosote	 	Pesticide	 

ANTHRACENE	 	Creosote	 	 	 

BENZO(G,H,I)PERYLENE	 	Creosote	 	 	 

DIBENZOFURAN	 	Creosote	 	 	 

ETHYLBENZENE	 	Creosote	 	 	 

PHENANTHRENE	 	Creosote	 	 	 

POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC COMPOUNDS	 	Creosote	 	 	 

FORMALDEHYDE	 	 	 	Pesticide	 

HEXACHLOROBENZENE	 	 	 	Pesticide	 

LEAD AND LEAD COMPOUNDS	 	 	 	Pesticide	 

METHANOL	 	 	 	Pesticide	 

METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE	 	 	 	Pesticide	 

SODIUM NITRITE	 	 	 	Pesticide	 

DIOXIN AND DIOXIN-LIKE COMPOUNDS	 	 	Pentachlorophenol	 	 

1,2,4-TRIMETHYLBENZENE	 	 	 	 	Wood Finishing

CUMENE	 	 	 	 	Wood Finishing

STYRENE	 	 	 	 	Wood Finishing

MIXTURE	Copper azole - Copper	Creosote	 	 	 

Note that while only the compound form of metals appears to be present
in wood preservatives, parent metals are included in the chemical
universe given that there is sometimes confusion regarding how metals
and metal compounds are reported to TRI. This assumption will provide a
conservative estimate of the number of affected chemicals.

Source:  Frozen 2007 TRI Data and Ibach 1999.

Clarification of the articles exemption rule as it applies to the
correct reporting of these chemical releases will only apply to current
TRI reporters as it does not affect reporting threshold calculations. It
will not change the number of facilities reporting to TRI or the number
of reports filed.  As shown in Table 2, in RY2007, 636 forms were
reported to TRI for the 40 chemicals listed in Table 1 by 252 facilities
in NAICS 321114.

TABLE 2

NUMBER OF FORMS SUBMITTED FOR CHEMICALS POTENTIALLY RELEASED

DURING STORAGE BY FACILITIES IN NAICS 321114

(RY2007)

Chemical Type	Facilities	Form Rs	Form As

Wood Preservative - Active Ingredient	251	152	296

Constituent of Creosote	58	103	1

Found in Pentachlorophenol	23	23	0

Registered as a Pesticide Ingredient	48	35	26

Found in Wood Finishing Products	2	1	2

Total Unique Number of Forms/Facilities	252	311	325

Notes: 

1. Some forms are counted in multiple chemical categories.  In 2007, 4
Form Rs and 1 Form A were counted as both constituents of creosote and
pesticides.  

2. Few facilities did not report an active ingredient in a wood
preservative.  

3.0  	BURDEN AND COST CALCULATION METHODOLOGY

	Industry burden and costs associated with the proposed rule were
calculated using the following four-step procedure:

	Step 1:		Identify and describe the new tasks that facilities will have
to perform to comply with the section 313 requirements.

	Step 2:		Estimate the typical number of hours of managerial, technical,
and clerical labor needed to complete each new task.  Based on typical
labor rates, calculate the unit cost of each task for the first year of
compliance and for subsequent years.

	Step 3:		Estimate the number of unique facilities that will perform
each task.

	Step 4:		For each task, multiply the unit cost by the number of unique
facilities and then sum the results to estimate the total industry costs
for the first year and subsequent years.

	As mentioned above, the new tasks associated with the proposed rule are
limited to rule familiarization which is defined as follows:

Rule Familiarization: Affected facilities must read the reporting
package and become familiar with the revised language concerning
reporting requirements.  

	

	In general, the skills required to comply with all of the section 313
reporting requirements (including the requirements associated with
section 6607 of the PPA) will vary from facility to facility, depending
upon factors such as the complexity of the facility's processes, the
type of use and disposition of reportable chemicals at the facility, and
transfers from the facility.  Those responsible for reporting may often
have engineering, scientific, or technical backgrounds.  Compliance does
not, however, necessarily require an engineering or other similar
degree.  At a minimum, an understanding of the facility's chemical
purchases and production processes is required.  Necessary skills may
include the ability to evaluate and interpret records, understand
material safety data sheets, and determine throughput or production
volumes.  Depending on the facility, estimates may be calculated using
existing data collected under Federal, State, or local regulations;
emissions factors; design data supplied by the equipment manufacturer;
mass balance techniques; or engineering calculations.  Each technique
requires varying skills and levels of sophistication to complete.  In
some instances, EPA guidance documents may supplant the need for a
particular skill.

4.0 	INCREMENTAL BURDEN AND COST ESTIMATES			

					

	In this section, EPA estimates the incremental burden associated with
the proposed rule.  Since the proposed rule simply removes certain
language and clarifies other language in the TRI Reporting Forms and
Instructions document, facilities are only expected to incur burden due
to rule familiarization. The current OMB-approved TRI reporting burden
estimates assume that facilities have made all required calculations as
a part of form completion. Therefore, any calculations that wood
preservation facilities might incur to revise their release estimates to
include quantities they currently do not include in release amounts are
not attributable to the proposed rule given that they should already
have been made.  

The following burden estimates are based on considerable experience with
the TRI program and engineering judgment. According to feedback from
existing TRI filers, the role of each labor category in the TRI
reporting process at the facility level is as follows:

Managerial staff are responsible for reviewing and certifying the
accuracy of all TRI submissions and supporting documentation, including
calculations, data sources, and assumptions.  Managerial staff are
briefed by technical staff once annually regarding TRI submissions and
any changes to TRI reporting requirements.  All sections of the Form are
reviewed by managerial staff at this time.

Technical staff possess the facility knowledge and familiarity with the
TRI program required to understand which processes and activities at the
facility should be considered in making threshold determinations for TRI
chemicals.  Technical staff gather the required data, make threshold
determinations, calculate release and waste management quantities, and
enter the required data on the TRI form, either by hand or
electronically using TRI reporting software.  Technical staff are also
responsible for briefing managerial staff once annually regarding TRI
submissions and any changes to TRI reporting requirements.  

Clerical staff are responsible for organizing, photocopying, and
cataloging all TRI submissions and supporting documentation in
accordance with TRI recordkeeping requirements.

4.1	  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Rule Familiarization

	Under the proposed rule, EPA expects that 252 Wood Preservation
facilities (NAICS 321114) reporting multiple chemicals as listed in
Table 1 in RY2007 would incur rule familiarization burden. The
incremental burden estimates associated with rule familiarization
consist of time to read and interpret the clarified language outlined in
the proposed rule and are based on the following assumptions:

The first-year management burden includes 15 minutes to be briefed
regarding the clarified language.  It is assumed that facilities will
fully comprehend the clarified language by the subsequent year of
reporting; therefore, no rule familiarization burden is required in
subsequent years.

The first-year technical burden includes 30 minutes to read and
interpret the clarified language. An additional 15 minutes will be
required to brief management regarding the clarified language.  It is
assumed that facilities will fully comprehend the clarified language by
the subsequent year of reporting; therefore, no rule familiarization
burden is required in subsequent years.

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

The incremental burden associated with rule familiarization in the first
and subsequent years is presented in Table 3.

TABLE 3

ESTIMATED RULE FAMILIARIZATION BURDEN 

ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED RULE

 Labor Category	1st Year Burden

(minutes)	Subsequent Year Burden

(minutes)

Management	15	0

Technical	45	0

Clerical	0	0

Total	60	0

4.2	Summary

	Table 4 below presents total first- and subsequent-year incremental
burden estimates associated with the proposed rule.

TABLE 4

ESTIMATED FIRST AND SUBSEQUENT YEAR BURDEN 

ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED RULE

Activity	 Labor Category	Total Unit  Burden	Number of Facilities	Total
Burden

	Managerial	Technical	Clerical

	Incremental First-Year Burden (hours)

Rule Familiarization	0.25	0.75	0.00	1.00	252	252

Total	0.25	0.75	0.00	1.00	252	252

Incremental Subsequent-Year Burden (hours)

Form Completion	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0	0

Total	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0	0

5.0 	UNIT COST ESTIMATES

	This section explains how the cost estimates, or unit costs, were
developed for the proposed rule. Each cost estimate is made up of two
components: the unit time estimates (i.e., number of labor hours
required of each type of personnel to complete a task), and the hourly
wage rates for each level of personnel.

	Hourly wage rates are divided into three categories: managerial,
technical, and clerical.  Updated 2008 hourly wage rates, including
fringe benefits and overhead, were developed by EPA for each of these
categories. Average wage data for these categories was taken from the
Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) report from the Bureau
of Labor Statistics (BLS) for all goods-producing, private industries. 
The managerial labor rate is defined as the average hourly wages and
salaries for the “Management, Business, and Financial” occupational
category.  The technical labor rate is defined as the average hourly
wages and salaries for the “Professional and Related” occupational
category.  The clerical labor rate is defined as the average hourly
wages and salaries for the “Office and Administrative Support”
occupational category. 

	The additional cost of benefits, such as paid leave and insurance, is
also derived from the ECEC data.  Loading factors for benefits are
calculated separately for managerial, technical, and clerical labor by
dividing the benefits percentage of total compensation by the wage
percentage of total compensation (e.g., 0.3028 / 0.6971 = 0.4344).

	An additional loading factor of 17 percent is applied for general
overhead.  This loading factor is added to the benefits loading factor
then applied to the base wage (e.g., $38.86/hr x [1 + (0.4344+ 0.17)] =
$62.35/hr).  The total loading for indirect costs is within the range of
50 to 70 percent suggested in EPA guidance.   The results of this method
are shown in Table 5.

TABLE 5

DERIVATION OF LOADED HOURLY RATES

Labor Category	2008 

Average Wages	2008

Benefits and Overhead

Loading Factor	2008

Loaded 

Hourly Rate

Managerial	$38.86 	1.6044	$62.35 

Technical	$33.33 	1.5792	$52.64 

Clerical	$16.26 	1.6190	$26.32 

5.1  	Total Incremental Costs

	Tables 6 and 7 summarize the total estimated incremental costs of the
rule.

TABLE 6

ESTIMATED TOTAL UNIT COSTS

ASSOCIATED WTH THE PROPOSED RULE

Activity	Hours Per Labor Category	

Total Unit Cost

	Managerial	Technical	Clerical

$62.35/hr	$52.64/hr	$26.32/hr

	First Year

Rule Familiarization	0.25	0.75	0.00	$55.07

Subsequent Years

Rule Familiarization	0.00	0.00	0.00	$0.00

TABLE 7

ESTIMATED INCREMENTAL COSTS

ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED RULE

Activity	Unit

Cost	Number of Facilities 	

Total Cost

First Year

Rule Familiarization	$55.07	252	$13,877

Annual Total

$13,877

Subsequent Years

Rule Familiarization	$0.00	0	$0.00

Annual Total

$0.00

6.0 	SMALL ENTITY IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED RULE

	

	The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. § 601 et. seq.)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of regulations on small
entities, and, in some instances, to examine alternatives to the
regulations that may reduce adverse economic effects on significantly
impacted small entities.  The RFA requires agencies to prepare an
initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis for each rule unless
the Agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.

	Since 1980, the RFA has required Federal agencies to assess the
economic impacts of their actions on small entities, including
businesses, nonprofit agencies, and governments.  Section 604 of the
RFA, as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act (SBREFA) of 1996, requires an agency to perform a regulatory
flexibility analysis for a rule unless the Agency certifies under
section 605(b) that the regulatory action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  The RFA does
not specifically define “a significant economic impact on a
substantial number” of small entities.  

	This section summarizes the results of a small entity impact analysis
for the proposed rule.  Specifically, Section 6.1 provides the
definition of a small entity for the industry group covered under the
proposed rule.  Section 6.2 describes the general methodology used to
determine if the proposed rule results in significant economic impacts
to a substantial number of small entities.  Section 6.3 summarizes the
results for all small entities affected under the proposed rule.

6.1	Definitions Of Small Entities   tc "2.0	DEFINITIONS OF SMALL
ENTITIES " \l 3 

	

	The RFA uses the definition of “small business” found in the Small
Business Act, which authorizes the Small Business Administration (SBA)
to define “small business” by regulation.  This analysis uses the
SBA’s definition of a small business for each industry.9 

	SBA's small business size standards vary by industry.  In establishing
size standards, SBA considers a number of economic and market
characteristics that may allow a business concern to exercise dominance
in an industry.  Size standards are based on criteria, such as annual
receipts or number of employees that represent a measure of these
characteristics.  These standards represent the largest size that a
for-profit enterprise (together with its affiliates) may be and still
qualify as a small business. 

	The SBA small business size standards are expansive, classifying most
businesses as “small.”  For example, the default SBA size standard
for manufacturing industries is 500 employees.  According to information
compiled for SBA by the Bureau of the Census, 281,970 of 286,039
manufacturing firms have fewer than 500 employees (USSBA, 2009).10 
Therefore, at least 98.6 percent of firms would be classified as small
businesses according to the SBA definition.  In fact, this percentage is
actually higher, since for certain industrial classification codes
within manufacturing, the SBA size standard is 750, 1,000, or 1,500
employees.

	The RFA defines “small governmental jurisdictions” as governments
of cities, counties, towns, school districts, or special districts with
a population of less than 50,000 people.  No small governmental
jurisdictions are expected to report as a result of the proposed rule.

	The RFA defines “small organizations” as any “not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.”  No small organizations are expected to report as a
result of the proposed rule.

6.2	Methodology Overview 

	This analysis uses annual cost impact percentages to measure potential
impacts on small entities.  The cost impact percentage is defined as
annual compliance costs resulting from the proposed rule as a percentage
of annual revenues or sales.  For purposes of determining small entity
impacts, comparing annual compliance costs to annual revenues provides a
reasonable indication of the magnitude of the regulatory burden relative
to a commonly available and objective measure of a company's business
volume.  Where regulatory costs represent a small fraction of a typical
firm's revenue, the impacts of the regulation are likely to be minimal. 

				

	Cost impact percentages are calculated using the incremental compliance
cost associated with completing rule familiarization in the first year
only.  In RY2007, 252 wood preservers filed a total of 636 forms on
chemicals potentially released during storage (see Table 2).

	The analysis of small entity impacts uses the number of facilities per
parent company for small companies and the annual revenues for each of
the small companies. For each company, revenue data and number of TRI
facilities per small company were taken from Dun and Bradstreet’s
Private Data Portal (Version 2.4, accessed on March 5, 2009 and April
23, 2009) as described in the next section.

									

	The general methodology followed to estimate the impacts on small
entities consists of the following steps:

(1)	Estimate the number of facilities in the wood preserving industry
(NAICS 321114) expected to submit TRI reports for at least one of the
chemicals listed in Table 1;

	

(2) 	Estimate the number of small companies affected (i.e., the
percentage of small companies with at least one reporting facility);

(3)	Develop company-level annual compliance cost estimates, based on the
number of facilities per company that report on at least one of the
chemicals listed in Table 1;

(4)		Identify annual revenues of affected small companies;

(5)	Estimate the company-level impact percentages, defined as first year
incremental compliance costs as a percentage of annual revenues, as a
measure of regulatory burden;

(6)	Estimate the number and percentage of small companies with
company-level impact percentages in each of three categories: (1) less
than one percent of annual revenues; (2) between one and three percent
of annual revenues; and (3) greater than or equal to three percent of
annual revenues.



6.2.1	Generation of Company Revenue Data

	This section describes how revenue and business size data (based on
employment) were used to characterize companies in affected industries. 
Because each facility affected by this rule is currently filing a TRI
report for at least one of the chemicals listed in Table 1, it is
possible to identify specific parent companies of facilities that are
expected to report under this rulemaking using a combination of TRI and
D&B data.  Using D&B data, it was possible to identify the parent
companies, as well as their employment and revenues, for the facilities
affected by the rule. Specifically, of the 252 potentially affected
facilities, 89 percent were linked to a parent company in D&B. Of the
identified parent companies, both revenue and size information were
collected for 90 percent. Using this information, it was possible to
classify parent companies as small using the SBA defined threshold of
500 employees, or fewer, for NAICS 321114. 

	As noted above, company revenue and business size data were obtained
for affected facilities from Dun and Bradstreet’s Private Data Portal
(D&B, version 2.4 accessed on March 5, 2009 and April 23, 2009). For
over 11 million business locations, D&B provides a wide range of data
including:

Number of employees,

Line of business,

Key financial indicators,

Business size,Parent/headquarters.

The revenue and business size data used in this analysis represent data
for global ultimate parent companies that own one or more facilities in
NAICS 321114 that filed a TRI report for at least one of the chemicals
listed in Table 1 in RY2007.12  

	Using parent company employment data presented in D&B, small parent
companies were identified by comparing employment to the SBA threshold
of 500 employees.  The small entity analysis accounts for parent
companies owning one or more affected TRI facilities.  The ultimate
parent data obtained from D&B includes available revenue data of all
subsidiaries, divisions, and branches of that parent, including those
not individually affected under the rule.  The number of TRI facilities
per ultimate parent, however, represents the number of facilities owned
by that parent company that filed a report for at least one of the 
chemicals listed in Table 1 in RY2007 (not the total number of
facilities per parent company).

6.2.2  	Estimating Impacts

	To evaluate the potential impact of the rule, annual compliance costs
are estimated at the global ultimate parent company level to be
consistent with the financial data obtained from D&B.  For purposes of
evaluating the impacts on small entities, an “affected” facility is
defined as a facility that is expected to submit at least a TRI report
for at least one of the TRI chemicals listed in Table 1.  Thus, an
“affected” company under this analysis is a company owning at least
one “affected” facility. 

	The analysis of small entity impacts uses the number of facilities per
company for small companies and the annual revenue for each small
company.  Employment data with which to identify business size
information was available from D&B for 150 of the 158 ultimate parents 

95%). These data were used to estimate the percentage of parent
companies that are classified as “small”- approximately 94 percent. 
This percentage was applied to the total number of affected parent
companies (158) to estimate the total number of small companies (148)
with facilities expected to be affected by the rule.

	Cost impact percentages were calculated for each parent company by
dividing costs (for all affected facilities) by the parent company
sales.  These cost impact percentages were used to create the
distribution of impacts to small parent companies under this proposed
rule.  Impact categories included percentages of less than one percent,
between one and three percent, or greater than three percent.  

6.3 	Results

The estimated impacts to small companies under the proposed rule are
presented in Table 8 below.  Of the 158 affected entities, 148 are small
businesses.  Of the affected small businesses, all 148 have cost impacts
of less than 1%.  No small businesses are projected to have a cost
impact of 1% or greater.  Of the 148 estimated cost impacts, there is a
maximum impact of .089% and a minimum impact of 0.000001% each affecting
one small business. The mean and median impacts are estimated to be
0.003% and 0.001% respectively.

TABLE 8

SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ON SMALL ENTITIES

	

Estimated Number of Affected Entities	

Estimated Number of Affected Small Entities	

Estimated Number of Small Entities with Impacts of 3 Percent or Greater	

Estimated Number of Small Entities with Impacts Between 1 and 3 Percent	

Estimated Number of Small Entities with Impacts Less than 1 Percent

First Year

	158	148	0	0	148

% of Small Entities

	0	0	100

Subsequent Years

	0	0	0	0	0

 % of Small Entities

	0	0	0

LITERATURE CITED

Ibach, R. E., 1999.  Wood Preservation.  In Wood Handbook: Wood as an
Engineering Material. USDA Forest Service Forest Products Laboratory,
Madison, WI. General Technical Report FPL; GTR-113: Pages 14.1-14.27.

U.S. Census Bureau (2003). 2002 NAICS Definitions.
<http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND321114.HTM>.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (2008).  Employer
Costs for Employee Compensation, Explanatory Notes and Table 11,
December.

U.S. SBA. Office of Advocacy (2006).  Statistics – All Industries by
NAICS Codes, 2006: Employer Firms & Employment by Employment Size of
Firm by NAICS Codes. http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/us06_n6.pdf.
Downloaded on March 6, 2009.

	1   The term “EPCRA section 313" properly refers to only the
statutory requirements, while the term “TRI” properly refers to the
database that stores the information collected both under EPCRA section
313 and under section 6607 of the PPA.  However, the terms are have
often been used interchangeably by the public to refer to the statute,
the regulatory requirements, the reporting form, the database, and/or
and EPA's program to manage the data.  In deference to common usage, the
terms EPCRA section 313 and TRI are sometimes used interchangeably in
this report where doing so will make the report simpler and easier to
read.  

 U.S. Census Bureau. 2003.  2002 NAICS Definitions.
<http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/ND321114.HTM>.

 It is possible that some facilities that report to TRI and treat wood
with creosote or other preservatives are not listed under NAICS code
321114 (U.S. Census Bureau 2003). Establishments “primarily engaged in
manufacturing wood products” may be classified under a different
six-digit NAICS code within Subsector 321.  For this analysis, however,
it is assumed that only NAICS code 321114 would potentially be affected.

 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Private industry workers, as
published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The December 2008 values for these series are listed in Table 11 of the
Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Summary, released December,
2008.

	9    SBA's size standards can be found at:   HYPERLINK
"http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_t
ablepdf.pdf" 
http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_ta
blepdf.pdf .

	10   USSBA. Office of Advocacy - Statistics – All Industries by NAICS
Codes, 2006: Employer Firms & Employment by Employment Size of Firm by
NAICS Codes, 2006. Information from the Small Business Administration on
the Internet. http://www.sba.gov/advo/research/us06_n6.pdf. Downloaded
on March 6, 2009.

	12    The global ultimate parent is the uppermost parent or
headquarters that encompasses all directly related branches,
subsidiaries, or parents of a specific business at a specific location. 
This analysis assumes that a facility, as defined under TRI, is
equivalent to a location as defined by D&B.  A “facility,” subject
to EPCRA section 313 reporting requirements, means all buildings,
equipment, structures, and other stationary items that are located on a
single site or on contiguous or adjacent sites, and which are owned or
operated by the same person, that is classified under an SIC code
covered by the regulations, has 10 or more employees or the equivalent,
and manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses any of the listed toxic
chemicals or chemical categories above the specific reporting
thresholds.  For some industries this may not correspond exactly to the
definition of a location by D&B.

  PAGE   12 

**April 27, 2009, DRAFT - Do Not Cite or Quote***

  PAGE   17 

**April 27, 2009, DRAFT - Do Not Cite or Quote***