I o \
lฎl
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed
Revisions to the Air Emissions Reporting
Requirements
-------
[This page intentionally left blank]
2
-------
EPA-452/P-23-003
July 2023
Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the Air Emissions Reporting
Requirements
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Health and Environmental Impacts Division
Research Triangle Park, NC
3
-------
CONTACT INFORMATION
This document has been prepared by staff from the Office of Air and Radiation, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Questions related to this document should be addressed to the
Air Economics Group in the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
(email: OAQPSeconomics@epa.gov).
4
-------
Contents
1 INTRODUCTION 8
1.1 Background 9
1.2 Purpose of the Proposed Rule 10
1.3 Authority for the Proposed Rule 10
1.4 Summary of RIA Results 13
1.5 Previously Unquantified Costs of Inventories for State Implementation Plans 15
1.6 Organization of this Report 16
2 INDUSTRY PROFILE 17
3 COST AND IMPACT ESTIMATES 19
3.1 Baseline for the Proposed Rule 19
3.2 Labor Cost Assumptions 20
3.3 Number of state, local, and tribal (SLT) respondents 21
3.4 Burden for SLT respondents 22
3.4.1 SLT burden for one-time activities under the proposed AERR 26
3.4.2 SLT annual activities under proposed AERR 31
3.4.3 SLT triennial activities under proposed AERR 33
3.4.4 SLT burden for annual and triennial years 36
3.5 Number of owners/operators responding 55
3.5.1 Estimated number of facilities reporting emissions data to SLTs 56
3.5.2 Estimated number of facilities reporting emissions data to EPA 58
3.5.3 Estimated number of facilities collecting release point latitude/longitude 61
3.6 Burden on owners/operators 62
3.6.1 Estimating burden of source testing 62
3.6.2 Burden for Owners/Operators for emissions reports 64
3.7 State/local/tribal burden 68
3.8 Owners/operators burden 74
3.9 Costs of the Proposed Action for 2027 and Beyond 85
3.10 Costs in Terms of Present Value and Equivalent Annualized Value 93
3.11 Employment Impacts 95
3.12 Social Welfare Considerations 96
APPENDIX 3-A: Costs of emissions data activities for State Implementation Plans 97
3-A. 1 Number of SLT respondents 97
5
-------
3-A.2 SLT burden for emissions-related SIP requirements 102
3-A.3 Burden on Owners/Operators Related to Emissions Inventories for SIPs 104
3-A.4 Total Estimated Costs per Year of Emissions Inventories for SIPs 105
APPENDIX 3-B: Costs of Voluntary activites 107
3-B. 1 Voluntary Reporting Under the Current and Proposed AERR 107
3-B.2 Total Estimated Burden with Comparison of Burden Estimates Associated with Voluntary
Activities with Those of Mandatory Activities 109
4 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 112
4.1 Introduction 112
4.2 Why Action by the Agency is Being Considered 112
4.3 Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule 113
4.4 Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply 117
4.5 Overview of Revisions under Consideration 118
4.6 Cost Impact to Small Entities 120
4.7 Related Federal Rules 121
4.8 Significant Regulatory Alternatives 122
APPENDIX 4-A: Industry Sectors & Number of Small Entities in Various Size Categories 132
5 Benefits Analysis and Benefit-Cost Comparison 155
5.1 Synopsis of Benefits Analysis 155
5.2 Benefits of a more comprehensive air emissions reporting program 156
5.3 Benefits to the Public 157
5.3.1 Policy Development 157
5.3.2 Environmental Justice 158
5.3.3 Builds Public Confidence and Trust 159
5.3.4 Direct Actions 160
5.3.5 Voluntary Programs 161
5.4 Benefits to Industry and Investors 161
5.4.1 Public Relations 161
5.4.2 Standardization 162
5.4.3 Potential Cost Savings and Burden Reduction 163
5.4.4 Data Valuable to Service Industries 164
5.4.5 Data Valuable to Industry Stakeholders 164
5.5 Reducing Uncertainty: Benefits to all Stakeholders 164
6
-------
Uncertainties and Limitations
-------
1 INTRODUCTION
This report is the regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for the proposed revisions to the Air
Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
proposing changes to the current EPA emission inventory reporting requirements in 40 CFR Part
51, Subpart A, also called the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR).
The proposed amendments may require changes to current regulations of air pollution
control agencies, meaning state, local, and certain tribal air agencies. The proposed amendments
would require these agencies to report emissions data to the EPA using different approaches
from current requirements and would require owners/operators of some facilities to report
additional emissions data. More specifically, the EPA is proposing to require certain sources
report information regarding emissions of hazardous air pollutants. The proposed revisions
would also define a new approach for optional collection by air agencies of such information on
hazardous air pollutants by which state, local and certain tribal air agencies may implement
requirements and report emissions on behalf of owners/operators. The proposed revisions would
also make the requirements for point sources consistent for every year; phase in earlier deadlines
for point source reporting; add requirements for reporting fuel use data for certain sources of
electrical generation associated with peak electricity demand; add requirements for reporting
activity data for prescribed fires; clarify expectations for reporting data for airports, rail yards,
commercial marine vessels, and locomotives; change requirements for nonpoint sources when
the EPA has published emissions methods; add a requirement for completing a nonpoint survey;
change nonpoint source deadlines; change reporting requirements for nonpoint data when an
Indian tribe reports; and make a variety of clarifications and administrative changes.
For owners/operators of facilities that meet criteria described in this proposal, the
proposed revisions would require emissions reporting of hazardous air pollutants, except when
an air agency is approved to report on their behalf; would require sources within Indian country
not reported by an air agency to report all identified pollutants to EPA; and would require
reporting of performance test and performance evaluation data to the EPA for all tests conducted
after the effective date provided in the final rulemaking.
8
-------
1.1 Background
The EPA promulgated the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR) in the Federal
Register (73 FR 76539, December 17, 2008) to consolidate and harmonize the emissions
reporting requirements of the oxides of nitrogen (NOx) State Implementation Plan (SIP) Call (73
FR 76558, December 17, 2008 as amended at 80 FR 8796, February 19, 2015; 84 FR 8443,
March 8, 2019) and the Consolidated Emissions Reporting Rule (CERR, 67 FR 39602, June 10,
2002) with the needs of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR, 70 FR 25161, May 12, 2005). The
EPA subsequently promulgated revisions of Subpart A (80 FR 8787, February 19, 2015), to align
Subpart A with the revised National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for Lead (Pb) (73
FR 66964, November 12, 2008) and the associated Revisions to Lead Ambient Air Monitoring
Requirements (75 FR 81126, December 27, 2010), and to reduce burden on states and local air
agencies by making minor technical corrections. On August 24, 2016, the EPA further revised
Subpart A in the Federal Register (80 FR 58010) with the promulgation of the particulate matter
(PM) with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5) SIP Requirements
Rule to update the emissions reporting thresholds in Table 1 to Appendix A of this subpart.
Under the current AERR, state, local, and some tribal agencies1 are required to report
emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors (collectively, CAPs) to EPA. Further, these
agencies may optionally report emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) and other pollutants.
For simplicity in the remainder of this document, the term "states" will be used to denote all
agencies that are currently reporting or that could/would report under any revision to the AERR.
Required pollutants under the current rule are carbon monoxide (CO), NOx, volatile organic
compounds (VOC), sulfur dioxide (SO2), ammonia (NH3), PM2.5, PM with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10), and lead (Pb). Some facilities must be reported
as point sources (as defined by the current AERR at 40 CFR 51.50) based on potential-to-emit
(PTE) reporting thresholds for CAPs and an actual emissions reporting threshold for Pb. The
current AERR includes a lower set of point source reporting thresholds for every third year and,
As prescribed by the Tribal Authority Rule (63 FR 7253, February 12, 1998), codified at 40 CFR Part 49, Subpart
A, tribes may elect to seek treatment in the same manner as a state (TAS) status and obtain approval to implement
rules such as the AERR through a Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP), but tribes are under no obligation to do so.
However, those tribes that have obtained TAS status for this purpose are subject to the Subpart A requirements to
the extent allowed in their TIP. Accordingly, to the extent a tribal government has applied for and received TAS
status for air quality control purposes and is subject to the Subpart A requirements under its TIP, the use of the term
state(s) in Subpart A shall include that tribe.
9
-------
thus, states are required to report more facilities as point sources on these triennial inventory
years. The remaining requirements in the current rule are for the triennial inventories only, for
which stationary sources must be reported as county total "nonpoint" sources. Agricultural
burning is included as a nonpoint source. States, except for California, must also provide inputs
to the MOtor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES), while California must submit CAP
emissions for onroad vehicles and nonroad equipment. States are also encouraged to participate
in voluntary reporting of wildfire and prescribed burning activity data, such as the location and
size of burning.
In addition to the annual and triennial reporting requirements in the current rule, the
AERR serves as the reference for the NOx SIP Call (40 CFR Part 51 Subpart G), Regional Haze
requirements (50 CFR Part 51, Subpart P), Ozone SIP Requirements Rules (40 CFR Part 51,
Subparts X, AA, and CC) and the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule (40 CFR Part 51, Subpart Z).
These other rules point to the AERR to define certain requirements related to emissions
inventories for SIPs, collectively known as SIP planning inventories.
1.2 Purpose of the Proposed Rule
The proposed amendments in this action would ensure that communities have the data
needed to understand significant source of air pollution that may be impacting them and ensure
that the EPA has sufficient information to identify and solve air quality and exposure problems.
The proposed amendments would also allow the EPA to have information readily available that
the Agency needs to protect public health and perform other activities under the Clean Air Act
(hereafter referenced as the CAA or "the Act"). The EPA has taken a systematic approach in
developing this proposed action to ensure that key emissions information is collected in a
streamlined way, while preventing unnecessary impacts to small entities within the communities
we seek to inform and protect. The proposed amendments would continue EPA's partnership
with states in a way that also respects the framework provided by the CAA.
1.3 Authority for the Proposed Rule
The EPA promulgated the original AERR in 2008 with the intent of streamlining various
reporting requirements including those of Section 182(a)(3)(A) for ozone nonattainment areas
and Section 187(a)(5) for CO nonattainment areas, those under the NOx SIP Call (40 CFR
51.122), and the annual reporting requirements of the CERR. The original AERR and its
10
-------
subsequent 2015 revision stem from these various CAA authorities in Sections 110, 114, 172,
182, 187, 189, and 301(a). Likewise, the authority for the EPA to amend the reporting
requirements for CAPs as proposed in this rulemaking stems from these same CAA provisions
that the EPA relied upon to promulgate the original AERR and amend it in the past. The EPA is
not reopening any aspects of the AERR except for those where we are proposing revisions or
taking comment as described in this preamble and the accompanying draft regulatory text
revisions.
This proposed action would additionally require that owners/operators of certain point
sources report certain information on HAP to support the EPA and state needs for HAP data.
Sections 114(a)(1) and 301(a) of the CAA provide the authority for the HAP reporting
requirements contained in this proposed action. These provisions authorize the EPA to collect
data routinely from owners/operators of emissions sources and other entities for the purpose of
carrying out the provisions of the Act.
Section 114(a)(1) of the CAA authorizes the Administrator to, among other things,
require certain persons (explained below) on a one-time, periodic, or continuous basis to keep
records, make reports, undertake monitoring, sample emissions, or provide such other
information as the Administrator may reasonably require. The EPA may require this information
of any person who (i) owns or operates an emission source, (ii) manufactures control or process
equipment, (iii) the Administrator believes may have information necessary for the purposes set
forth in CAA Section 114, or (iv) is subject to any requirement of the Act (except for
manufacturers subject to certain Title II requirements). The information may be required for the
purposes of (1) developing an implementation plan such as those under Sections 110 or 111(d),
(2) developing an emission standard under Sections 111,112, or 129, (3) determining if any
person is in violation of any standard or requirement of an implementation plan or emissions
standard, or (4) "carrying out any provision" of the Act (except for a provision of Title II with
respect to manufacturers of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines).2
The scope of the persons potentially subject to a Section 114(a)(1) information request
(e.g., a person "who the Administrator believes may have information necessary for the purposes
2 Although there are exclusions in section 114(a)(1) regarding certain Title II requirements applicable to
manufacturers of new motor vehicle and motor vehicle engines, section 208 authorizes the gathering of information
related to those areas.
11
-------
set forth in" Section 114(a)) and the reach of the phrase "carrying out any provision" of the Act
are quite broad. The EPA's authority to request information extends to persons not otherwise
subject to CAA requirements and may be used for purposes relevant to any provision of the Act.
It is appropriate for the EPA to gather the emissions data required by this proposed action
because such information is relevant to EPA's ability to carry out a wide variety of CAA
provisions, as illustrated by the following description of the uses of such emissions data by EPA.
The EPA's need for CAP emissions data is well documented by the existing records for
the various past AERR rulemaking actions located in the docket for this proposed action. Since
the prior AERR promulgation, the EPA has recognized a gap in the current AERR approach to
collect CAP emissions from all relevant facilities. The current AERR imposes a requirement on
states to "inventory emission sources located on nontribal lands and report this information
to EPA." 40 CFR 51.1 (emphasis added). First, the phrase "nontribal lands" is not defined and
may be leading to confusion. Further, data from sources located within the geographic scope of
Indian country (as defined by 18 U.S. Code ง 1151) are relevant for many purposes, including
regional and national analyses to support the implementation of the Regional Haze Program and
NAAQS for ozone and PM2.5. To address this explicit data gap, the EPA proposes, based on the
authority provided by CAA Section 114(a), to require reporting directly from certain facilities to
the EPA. Specifically, the EPA is proposing that facilities located within Indian country for
which the relevant tribe does not have Treatment as a State (TAS) status or approval to submit
emissions through a Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP), and which are outside the geographic
scope of the relevant state's implementation planning authority,3 will report directly to EPA.
The EPA's need for HAP emissions data stems from CAA requirements that the EPA is
expected to meet. For example, the EPA has many authorities and obligations for air toxic
regulatory development under the many provisions of CAA Section 112, including technology
3 EPA is using the phrase "implementation planning authority" in this context to reflect the fact that in some cases
states may administer approved SIPs in certain areas of Indian country. For instance, in Oklahoma Dept. ofEnvtl.
Quality v. EPA, 740 F.3d 185 (D.C. Cir. 2014), the D.C. Circuit held that states have initial CAA implementation
planning authority in non-reservation areas of Indian country until displaced by a demonstration of tribal jurisdiction
over such an area. Under the D.C. Circuit's decision, the CAA does not provide authority to states to implement
SIPs in Indian reservations. However, there are also uncommon circumstances where another federal statute
provides authority for a particular state to administer an approved implementation plan in certain areas of Indian
country, which may include certain Indian reservations.
12
-------
reviews pursuant to CAA Section 112(d)(6), and risk reviews under CAA Section 112(f)(2).
These provisions are additionally impacted by Executive Order 12898, which overlays
environmental justice considerations for the EPA to assess as part of such work. HAP emissions
data also can be useful in further refining chemical speciation to better meet the Agency's
responsibilities under CAA Part D that require air quality modeling using emissions data to
support NAAQS implementation. VOC chemical speciation is a critical part of such modeling
and can be informed by emissions of HAP VOC. The EPA is additionally authorized (and in
some cases, obligated) to assess the risks of pollutants, and EPA's Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS) program uses HAP emissions data and estimated modeled risk from those data to
allow the EPA to prioritize which pollutants most need attention. Finally, the EPA implements
compliance and enforcement programs per CAA Sections 113 and 114(a), (b), and (d), and HAP
emissions data would support prioritization of those compliance and enforcement efforts. This
discussion is not a comprehensive listing of all the possible ways the HAP information collected
under this proposed action could assist the EPA in carrying out any provision of the CAA.
Rather it illustrates how the information request fits within the parameters of EPA's CAA
authority.
The EPA has also identified that many air emissions sources operating in Federal waters
are not subject to emissions reporting under this subpart. The CAA Section 328 provides the
EPA the authority to "establish requirements to control air pollution from Outer Continental
Shelf sources located off-shore of the States along the Pacific, Artie, and Atlantic Coasts, and
along the United States Gulf Coast off the State of Florida eastward of longitude 87 degrees and
30 minutes ("OCS sources") to attain and maintain Federal and State ambient air quality
standards and to comply with the provisions of part C of subchapter I of [the CAA]." To support
the Agency in carrying out this function under the CAA, including data gathering for OCS
sources, the EPA is proposing revisions to this subpart for owners/operators of such sources to
report emissions data to EPA.
1.4 Summary of RIA Results
This proposed rule will impose costs on multiple industries, and state, local, and tribal
authorities, while providing the EPA much additional emissions data to facilitate understanding
of a variety of air quality issues, improve future rulemaking, and provides benefits to the public,
13
-------
industry, and investors. The proposed rule does not require additional source measurement, but
rather that owners/operators and states rely on the best available data. The key results of this RIA
are as follows:
Compliance Costs: The proposed rule's cost impact on State, local, tribal government
authorities is estimated at $28.5 million on average annually from 2024 to 2026, and then is
estimated at $27.7 million in 2027. For owners and operators of affected sources, the proposed
rule's cost impact is estimated at $88.9 million on average annually from 2024 to 2026, and then
is estimated at $450.1 million in 2027. Thus, the proposed rule's total cost impact is estimated at
$117.4 million on average annually from 2024 to 2026, and then is estimated at $477.9 million
in 2027. The increase in costs for owners and operators of affected sources in 2027 reflects full
implementation of the proposed rule if finalized for the entire population of affected sources. For
the 2024-2026 time period, the EPA estimates the proposed rule would impact 85
state/1 ocal/tribal respondents, 40,315 owners/operators gathering certain data for reporting
starting in 2027, and 819 owners/operators of facilities within Indian country for reporting in
2026. Also during this period, the EPA estimates that owners/operators of 13,420 facilities would
report source test and performance evaluation data each year. Based on these proposed
requirements, states would continue to collect emissions data from owners/operators of an
estimated 13,420 facilities (based on state regulations requiring owners/operators to do so).
Starting in 2027, owners/operators of an estimated additional 129,500 facilities from which this
proposed rule would require HAP reporting and for about 235 owners/operators, reporting of
small generation unit data.
In addition, the EPA's expected annual capital costs for its data systems needed from
2024 through 2026 are $600,000. EPA's additional annual system development, operations, and
maintenance costs are expected to be $3,625,000. All costs are in 2021 dollars.
As part of fulfilling analytical guidance with respect to E.O. 12866, EPA presents
estimates of the present value (PV) of the social costs of the proposal over the period 2024 to
2033. To calculate the present value of the social costs of the proposed rule, annual costs are
discounted to 2023 at 3 percent and 7 discount rates as directed by OMB's Circular A-4. The
EPA also presents the equivalent annualized value (EAV), which represents a flow of constant
annual values that, had they occurred in each year from 2024 to 2033, would yield a sum
14
-------
equivalent to the PV. The EAV represents the value of a typical cost or benefit for each year of
the analysis, consistent with the estimate of the PV, in contrast to the year-specific estimates
mentioned earlier in the RIA. The present value (PV) of the compliance costs, in 2021 dollars
and discounted to 2023, is $2.41 billion when using a 7 percent discount rate and $3.06 billion
when using a 3 percent discount rate. The equivalent annualized values (EAV), an estimate of
the annualized value of the costs consistent with the present values, is $343 million when using a
7 percent discount rate and $358 million when using a 3 percent discount rate. Table 3-27 in
Chapter 3 provides the discounted costs for each year in the 2024-2033 analytical time period.
Small Business Impacts: Given the large number of affected sources and the potential for a
substantial number of small entities (businesses or governments) to be impacted, the EPA agreed
to have a Small Business Advisory Review (SBAR) Panel established to work with potentially
affected small entities to examine alternatives to reduce potential impacts to these entities. In
compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by Small Business
Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), the SBAR Panel prepared a report documenting the
activities and finding of the Panel. The findings and discussion of potential alternatives to
mitigate small entity impacts are in Chapter 4 of the RIA.
Benefits: The benefits of this proposal are discussed qualitatively in Chapter 5. These benefits
include but are not limited to greater disclosure of HAP emissions to the public, more extensive
data for use in rulemakings by the EPA and state, local, and tribal authorities, and more data for
use by investors in making decisions on investments. There are no monetized benefits estimates
for this proposal since there are no changes in emissions or environmental effects that can be
determined..
1.5 Previously Unquantified Costs of Inventories for State Implementation Plans
In addition to the burden associated with the proposed AERR revisions, this RIA
provides a separate cost estimate in Appendix 3-A that quantifies the burden associated with
activities that states/locals must do to create emissions inventories needed to comply with certain
Clean Air Act requirements for SIPs. The costs associated with complying with these
requirements have not previously been quantified by EPA, and they are provided here for public
review and comment.
15
-------
The reason for including this burden estimate in this RIA (and the associated ICR for the
proposed rule) is the connection between the SIP requirements rules and the AERR. The AERR
serves as the reference for the NOx SIP Call (40 CFR Part 51 Subpart G), Regional Haze
requirements (50 CFR Part 51, Subpart P), Ozone SIP Requirements Rules (40 CFR Part 51,
Subparts X, AA, and CC) and the PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule (40 CFR Part 51, Subpart Z).
The AERR is referenced as providing a required data format for numerous SIP inventory
requirements. These other rules point to the AERR to define certain requirements related to
emissions inventories for SIPs, collectively known as SIP planning inventories. Using the AERR
to provide a required data format for SIP planning inventories promotes a consistent approach to
emissions inventory data collection from states.
In addition, as mentioned in section IV of the preamble to the proposed rule, any new
data elements finalized from this proposed action would be collected by states to meet
requirements of the AERR and, therefore, would be available for states to submit as part of their
planning inventories for SIPs. Thus, while the SIP inventory requirements are indirectly
modified by this proposed action, the proposed AERR does not impose additional burden for
nonattainment area inventories because this subpart uses the same requirements for both annual
reporting of point sources and for states' planning inventories for SIPs. However, given the
effect of changes in the AERR on SIP development, presenting the costs associated with the
indirect modifications to SIP inventory requirements provides states with an understanding of
what this burden impact may be.
1.6 Organization of this Report
This report presents the EPA's analysis of the potential benefits, costs, and other
economic effects of the proposed AERR. This RIA includes the following sections:
Chapter 2 presents a brief profile of the affected industries and sources.
Chapter 3 describes the estimated costs and impacts of the regulation and the indirect
impacts on SIP inventory requirements.
Chapter 4 provides discussion and results of the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA).
Chapter 5 presents a discussion of the benefits of the proposal, a qualitative comparison of
the proposal benefits to the costs, and overall limitations of the analyses for this proposal.
16
-------
2 INDUSTRY PROFILE
This proposal will impact a large number of industries and entities, and will impact a
wide number of state, local and tribal government authorities. There will be 85 state/local/tribal
government authorities that this proposal will affect in the 2024-2026 timeframe and in the year
of full implementation, 2027 and beyond. There are estimated to be 120,954 facilities (40,315
per year) outside of state/local/tribal government authorities that this proposal will affect in the
2024-2026 timeframe and 129,490 sources in 2027 and beyond. Those industries and entities
potentially regulated by this proposed action as listed in Table 2-1 include:
Table 2-1: List of Impacted Categories and Entities
Category
NAICS
code"
Examples of regulated entities
State/local/tribal government
92411
State, territorial, and local government air
quality management programs. Tribal
governments are not affected, unless they have
sought and obtained treatment in the same
manner as a state under the Clean Air Act and
Tribal Authority Rule and, on that basis, are
authorized to implement and enforce the Air
Emissions Reporting Requirements rule.
Major sources
Any
Owners/operators of facilities
Other (than major) sources
Owners/operators of facilities of:
21xxxx,
22xxxx,
3xxxxx
except for
311811
Industrial and manufacturing industries
4247xx
Petroleum and Petroleum Products Merchant
Wholesalers
481xxx
Scheduled Air Transportation
486xxx
Pipeline Transportation
4883xx
Support Activities for Water Transportation
17
-------
Category
NAICS
code"
Examples of regulated entities
493xxx
Warehousing and Storage
5417xx
Scientific Research and Development Services
54199x
Other Professional, Scientific, and Technical
Services
56191x
Packaging and Labeling Services
5622xx
Waste Treatment and Disposal
5629xx
Waste Management and Remediation Services
61131x
Colleges, Universities, and Professional Schools
6221lx
General Medical and Surgical Hospitals
6223lx
Specialty (except Psychiatric and Substance
Abuse) Hospitals
811121
Automotive Body, Paint and Interior Repair and
Maintenance13
8122xx
Death Care Services
812332
Industrial Launderers
92214x
Correctional Institutions
927xxx
Space Research and Technology
928xxx
National Security and International Affairs
aNorth American Industry Classification System.
b Excluding small businesses for primary NAICS 811121.
18
-------
3
COST AND IMPACT ESTIMATES
This chapter presents the EPA's estimates of the costs associated with the proposed rule.
Unless otherwise noted, the proposed revisions in this action would apply for the first inventory
reporting year after the promulgation of this rule if finalized (likely in 2024). At the time of this
proposal, the EPA expects that the final rule will be in place for the 2023 triennial reporting year,
though some provisions would not take effect until later years. These proposed deadlines depend
on an assumed final promulgation date prior to December 2023. If a final version of this subpart
were delayed beyond December 2023, the EPA may delay the phase-in of earlier deadlines.
3.1 Baseline for the Proposed Rule
The impacts of regulatory actions are evaluated relative to a baseline that represents to
the extent possible the world without the regulatory action. It is the starting point for conducting
an analysis of the potential benefits and costs for a proposed regulation. This definition of a
baseline for evaluation of a regulatory action is consistent with the EPA Economic Guidelines.4
In past years, the information collection under the existing AERR has coordinated the
various state emission inventory reporting requirements and has streamlined the activities
involved in submitting certain emissions data to the EPA. The proposed collection would
(1) continue this coordination to enable the EPA to achieve uniformity and completeness in a
national inventory to support national, regional, and local air quality planning and attainment of
NAAQS and planning needed for meeting regional haze requirements, (2) greatly improve HAP
data collections that are voluntary under the existing AERR, but are proposed herein to become
mandatory, (3) fill other identified gaps in emissions inventories for sources within Indian
country, for certain small generation units, and for prescribed fires nationally, and (4) greatly
improve the availability of data necessary for creating emissions factors.
The draft Information Collection Request (ICR) for this proposed action includes
collection of both mandatory and voluntary data from states (defined to include certain local and
tribal governments) for annual and more extensive triennial collections of emissions data. The
4 U.S. EPA, Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses, December 2010. Chapter 5 (Baseline). P. 5-1. Available
on the Internet at https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-09/documents/ee-0568-05.pdf.
19
-------
draft ICR also covers the proposed collection of mandatory and voluntary data from
owners/operators that emit emissions at or above proposed reporting thresholds and that perform
source tests. The baseline for this proposed action presumes that data that is currently voluntarily
collected is to be an incremental impact and not one that is to be considered in the analytical
baseline. While the current AERR provides support for voluntary data collection, and many
States and other authorities provide a considerable amount of useful emissions data, the EPA has
significant evidence that the current voluntary reporting program from states is insufficient to
meet the Agency's data needs. In addition, under the current voluntary program, some states
submit extensive HAP data, while other states submit little or no HAP data. Finally, the
longstanding absence of stationary source data from sources within Indian country and the lack
of success in collecting sufficient data for estimating emissions of many prescribed fires in many
states is indicative of several significant gaps in emissions data needed by the EPA to carry out
many required programs. Given the incompleteness of emissions data, we consider the baseline
for this proposed action to best be one that does not include voluntary collection of emissions
data by states and other authorities. While the focus of the draft ICR is the 2024-2026 period,
additional costs from 2027 and beyond are included in this RIA to reflect additional costs
associated with full implementation of the proposed revisions.
The fact many of the data collection requirements in the proposed rule are designed to
codify data collection efforts that are currently voluntary is something that we note given its
importance in characterizing the impacts of this proposal. As an example, the percentage of the
burden estimate that is considered voluntary for States to collect emissions data from nonpoint,
mobile and event sources is roughly one-third of the total burden estimate, as shown later in
Chapter 3. Given that voluntary data collections activities, such as those for HAP emissions, will
now become mandatory, one can argue that there may not be an incremental impact from
codifying the voluntary activities. Thus, if this position is accurate, then the costs for the
proposal as incremental from a baseline as defined earlier in this RIA may be overestimated.
3.2 Labor Cost Assumptions
Labor rates as applied for estimating costs in this RIA were developed using the U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Web site as of May 2021 as accessed in March
20
-------
2022. Hence, the labor costs assessed in this report are in 2021 dollars. Table 3-1 below provides
the rates for state government as well as the rates for industries. An overhead rate of 110 percent
was applied to all rates to derive the loaded rates (i.e., including fringe benefits) to be used in the
cost estimates. This is consistent with ICRs prepared for other EPA rulemakings.
Table 3-1: Labor Rates
Employee Type
Employer
Mean
Hourly
Wage
Loaded
Hourly
Rate
Source
Environmental
Engineer
State
Government
$43.25
$90.83
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4
999200.htm#l 7-0000
Architectural and
Engineering
Managers
State
Government
$56.64
$118.94
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4
999200.htm#l 7-0000
Network and
Computer
Systems
Administrator
State
Government
$38.58
$81.02
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4
999200.htm#l 7-0000
Environmental
Engineer
Any
$48.18
$101.18
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/
oesl72081.htm
Architectural and
Engineering
Managers
Any
$76.43
$160.50
https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/
oesl 19041.htm
3.3 Number of state, local, and tribal (SLT) respondents
Under the proposed AERR, 54 states (including the District of Columbia and 3
territories) and, depending on the reporting year being annual or triennial, additionally between
23 and 31 local and tribal air agencies would be subject to the national reporting requirements.
These are the same numbers as are affected under the current AERR. For the 2024-2026 period
covered by this RIA, these state, local, and tribal (SLT) air pollution control agencies would be
required to compile and report emissions information for large stationary point sources on an
annual basis, and for smaller point sources, stationary nonpoint and onroad and nonroad mobile
sources on a 3-year basis. As described in Appendix A to the ICR Supporting Statement, point
21
-------
sources and prescribed burning reports would be reported every year starting with the 2026
inventory year, reported in 2027 and therefore after the period of this RIA. For certain reporting
activities, a fewer number of state, local, or tribal agencies are required to report, or voluntarily
do so. These lower numbers are reflected in the relevant tables of this section and in the
summary table provided in Section 3.7 of this RIA.
Additionally, based on expressed interest to date in the Combined Air Emissions
Reporting System(CAERS), an emissions collection system has been developed by the EPA to
streamline reporting from owners/operators to multiple EPA and state programs , EPA estimates
that 12 state/local agencies will use CAERS for reporting in 2024.5 Based on the proposed
AERR revision requiring some owners/operators to use CAERS for reporting HAP, EPA
projects that 30 state/local agencies will use CAERS for reporting in 2025 and 54 in 2026.
Furthermore, reporting that occurs in 2025 and 2026 is for the "smaller" set of sources due to
higher proposed thresholds for those years in Table 1A in the Appendix A of the ICR for the
proposed revisions.6 Reporting in 2024 is for more sources than in 2023 because 2023 is a
triennial reporting year and includes a larger number of point sources as also proposed in Table
1A in the Appendix A of the ICR for the proposed revisions. As a result, EPA has assumed an
average 32 state/local agencies will use CAERS for reporting across the 3 years {i.e.,
(12+30+54)/3) for the burden calculations associated with sources reported in 2025 and 2026.
3.4 Burden for SLT respondents
The SLT respondent burden for complying with the proposed AERR revision includes
burden to meet both the annual and the 3-year (triennial) cycle reporting requirements. Within
the annual and triennial reporting requirements associated with the proposed AERR revision, the
burden has been estimated separately for one-time activities, annual reporting, and triennial
reporting. In the subsections below, each of these individual elements are handled separately.
5 More information on CAERS can be found at https://www.epa.gov/combined-air-emissions-reporting/combined-
air-emissions-reporting-svstem-caers. CAERS can be used for meeting requirements in the current AERR and can
be used in part to meet reporting requirements for the TRI. CAERS version 4 became available on February 6,
2023.
6 This smaller set of sources has been referenced as "Type A" sources in previous versions of the AERR, as well as
the current version. However, EPA is proposing to eliminate the Type A and Type B terminology because the
proposed revisions would require point sources to report every year starting with the 2026 inventory year.
22
-------
The SLTs reporting to EPA under the AERR maintain their own air quality management
programs, which include permitting programs and annual emissions fee programs for their point
sources. These fees help offset costs associated with running these emissions programs.
Nevertheless, the RIA includes as part of the burden estimates, those SLTs' efforts to collect and
manage emissions inventory data for these purposes, much of which occur irrespective of the
AERR. However, the RIA does not include certain efforts of SLTs unrelated to requirements of
the AERR or the associated burden on their owners/operators. Table 3-2 below provides a
summary of the included and excluded elements of the burden estimate. In this table, the last row
represents costs associated with SLTs reporting data to EPA that are voluntarily collected and
reported along with their required data. These types of voluntary reports include additional
facilities that do not meet the AERR point source thresholds and emissions of HAP.
Table 3-2: Cost estimates associated with these efforts included*
Owners/operators
report
SLT collects
from
SLT
reports
Point Source...
to EPA
to SLT
owners/operators
to EPA
Data collected because of
proposed AERR
requirement
Included
Included
Included
Included
Optional data fields
associated with pollutants
required by proposed
AERR
Included
Included
Included
Included
Data collected because of
SLT requirement
N/A
N/A
N/A
Included
*Data included in cost estimates consistent with analysis baseline definition in Section 3.1.
The proposed AERR revisions would lead to SLTs needing to make two key decisions
that would impact how they implement any final requirements. While there is no requirement to
participate in CAERS, an SLT's choice of whether to participate or not could significantly
impact the costs of compliance and the mechanism of compliance with point source reporting
requirements. As shown in
23
-------
Figure 3-1 below, EPA recommends that states first determine whether they intend to
participate in CAERS and in what way, and then determine whether they intend to report HAP
on behalf of owners/operators. As illustrated in the figure, SLTs should decide whether to retain
the user interface ("front end") of their current emissions data collection system and whether to
retain the database ("back end") of their system. The front end is the user interface (often web-
based) that owners/operators use to submit the data. Occasionally the SLT front end interacts
with an SLT electronic permitting system. The back end is the master storage location for the
data collected by the SLT, and often interacts with other SLT data systems. CAERS is being
constructed to support different SLT use of CAERS for features from the front end, back-end,
both, or neither. Even SLTs that choose not to participate in any of the CAERS cases shown can
choose to reduce burden on facilities via collaboration with the CAERS features, such as
expected quality assurance services, shared code tables, and other necessary aspects of electronic
data collection and compilation.
24
-------
Figure 3-1: Decision tree representing SLT decisions about implementing proposed
requirements
25
-------
Once an SLT has determined their plans for interacting with CAERS, the state should
then determine whether it will report HAP on behalf of owners/operators. The combination of
this decision and their decision on CAERS should then need to be part of the process of updating
SLT regulations. The EPA expects most states would need to update their emissions collection
regulations to comply with aspects of these proposed revisions, even if the SLT chooses not to
participate in CAERS and not to report HAP on behalf of owners/operators. For example, this
action proposes new requirements to collect information regarding latitude/longitude of release
points, Title V permit identifiers, and regulation applicability. The EPA does not believe that
SLTs will meet those requirements without collecting at least some new information. The choice
of CAERS case impacts the overall burden on states described in Section 3.7.
26
-------
3.4.1 SLT burden for one-time activities under the proposed AERR
To prepare for proposed changes to the AERR that would take effect for the 2026
reporting year, SLTs would have both required and voluntary one-time efforts that would occur
during the period covered by the RIA. One-time activities would be related to proposed changes
in point source reporting and in prescribed fire activity data requirements that would take effect
in 2027. For point sources, these activities depend on three SLT choices:
Whether the SLT will adopt CAERS to support point source emissions collection or keep
the SLT point source emissions collection system,
Whether the state will report HAP on behalf of owners/operators, and
Whether the state will maintain their own HAP collection program.
These activities and associated choices are:
States could choose activity A-1 (higher burden) or A-2 (lower burden):
A-l. Update SLT point source | A-2. Adopt CAERS as SLT point source emissions
emissions collection system to OR collection system (case 1 or 2).
accommodate new AERR |
requirements consistent with |
SLT regulation update. |
States could choose activity B-l through B-3 (higher burden) or B-4 through B-7/B-8 (lower
burden)
| B-4. Rely on EPA HAP collection via CAERS
| (case 1 or 2).
I and, for states with HAP collection program that
I they want to create or maintain:
OR
B-5. Create and deliver training to
I owners/operators.
| B-6. Curate list of facilities to remove duplicates.
I B-7. Other coordination activities including
I ensuring any CAERS customizations meet SLT
I requirements.
B-l. Revise SLT emissions
collection regulation to include
HAP reporting consistent with
AERR requirements.
B-2. Update SLT point source
emissions collection system to
accommodate new HAP
requirements.
B-3. Apply to EPA for permission
to report HAP on behalf of
owners/operators.
27
-------
B-8. Optionally, instrument SLT emissions
collection system to receive data from CAERS.
C. Revise SLT emissions collection regulations to meet new AERR requirements for point
sources: new data fields, newly mandatory data fields, and reporting of daily activity data
for small generation units (this could exclude updates for HAP reporting depending on SLT
choice to rely on EPA collection for HAP or not).
D. Develop SLT regulations to collect prescribed burning data consistent with proposed
AERR.
E. Develop SLT data collection system for prescribed burning data to conform with EPA
collection and reporting requirements.
F. Develop quality assurance and other techniques for prescribed burning data.
The EPA and SLTs have envisioned four cases for how an SLT could interact with
CAERS, which are relevant to activities A and B above. Under CAERS cases 1 and 2, the SLT
would choose to retain its data system but rely on some aspects of the CAERS system for data
sharing with other emissions programs. SLTs could also choose CAERS case 3, in which the
SLT uses the CAERS user interface and retains its back-end database or CAERS case 4, where
the SLT uses CAERS for both the collection and the storage of the point source emissions
inventory data.
For activity B above, if an SLT chooses the path represented by activity B-4 through B-8
(the CAERS path), the SLT would have various additional choices depending on their
circumstances. In this case, the SLT would be electing to use CAERS in some form. For
example, SLTs that do not currently have a HAP collection program or wish to eliminate their
HAP collection program and rely on EPA's collection, could choose the lower burden option B-4
alone. For states under the CAERS path that wish to maintain their HAP collection program, an
SLT could choose to:
1. Adopt CAERS as the SLT data system, which would require one-time activities listed as
activities B-5, B-6, and B-7 (needed for CAERS case 4);
2. Connect the SLT data system to receive data from CAERS, which would include activity
B-8 (needed for CAERS case 3); or
28
-------
3. Not engage with CAERS using any of the four cases.
SLTs with HAP collection programs that choose not to participate in CAERS would
potentially cause at least some owners/operators regulated under the SLT HAP reporting
requirements to have to report both to CAERS and separately to the SLT system.
The tables below provide estimated hours burden for one-time activities per state
respondent. Table 3-3 provides one-time activities for point sources, and Table 3-4 provides the
estimated burden in hours for states to do additional one-time activities to adopt CAERS case 3
or case 4. Table 3-5 provides the estimated hours burden for one-time activities for developing a
prescribed burning collection approach. Finally, Table 3-6 provides the annualized burden per
state across all of the one-time activities, including costs.
Table 3-3: State respondent burden hours for one-time point source activities
Activity
Hours Per Respondent
Engineering
Managerial
Hours
Engineering
Technical
Hours
IT Admin
Hours
Total
Point sources - required activities
1. Revise SLT regulations to
accommodate new required data
fields and reporting of daily activity
data for small generation units.
52
520
572
2. Update SLT data system to
accommodate new point source data
fields and daily activity data for
small generation units.
124
200
1,040
1,364
Subtotal
176
720
1,040
1,936
Point sources - optional activities when including MAP
reporting
1. Revise SLT regulations to adjust
HAP reporting based on EPA
requirements
104
1,040
1,144
29
-------
Activity
Hours Per Respondent
Engineering
Managerial
Hours
Engineering
Technical
Hours
IT Admin
Hours
Total
2. Update SLT data system to
accommodate new point source
HAP reporting
144
400
1,040
1,584
3. Complete and submit application to
EPA for permission to report HAP
on behalf of facilities.
12
120
132
Subtotal
260
1,560
1,040
2,860
Table 3-4: State respondent burden additional voluntary burden for one-time point source
activities when using CAERS
Activity
Hours Per Respondent
Engineering
Managerial
Hours
Engineering
Technical
Hours
IT Admin
Hours
Total
CAKUS Case 3 and 4 (Slate uses only CAKUS)
1. Update and deliver training to
owners/operators
24
240
264
2. Curate list of facilities to remove
duplicates
16
160
176
3. Other coordination activities
including ensuring any CAERS
customizations meet SLT
requirements.
48
480
528
CAKUS Case 3 (CAKUS fro ill end and Sl.T database)
4. Modify SLT system to receive data
from CAERS user interface.
104
1,040
1,144
Subtotal - Case 3
192
880
1,040
2,112
Subtotal - Case 4
88
880
968
30
-------
Table 3-5 : State respondent burden hours for one-time activities to develop prescribed
burning data collection
Activity
Hours Per Respondent
Engineering
Managerial
Hours
Engineering
Technical
Hours
IT Admin
Hours
Total
1. Revise SLT regulations to collect
prescribed burning data.
312
1,040
1,352
2. Develop data collection system for
prescribed burning data to conform
with EPA collection and reporting
requirements.
416
1,040
3,120
4,576
3. Develop quality assurance and other
techniques.
72
480
240
792
Total
800
2,560
3,360
6,720
Table 3-6: Annualized one-time burden per state res
pondent
Activity
Manager
Hrs/Yr
@
$118.94
Technical
Hrs/Yr
@
$90.83
IT
Hrs/Yr
@
$81.02
Hours/
Year
Labor
Cost/
Year
Prescribed liurning Required Activities
Develop prescribed burning data
collection
267
853
1,120
2,240
$199,963
Point Sources Required Activities
Reporting with EIS or CAERS case 1, 2
or 3: Update regulations and data
storage system
59
240
347
645
$56,862
Reporting with CAERS case 4: Update
regulations
17
173
0
191
$17,805
31
-------
Activity
Manager
Hrs/Yr
@
$118.94
Technical
Hrs/Yr
@
$90.83
IT
Hrs/Yr
@
$81.02
Hours/
Year
Labor
Cost/
Year
Point Sources \ oluntarv Activities
Revise regulations, update SLT data
system for HAP, and complete/submit
application to EPA to report on behalf
of owners/operators.
87
520
347
953
$85,624
Transition Tasks for CAERS Case 3
123
533
693
1,349
$119,203
Transition Tasks for CAERS Case 4
29
293
0
323
$30,131
3.4.2 SLT annual activities under proposed AERR
Annual SLT activities would be in support of submitting emissions data for annually
reported point sources with potential to emit 2,500 tons per year (tpy) of NOx, CO, or SO2; or
250 tpy of VOC, PM10, PM2.5 or NH3. The key steps for the SLTs to perform the work to meet
the AERR requirements are:
Maintain the state's data system to collect data from facilities;
Collect emissions data and other associated information;
Train staff in coding and submissions techniques;
Quality-assure and quality-control emissions data and resolve errors and anomalies prior
to submitting to the EIS electronic quality-assurance;
Maintain records associated with data submitted by sources;
Extract the necessary data from the state electronic data system;
Convert any facility inventory data (i.e., attributes of the facility including details about
its units, processes, release points and controls) for new facilities into the XML submittal
format;
Convert the point emissions data into the XML submittal format;
Run the automated quality-assurance checks provided in the EPA data system and resolve
any critical errors;
32
-------
Submit the final file to EPA; and
Respond to any follow-up inquiries and point source data reviews from EPA.
In addition, SLTs may optionally include in their submissions additional data, including
emissions for facilities that are not required to be reported annually as well as HAP emissions.
To accomplish this optional work, the same activities would be done as are listed above to meet
AERR requirements, but that work would take incrementally more effort.
For two of the three years in each triennial cycle, the agencies submit only the largest
sources as described above. To help estimate the time needed to report emissions for only the
annually reported sources, we estimate the number of such sources by considering the emissions
reporting thresholds. The AERR reporting thresholds are PTE thresholds; however, EPA does
not collect PTE data. The EPA only collects actual emissions, and actual emissions are lower
than PTE values. Since EPA does not collect data on PTE, it is difficult to know with certainty
the number of annually reported sources. Furthermore, many states voluntarily submit many
more facilities than those required. For these reasons, EPA must estimate the number of required
sources for annual reporting.
Based on an analysis of the 2017 NEI, 1,055 facilities had actual emissions greater than
the 2024 and 2025 inventory year PTE thresholds of 2,500 tpy of NOx, CO, or SO2, or 250 tpy of
VOC, PM10, PM2.5, or NH3. To adjust for the undercounting due to actual emissions, we retained
the number of estimated facilities from the previous AERR ICR, which is about 2.3x the facility
count based on actual emissions. As a result, we assume 2,510 of the 2024- and 2025-year
sources are reported for the purposes of this analysis across 54 state/territorial and 23 local and
tribal air agencies. This equates to an average of 33 annually reported sources that would be
required on average per agency for 2 of the 3 years. The number of required sources can be much
larger for heavily industrialized states and smaller (all the way down to zero) for some smaller
states and local agencies.
To account for states that we estimate will use the CAERS for the required annually
reported sources in the 2023 through 2025 emission inventory years, we have considered the
reduction in effort associated with the steps for reporting to EIS necessary only when a state
maintains their own data system and thus needs to convert that data for submission to the EIS.
33
-------
3.4.3 SLT triennial activities under proposed AERR
Triennial Point Source Activities and Assumptions
For triennial reporting in 2024, SLTs would have the same point source activities as
described for the annual reporting above but completing those activities would take longer
because more sources would be reporting. Rather than the PTE thresholds listed above for annual
reporting, SLTs would submit additional emissions data for point sources that are smaller than
the annually reported sources and have a potential to emit 100 tpy of NOx, SO2, VOC, PM10,
PM2.5, or NH3; or 1,000 tpy of CO; or that have actual emissions of at least 0.5 tons of lead (Pb).
Further, the emissions reporting thresholds for facilities within nonattainment areas are even
lower for triennially reported point sources, in accordance with Table 1A of Appendix A to
Subpart A of 40 CFR part 51.
Like annually reported sources, the triennial reporting thresholds are based on PTE
values, but EPA does not collect PTE data. Fortunately, the triennial source reporting criteria are
nearly the same as the major source definition for criteria pollutants and precursors, and a list of
such major sources is available from the EPA Enforcement and Compliance History Online
(ECHO) web application. ECHO is fed by reporting of compliance data from the state agencies.
These data are sent from states to the ECHO system many times per year, which helps ensure
that we are using updated information.
For the previous version of the AERR ICR using the ECHO database, EPA determined
that there are 13,408 Major Title V facilities nationwide. To adjust this facility-count for the
triennial definition, we also needed to consider the triennial threshold for Pb, which is 0.5 tons of
actual emissions per year (and more stringent than the major source definition). Since the Pb
threshold is based on actual emissions, we used the 2014 NEI to determine that just 12 additional
facilities have 0.5 tons of Pb emissions or more and are not otherwise identified as major
sources.7 The resulting triennial source facility total used for this work is 13,420. Because the
7 This analysis was repeated with 2017 NEI data and only 6 such facilities were identified, but the difference is so
small we have retained the facility count based on 2014.
34
-------
number of major source facilities has decreased8 since the previous ICR, these numbers provide
a conservative (or overstated) estimate of the number of facilities.
Since there are 85 reporting agencies in triennial years, we estimate an average of 158
(13,420 facilities/ 85 agencies =158 facilities/agency) facilities to be reported per agency for the
triennial inventories. The number of sources can be much larger for the large, heavily
industrialized states, and smaller for some SLT agencies. Because much of the effort needed to
report the point source emissions data from the state data systems to EPA involves automated
data manipulations, there are economies of scale for the states with many sources. The idea that
states benefit from economies of scale is further supported by the actual number of facilities
reported. States reported about 72,000 facilities (which excludes most airports and railyards that
are reported differently) in the most recent 2020 triennial reporting years, which is far greater
than the 13,420 facilities that we estimate are required.
Other Triennial Activities for SLTs
In addition to the triennial point source collection and reporting, the AERR would include
additional triennial activities for SLTs:
For nonpoint sources, complete a nonpoint survey to indicate plans for reporting each
nonpoint category;
For nonpoint sources with EPA-provided emissions calculation tools (excluding
commercial marine vessels and locomotives), either submit nonpoint tool input data or
review, comment on, and accept EPA-provided nonpoint tool inputs. This includes
compiling and reporting total point source activity data for those data categories for
which EPA provides templates for use in reconciliation between point and nonpoint
sources to avoid double counting (e.g., industrial, commercial, and institutional boilers);
For nonpoint sources without EPA-provided methods and tools, estimate emissions, run
quality assurance checks, format data into XML format, and submit emissions data and
documentation.
8 As described in the ICR Supporting Statement, the revised estimate for CAP major facilities based on 2017 NEI
and additional data sources is 12,379.
35
-------
For nonpoint sources in states that overlap with tribes that submit data, adjust nonpoint
submissions for tribal boundaries.
Either submit airport activity data (i.e., landings and takeoffs) or review EPA-provided
data, submit comments on that data, and/or notify EPA that the state accepts that data.
Either submit rail yard activity data and associated documentation or review EPA-
provided data, submit comments on that data, and/or notify EPA that the state accepts
that data.
For commercial marine vessels and locomotives, either report annual actual emissions
and associated documentation, provide comment on EPA-provided emissions, or accept
EPA-provided emissions.
For all states except California, develop inputs to the MOtor Vehicle Emissions
Simulator (MOVES) for onroad mobile and nonroad mobile sources. Review and revise
draft data from EPA and/or collect such data, review and edit that data, format data into
required XML format, run quality assurance checks, and submit the data to EPA.
For California, develop and report statewide inventory emission estimates for onroad and
nonroad mobile sources for all criteria pollutants. Develop model inputs for California's
mobile source model(s), run the California mobile source model(s), run quality assurance
checks, format data into XML format, and submit emissions data and documentation.
Additionally for triennial years for this RIA period, SLTs could perform several
additional voluntary activities under the AERR collection:
For nonpoint sources with EPA-provided methods and tools, estimate emissions, run
quality assurance checks, format data into XML format, and submit emissions data and
documentation.
For aircraft, ground support equipment (GSE), and/or rail yards, voluntarily estimate and
submit emissions and documentation of the associated calculations.
For prescribed fire, agricultural fire, and wildfires, review, comment on, and/or accept
activity data and emissions data or submit emissions.
36
-------
3.4.4 SLT burden for annual and triennial years
The SLT burden for annual and triennial years is presented in this section as an average
per year. The burden hours are provided separately for data system activities, point source
reporting, and nonpoint reporting. Furthermore, required activities are separated from voluntary
activities.
Use of these averages should provide an overly conservative (larger) estimate of total
burden hours because the burden values for the smaller agencies are being overestimated since
they will have fewer sources than average, and the average burden values do not include the
economies of scale experienced by the larger agencies. The likelihood that larger agencies may
benefit from economies of scale is further supported by the actual number of facilities and
pollutants reported in these years (the years in the 2020 triennial reporting period) as compared
to those that we believe are required.
To account for states that we estimate will use the CAERS for the required annually
reported sources in the 2023 through 2025 emission inventory years, we have considered the
reduction in effort associated with the steps for reporting to EIS necessary only when a state
maintains their own data system and thus needs to convert that data for submission to the EIS. As
shown in Table 3-7 and Table 3-8, the rightmost column indicates which steps are necessary for
agencies that use CAERS.
Maintaining SLT point source collection system
Table 3-8 summarizes the average hour burden estimates for operation and maintenance
(O&M) of the SLT data system for collecting point source data from owners/operators in the
state. The table includes 50 percent of a full-time employee (FTE) for information technology
(IT) administration and additional hours for an engineer to provide guidance to IT
administration, making minor annual updates to the data system, and user support. Major data
system updates have been covered previously in Section 3.4.1 as a one-time activity during the
period of this RIA and not included in Table 3-7. The engineering activities are about 20 percent
of an FTE's time. Engineering managerial hours have been estimated as 10 percent of the
engineering and IT administrative hours associated with each activity. The table includes
37
-------
estimates of O&M adjusted for estimated reductions in labor associated with CAERS cases 3 and
4.
Table 3-7: SLT data system operation and maintenance hours for NEI Collection from
owners/operators
Activity
Hours Per Respondent
Applies to
CAERS
Cases?
Engineering
Managerial
Hours
Engineering
Technical
Hours
IT
Admin
Hours
Total
1. Collection system operation &
maintenance (O&M)
112
80
1,040
1,232
case 3 @ 80
percent
2. Update collection system with
new codes, emission factors,
and other new information for
reporting year
12
40
80
132
case 3 @ 80
percent
3. User support for point source
emissions data reporting
36
320
40
396
case 3 @ 50
percent,
case 4 @ 50
percent
Subtotal for System O&M EIS
and Case 1 & 2
160
440
1,160
1,760
Subtotal for System O&M
with CAERS Case 3
117
256
916
1,289
Subtotal for System with
CAERS Case 4
18
160
20
198
For states that choose CAERS case 3, EPA estimates that the burden of activities 1 and 2
are reduced by about 20 percent because the state would no longer need to maintain the public-
facing user interface for their collection system. Activities 1 and 2 are eliminated for CAERS
case 4. In both CAERS cases 3 and 4, EPA also assumes that user support is reduced by
50percent based on the streamlined processes put in place. The user support reduction would be
averaged over the course of the 3-year period and would not be realized until the second and
third years of CAERS implementation. Further, EPA has attempted to include only those hours
associated with the sources and pollutants that EPA requires to be collected for reporting under
38
-------
the AERR (see also explanation provided in Table 3-2 above)). In other words, if SLTs incur
additional burden (e.g., more help desk requests) associated with collecting emissions data from
facilities that the SLT chooses to collect, this RIA does not cover that burden. Based on this
information, EPA estimates that the overall estimated O&M burden reduction for CAERS cases
3 and 4 are 27 percent and 89 percent, respectively.
EPA recognizes that many SLTs subcontract their point source emissions collection
systems to a third party; however, the cost approach taken in later sections uses the hours
estimates assumed in Table 3-7 as the basis for data system costs. This will be further addressed
in Table 3-14 later in this section.
Annual and Triennial Point Source Reporting
In addition to the point source data system activities, Table 3-8 provides the average hour
burden estimates for an SLT to perform point source reporting for the proposed AERR during
the period of the RIA. The activities listed in this table match with those point source activities
described in Sections 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 above).
In the hour estimates included in Table 3-8, EPA has not distinguished between
collection and reporting of those sources and pollutants required to be reported versus those
sources that SLTs report voluntarily. Unlike the incremental burden for SLTs to collect
emissions from facilities not required by the AERR, the incremental burden to report these
additional facilities is small. This is because states who report many additional sources and
pollutants voluntarily do so using automated processes to export, convert, and send the data to
EPA. Over many years of collecting data from SLTs, EPA has heard numerous times from such
agencies that it's harder for these SLTs to exclude facilities and pollutants than simply to report
both required and voluntarily provided facilities in every submission. Because of these
considerations, EPA has not tried to separate out the hours by required and voluntarily reported
facilities and pollutants, but rather (in this table) has attempted to estimate hours to reflect both
required and voluntarily reported sources and pollutants.
39
-------
Table 3-8: SLT point source reporting burden hours by activity
Activity
Hours Per Respondent
Engineering
Managerial
Hours
Engineering
Technical
Hours
Total
Applies to
CAERS
Cases?
Point sources - Annual (required and voluntary)
4. Quality assurance of submitted data
and revision support
2
24
26
3 @ 100
percent, 4 @
50 percent
5. Extract data from the state data
system
4
4
3
6. Convert data into the XML format -
facility attributes information
8
8
3
7. Convert data into the XML format -
annual emissions information
4
4
3
8. Run EIS quality-assurance checks
and resolve critical errors
2
24
26
9. Submit final file to the EPA
2
2
3,4
10. Respond to follow-up inquiries from
the EPA
2
4
6
3,4
Subtotal Annual Point Source
Reporting via EIS
6
70
76
Hours
Reduction
Subtotal Annual Point Source
Reporting via CAERS case 3
4
46
50
34 percent
Subtotal Annual Point Source
Reporting via CAERS, case 4
3
16
19
75 percent
Point sources - Triennial (required and voluntary), additional hours
4. Quality assurance of submitted data
and revision support
12
120
132
3 @ 100
percent, 4 @
50 percent
5. Extract data from the state data
system
0
4
4
3
40
-------
Activity
Hours Per Respondent
Engineering
Managerial
Hours
Engineering
Technical
Hours
Total
Applies to
CAERS
Cases?
6. Convert data into the XML format -
facility attributes information
0
16
16
3
7. Convert data into the XML format -
annual emissions information
0
8
8
3
8. Run EIS quality-assurance checks
and resolve critical errors
12
120
132
9. Submit final file to the EPA
1
2
3
3,4
10. Respond to follow-up inquiries from
the EPA
10
20
30
3,4
Subtotal Triennial Point Source
Reporting via EIS - all point
sources via EIS
35
290
325
Hours
Reduction
Subtotal Triennial Point Sources
Reporting via CAERS case 3
23
170
193
41 percent
Subtotal Triennial Point Source
Reporting via CAERS case 4
16
80
96
70 percent
To create the hours estimates in Table 3-8, EPA conservatively estimated that the
additional hours needed for activities 4, 8, and 10 in triennial years will increase by a factor of 5
compared to the annual facility reporting. This factor is derived by dividing the average
triennially reported facility count per agency (158) by the average annually reported facility
count per agency (33). Activities 6 and 7 are conservatively estimated to require just twice the
effort needed for the annually reported sources, because the activity is largely the same
regardless of the number of sources. The EPA estimates that activities 5 and 9 would require the
same amount of effort in both triennial and non-triennial years.
To account for the states forecast to use the CAERS for triennial reporting for the 2023
inventory year (reported in 2024), EPA has considered the reduction in effort associated with
41
-------
certain activities. The rightmost column of Table 3-8 indicates EPA's assumptions about whether
the activity is relevant for CAERS cases. For CAERS case 3, the state would use the CAERS
user interface to collect the data and send it to the state for further processing and submission
back to EPA. This approach would have the effect of running the quality assurance checks while
the owners/operators were reporting in CAERS. Thus, activity 8 is essentially eliminated because
all data collected via CAERS will already be able to pass EIS QA checks. For CAERS case 4, an
SLT is using only CAERS, which eliminates activities 5 through 8 and 50 percent of activity 4.
Based on these numbers, EPA estimates SLTs reporting point sources without CAERS
would spend 76 hours for annually reported sources and 325 hours for triennial reported sources.
SLTs using CAERS case 3 would have a burden reduction of 41percent in triennial years and 34
percent in other years. Finally, SLTs using CAERS case 4 would have a burden reduction of 70
percent in triennial years and 75 percent in other years.
While Table 3-8 includes both hours for reporting both required and voluntary pollutants
as a total, EPA has made assumptions about the proportion of activity occuring for CAP and
HAP, depending on each of the reporting cases available. During the 2024-2026 period, the HAP
reporting is voluntary, and thus the information in Table 3-9 is used when providing cost
information broken out by required and voluntary costs. To create Table 3-9, EPA assumed that
the total reporting burdens from the summary rows of Table 3-8 were divided as follows. For
reporting without CAERS, 30 percent of the effort is associated with HAP reporting. For
reporting with CAERS case 3 or 4, 20 percent of the effort is associated with HAP reporting.
This lower fraction of burden for HAP reporting via CAERS is based on the integrated nature
with which CAERS provides for HAP reporting. This table allows for the presentation of costs
for requiring activities under the proposal separate from voluntary activities.
42
-------
Table 3-9: Split of burden for CAP and HAP reporting.
Hours Per Respondent
Hours Per Respondent
CAPs
HAPs
Activity
Engineering
Managerial
Hours/yr
Engineering
Technical
Hours/Yr
Engineering
Managerial
Hours/Yr
Engineering
Technical
Hours/Yr
2024 and 2025 emissions reporting
without CAERS
4.20
49
1.80
21
2024 and 2025 emissions reporting with
CAERS, case 3
3.20
36.80
0.80
9.20
2024 and 2025 emissions reporting with
CAERS, case 4
2.40
12.80
0.60
3.20
2026 emissions reporting, 3-year average
triennial increment without CAERS
8.17
67.67
3.50
29
2026 emissions reporting, 3-year average,
triennial increment with CAERS, case 3
6.13
45.33
1.53
11.33
2026 emissions reporting, 3-year average,
triennial increment with CAERS, case 4
4.27
21.33
1.07
5.33
Additional Triennial Reporting for Nonyoint, Mobile, and Event Sources
In addition to the triennial point source reporting, additional activities are required for
other source categories. Table 3-10 provides the average hour burden estimates for states only
(not local agencies or tribes) to perform the steps that would be required by the AERR or that
could be done voluntarily by states on triennial years for nonpoint sources, airports, railyards,
locomotives, commercial marine vessels, and onroad and nonroad mobile sources. This table
also provides the assumed number of states and territories for which each activity would apply
Where these values do not equal the total number of states or territories, it is because with the
many ways to comply with the AERR requirements, states and territories choose different
approaches. Similarly, Table 3-10 provides the average hour burden estimates and affected
entities for local and tribal agencies.
43
-------
Table 3-10: State nonpoint, mobile, and other reporting burden hours by activity
Activity
State
count
Hours Per Respondent
Engineering
Managerial
Hours
Engineering
Technical
Hours
Total
Required Activities
1. Complete Nonpoint Survey
54
2
40
42
2. Report inputs for EPA nonpoint tools or
review, comment and/or accept EPA data.
54
62
1,231
1,293
3. Report emissions and documentation for
sectors not included in nonpoint tools
18
12
240
252
4. Adjust nonpoint submissions for
boundaries of Indian country
4
4
64
68
5. Submit or review, comment, and/or accept
EPA airport activity data
54
2
40
42
6. Submit or review, comment, and/or accept
EPA rail yard activity data
43
1
16
17
7. Submit CMV and locomotive emissions
data and documentation or review,
comment, and/or accept EPA emissions
estimates.
42
4
80
84
8. For all states but California, report
MOVES inputs
53
6
120
126
9. For California, report onroad and nonroad
emissions and documentation
1
9
180
189
Average hours per state, required activities
54
80
1,592
1,672
Voluntary Activities
10. Report emissions for sectors included in
nonpoint tools, including documentation
13
44
880
924
11. Report emissions for aircraft, ground
support equipment, and/or rail yards,
including documentation
5
12
240
252
12. Comment on prescribed fire and wildfire
activity data, submit activity data, or
submit emissions
20
8
160
168
Average hours per state, voluntary activities
20
40
792
832
44
-------
Regarding the number of states impacted by each of the activities in Table 3-10, EPA
made several assumptions based on past collections of NEI data from states. For all estimates in
this table, EPA assumes the managerial hours to be about 5percent of the engineering technical
hours, rounded up to the nearest hour.
For activities other than 2 and 3 in Table 3-10, EPA used expert judgement based on
EPA's implementation of the AERR for 15 years to specify the engineering technical hours. The
number of states affected by these tasks are based on the following. Under the proposed revision,
all states (including the District of Columbia and 3 territories) would be required to complete the
nonpoint survey (activity 1). Four states overlap Indian country for tribes that reported to the
2017 NEI: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, and Montana (activity 4). All states have airports and,
under the proposed revision, they would all be required to act on these sources (activity 5).
Forty-three states have rail yards (activity 6), and 42 states have waterways with commercial
marine vessels (activity 7). California is excluded from MOVES inputs reporting leaving just 53
states/territories (activity 8) and that is the only state required to report emissions (activity 9).
For activity 2, EPA considered more detailed tasks associated with these activities to
build the hours estimate provided. First, EPA estimates an average per state of 1,231 engineering
technical hours for activity 2 based on calculations included in Table 3-11 below. Actual state
hours burden depends on implementation choices that the state would have to comply with the
AERR revisions. These calculations include state activities for three types of tools: the Wagon
Wheel, which is the primary emissions tool for estimating emissions covering the bulk of the
nonpoint sectors,9 (2) the oil and gas emissions tool, and (3) four other stand-alone spreadsheet
tools for agricultural fertilizer, livestock, fuel containers, and stage II gasoline.
9 A useful description of the US EPA Wagon Wheel emissions tool for nonpoint sources can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-09/wagonwheelpresentation_final.pptx.
45
-------
Table 3-11: Assumptions and calculations for state nonpoint tool submissions (activity 2)
Sub-Task
No.
States
Basis
Average
Submitted
Templates
or Sectors
per State
Average
Hours/
Template
or sector
Total for
All States
Performing
Sub-task
Average
Hours
Across All
States
Prepare/submit Wagon
Wheel input templates
36
Per
template
12
20
8,640
1,168
Review/accept Wagon
Wheel input templates
54
Per
template
84
12
54,432
Prepare/submit oil and
gas tool inputs
14
Per
sector
1
40
560
15
Review/accept oil and
gas tool inputs
22
Per
sector
1
12
264
Review/ comment/accept
other tool inputs
54
Per
sector
4
12
2,592
48
Total
1,231
As shown in Table 3-11, EPA identified that 36 states submitted Wagon Wheel input
templates to EPA for the 2020 NEI and for these submissions, just 6 of the 92 possible templates
were submitted by each state on average. Since these counts were made before the 2020 NEI
process had been completed, EPA conservatively estimates that a total of 12 templates would be
submitted by each state.10 EPA expects that all 54 states (including District of Columbia and 3
territories) will accept at least some of the 92 EPA-provided templates. To calculate the average
number of templates states would review/accept rather than submit (84), EPA averaged the 80
templates for review/accept by the 36 states with the 92 templates for review/accept by the
remaining 16 states. The EPA estimates that a state would spend an average of 20 hours to
prepare and submit a Wagon Wheel template and 12 hours to review each template. Based on
10 This assumption can be revised for the final ICR because more information will be available based on final
template submissions for the 2020 NEI.
46
-------
these estimates, states would spend an average of 1,168 hours per state on Wagon Wheel
template activities.
In addition, for activity 2, Table 3-11 provides more information for the oil and gas tool
activity. The EPA used the 2017 NEI submissions for the oil and gas tool to determine that 6
states submitted tool inputs, 8 states submitted emissions, and 22 states reviewed and accepted
EPA oil and gas tool inputs and emissions. Because the proposed AERR revision would require
all states to submit tool inputs, EPA summed together the counts of states submitting tool inputs
and submitting emissions to assume that 14 states would submit oil and gas tool inputs. The EPA
estimates 40 hours to prepare and submit oil and gas tool inputs and 12 hours to review and
accept such inputs. Finally, since the total hours as used in Table 3-11 will be multiplied by the
total number of states submitting nonpoint sources, EPA divided by this total number to
determine that, on average across all states (including those that do not have these sources), oil
and gas tool activities account for 16 hours.
To complete the hours estimates for activity 2, EPA also used estimates of burden for the
four other nonpoint tools. The EPA expects that based on the proposed AERR revisions, all
states would participate in review/comment/acceptance of those data, and this would take each
state on average 12 hours per tool. Based on these assumptions, states would spend an additional
48 hours. The sum of the 1,168 hours from the Wagon Wheel, the 15 hours from the oil and gas
tool, and the 48 hours for other tools provides the final average hour count for activity 2 of 1,231
hours.
For activity 3 in Table 3-10, states would report emissions for sectors not included in
EPA's nonpoint tools. The EPA estimates that about one-third of the states (18) will, on average,
report emissions for 2 sectors for which EPA does not have nonpoint emissions tools. Each
sector is estimated to take 120 hours to estimate and submit, which is greater than the burden for
other sectors because the state cannot benefit from an EPA-provided tool. Based on these
assumptions, each state staff person would spend 240 hours to estimate and submit these
emissions, and with manager hours included, a total of 252 hours.
In total, Table 3-10 shows that states would spend at minimum 1,503 hours (activities 1,
2, 5, and 8) and at maximum 1,987 (if California were to conduct activities 1-7 and 9)
47
-------
performing required activities for nonpoint and mobile source submissions in triennial years. We
have also computed the average hours per state for required activities separately for each labor
category. To do this, we multiplied the total number of states expected to perform each activity
by the number of hours for that activity. Then, we summed the total number of hours across all
activity-state combinations and divided by the total number of states. The number of hours
expected for each state would depend on the choices they make for meeting the AERR
requirements. The total average number of hours for required activities, including manager
hours, is 1,672 hours.
In addition, several voluntary activities could be performed by states. For voluntary
activity 10, EPA estimates that, under the proposed approach, just 25percent of states will still
submit emissions for nonpoint sources with EPA tools. Not many states are expected to take this
voluntary step because it is an additional burden beyond the proposed new AERR requirements.
For states that do take this step, EPA estimates 880 hours for states to report an average of 11
sectors taking 80 hours per sector. The average of 11 sectors per state was derived from EPA
observations during the 2020 submission period based on 26 states submitting 290 state-sector
combinations. Because the AERR required emissions submissions for the 2020 cycle (rather than
only tool inputs), this estimated number of sectors per state may be an overestimate for this RIA
since states would not be required to report emissions under the AERR revision.
For voluntary activity 11, states have rarely submitted airport emissions data except as
part of their point source submissions for the largest airports. Even so, to capture the burden
associated with this voluntary activity, EPA assumes that up to 5 states may choose to do so. The
EPA estimates that, including manager hours, this labor-intensive step would take 252 hours per
state.
Finally, for the last voluntary activity in Table 3-10 (activity 12), EPA determined from
the 2020 NEI process that 20 states voluntary reported prescribed fire and/or wildfire data to
EPA in the 2017 NEI cycle. The EPA assumes that these efforts take about 160 hours staff time
per state. Based on these estimates and including manager hours, states could spend on average
an additional 832 hours on voluntary activities associated with nonpoint, mobile, and fire
emissions data for the triennial NEI.
48
-------
In addition to the burden for states/territories, Table 3-12 separately provides estimates
for local and tribal agencies that also report to the NEI. The assumptions made in compiling
Table 3-12 are generally the same as the assumptions described previously for Table 3-10, with
several notable exceptions.
Table 3-12: Local and tribal nonpoint, mobile, and other sources burden hours by activity
Activity
Local/
Tribe
count
Hours Per Respondent
Engineering
Managerial
Hours
Engineering
Technical
Hours
Total
Local and Tribal Reporters
1. Complete Nonpoint Survey
30
1
20
21
2. Report inputs for EPA nonpoint tools or
review, comment and/or accept EPA data.
30
19
370
389
3. Report emissions and documentation for
sectors not included in nonpoint tools
10
12
240
252
4. Adjust nonpoint submissions for tribal
boundaries
7
2
37
39
5. Submit or review, comment, and/or accept
EPA airport activity data
23
2
40
42
6. Submit or review, comment, and/or accept
EPA rail yard activity data
20
1
16
17
7. Report MOVES inputs
23
2
40
42
8. For local agencies, coordinate with state
agencies to complete stationary nonpoint,
nonroad mobile, and onroad mobile sources
for all pollutants
23
4
80
84
Average hours per entity, required activities
30
31
612
643
Voluntary Activities
9. Report emissions and documentation for
sectors included in nonpoint tools
9
22
440
462
10. Report emissions for aircraft, ground
support equipment, and/or rail yards,
including documentation
1
12
240
252
Average hours per entity, voluntary
activities
9
23
467
490
49
-------
In Table 3-12, the local/tribal counts are provided rather than state counts. These values
reflect the 2017 NEI process which included 23 local agencies and 7 tribes reporting emissions.
For the proposed AERR revisions, EPA assumes that all these agencies would complete the
Nonpoint Survey (activity 1) and report inputs for EPA nonpoint tools or review, comment
and/or accept EPA data (activity 2). Because local agencies and tribes may have fewer sectors to
report, the technical engineering hours for completing the nonpoint survey are assumed to be half
of the burden as for states. Similarly, because local agencies and tribes may have fewer sectors
and do have fewer areas {i.e., counties), EPA has assumed that the technical engineering hours
for activity 2 is 30 percent lower than the hours for states. The EPA additionally assumes that
only local agencies would need to act on airport activity data (activity 5) and submit MOVES
inputs (activity 7) because past tribal submissions did not include this information. Further EPA
has found just 20 local agencies and no tribes have rail yards (activity 6).
As a result of these assumptions, EPA estimates that local agencies would need to spend
between 597 hours (activities 1, 2, and 5-8) and 849 hours (including activity 3) on required
activities. Tribal agencies that are affected by the AERR would need to spend between 451 hours
(activities 1, 2 and 4) and 703 hours (including activity 3). The average number of hours for
required activities, computed in the same way as for states, is 643 hours.
Table 3-12 also includes voluntary activities for local and tribal agencies. The EPA
estimates that 2 local agencies and all 7 tribal agencies that have previously reported nonpoint
data would continue to report nonpoint emissions voluntarily (activity 9). This assumption for
Indian tribes accounts for the possibility that rather than do activities 1 and 2 and report nonpoint
tool inputs, tribes will report emissions using techniques they have used in the past. Since those
tribes are also accounted for in burden estimates for activities 1 and 2, but those tribes may not
be required to do those activities, these estimates of voluntary burden may represent some double
counting of burden with an overestimate on the required burden for activities 1 and 2. Even so,
the impact on the overall burden estimates are small. The estimate of 440 engineering technical
hours for activity 9 is created by halving the estimate for states. Finally, EPA assumes just 1
local agency may report aircraft emissions and that it would take the same number of hours as
for a state to do so. Based on these assumptions, EPA estimates that local agencies and tribes
50
-------
could voluntarily spend between 462 and 714 additional hours (including manager hours)
providing emissions data under the proposed AERR. Based on EPA's calculations, EPA also
expects that the average hours for voluntary activities by local and tribal agencies would be 490
hours.
Costs of Annual and Triennial Emissions Reporting and Associated Voluntary Activities
In addition to the hours per task as described by the tables above, EPA has computed the
annualized average costs for SLTs to submit annual and triennial emissions data to EPA. Table
3-13 provides respondent annualized hours and costs for SLTs that use EIS rather than CAERS
to collect point sources (cost reductions from CAERS are provided separately). This table
includes operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for the point source data system as introduced
previously in Table 3-5. For point sources annual and triennial labor costs, Table 3-13 uses the
EIS and CAERS cases 1 and 2 subtotals from Table 3-6. For other data categories {i.e., nonpoint
and mobile), the table relies on the average hours per entity as provided by Table 3-10 and Table
3-11. To estimate annualized hours and costs for triennial activities, we divide the burden
estimate by three to estimate the annualized burden spread over a 3-year period.
Table 3-13 also includes the number of entities for each activity. The EPA has used these
values to compute average costs per SLT, which are provided in the table. In Table 3-13, EPA
has assumed that 56 out of a total of 84 agencies report point sources using CAERS cases 1 and
2, while 54 state and 30 local and tribal agencies report nonpoint and mobile sources. These
assumptions are consistent with previous tables. The additional SLTs reporting via CAERS cases
3 and 4 are reflected in subsequent tables.
As shown in Table 3-13, EPA estimates that the largest cost associated with this
collection is the data system operations and maintenance (about $153K). This cost had not been
included in previous ICRs for the AERR but has been occurring under the current AERR and is
therefore not attributable to the proposed revisions. The EPA estimates additional annualized
labor costs for required activities of about $63K for states ($5K + $7K + $5 IK) and about $38K
($5K + $7K + $20K) for local agencies and tribes.
For the resulting operation and maintenance costs, EPA attempted to verify the costs of
SLT data collection systems and posed the question to a CAERS workgroup. Prior to the work
51
-------
done to make these cost estimates, EPA received information from just a single state that their
collection system costs ranged from $10K/year to $80K/ year, with an average of $55K per year.
Based on this feedback, the estimated costs shown in Table 3-14 of about $153K should be
conservative (that is, more likely an overstatement than an understatement). The data system cost
estimates can be further revised in the final RIA based on any additional input provided by SLT
agencies.
Table 3-13 additionally provides annualized costs for voluntary activities. The annual
submission of HAP is reflected using information from Table 3-6 and Table 3-7. The costs range
from $15K for local agencies/tribes to $26K for states. Based on the expected number of states
and local agencies to participate in voluntary activities in triennial years, EPA estimates an
average annualized cost for voluntary activities of $22K for the 29 SLT agencies expected to
submit data voluntarily.
52
-------
Table 3-13: Annualized Burden of NEI submission per Respondent for EIS Approach and CAERS Cases 1 and 2
Information Collection Activity
State,
local, or
tribal
count
Manager
Hrs/yr @
$118.94/Hr
Engineer
Hrs/yr @
$90.83/Hr
IT Hrs/yr
@
$81.02/Hr
Total
Hours/
Year
Cost/
Year
Annual Required Activities
Point source data collection system operations and
maintenance (see Table 3-7)
56
160
440
1,160
1,760
$152,975
Submit annually reported point source CAPs with EIS or
CAERS cases 1 or 2 (see Table 3-8)
56
4
49
53
$4,950
Point Source Triennial Required Activities
Submit additional triennial point source CAPs with EIS or
CAERS cases 1 or 2 (see Table 3-8)
56
8.17
67.67
76
$7,117
Average Burden per Entity, Required Point Source
Activities
56
172
557
1,160
1,889
$165,042
Other Triennial Required Activities
States: submit triennial nonpoint, onroad mobile, and nonroad
mobile sources (see Table 3-10)
54
26.67
530.67
557
$51,370
Local agencies/tribes: nonpoint, onroad mobile, and nonroad
mobile sources (see Table 3-12)
30
10.33
204.00
214
$19,757
Average Burden per Entity, Required Other Triennial
Activities
84
21
414
435
$40,099
Triennial Voluntary Activities (hours from other tables divided by 3 to annualize)
State annual and triennial voluntary point source HAP
reporting with EIS or CAERS cases 1 or 2 (see Table 3-7 and
Table 3-8)
56
5
50
55
$5,172
53
-------
Information Collection Activity
State,
local, or
tribal
count
Manager
Hrs/yr @
$118.94/Hr
Engineer
Hrs/yr @
$90.83/Hr
IT Hrs/yr
@
$81.02/Hr
Total
Hours/
Year
Cost/
Year
State voluntary triennial data reporting activities (see Table
3-10)
20
13
264
277
$25,564
Local and tribal voluntary triennial data activities (See Table
3-12)
9
8
156
163
$15,050
Average Burden per Entity, Triennial Voluntary
Activities
56
11
169
181
$16,720
54
-------
Table 3-14 provides the hours and cost burden reductions associated with SLTs using
CAERS to submit point sources. These cost reductions are consistent with the difference
between the EIS hours and CAERS hours provided in Table 3-13. As shown in Table 3-14, EPA
estimates that SLTs implementing CAERS case 3 would save about $48K per year while SLTs
choosing CAERS case 4 implementation would save about $147K per year. This significant
difference between cases 3 and 4 results from the additional cost savings SLTs would realize
under case 4 for eliminating the need to operate and maintain a point source emissions collection
data system.
Table 3-14: Annualized Burden Changes per Respondent of NEI Submission for CAERS
Cases 3 and 4 Approach*
Information Collection Activity
Manager
Hrs/yr @
$118.94/Hr
Engineer
Hrs/yr @
$90.83/Hr
IT
Hrs/yr @
$81.02/Hr
Total
Hours
Change/
Year
Cost
Change/
Year
CAKUS Case 3 liurden Changes
Point source data collection
system operations and
maintenance (see Table 3-7)
-43
-184
-244
-471
-$41,571
Annual point source CAP
reporting (see Table 3-8)
-1
-12.2
-13.2
-$1,227
Triennial point source CAP
reporting (see Table 3-8)
-2.0
-22.3
-24.4
-$2,270
State annual and triennial
voluntary point source HAP
reporting with CAERS case 3
-3.0
-29.5
-32.4
-$3,029
Subtotal Case 3
-49
-248
-244
-541
-$48,097
55
-------
Information Collection Activity
Manager
Hrs/yr @
$II8.94/Hr
Engineer
Hrs/yr @
$90.83/Hr
IT
Hrs/yr @
$8I.02/Hr
Total
Hours
Change/
Year
Cost
Change/
Year
CAKUS Case 4 liiirrien Changes
Point source data collection
system operations and
maintenance (see Table 3-7)
-142
-280
-1,140
-1,562
-$134,682
Annual point source CAP
reporting (see Table 3-8)
-1.8
-36.2
-38.0
-$3,502
Triennial point source CAP
reporting (see Table 3-8)
-3.9
-46.3
-50.2
-$4,672
State annual and triennial
voluntary point source HAP
reporting with CAERS case 4
-3.6
-41.5
-45.1
-$4,198
Subtotal Case 4
-151
-404
-1,140
-1,695
-$147,054
*A minus sign (-) denotes a negative value.
EPA recognizes that many SLTs subcontract their point source emissions collection
systems to a third party, while EPA's cost estimation approach assumes the system is operated
and maintained using in-house resources. However, EPA assumes that the cost of in-house
systems are higher than outsourcing costs because SLTs are unlikely to outsource such a system
unless costs would be reduced. Since EPA's estimates for data system operations and
maintenance in Table 3-5, Table 3-12, and Table 3-13 assume in-house systems only, we believe
that we have not only included outsourcing costs but may have overestimated such costs in this
RIA. This approach would also potentially overestimate burden reduction associated with
CAERS case 4.
3.5 Number of owners/operators responding
Various provisions of this proposed rule impact certain owners/operators, and to estimate
the burden that the proposed requirements could have, EPA has estimated the number of
facilities (not owners/operators) associated with activities that would be necessary if the
proposed requirements were finalized. Table 3-2 has previously provided the data flows that are
covered by this RIA and the associated relationships between states and owners/operators. It is
necessary to use facilities to estimate this burden because much better information about facility
56
-------
counts is available than counts of the owners/operators of those facilities. Therefore, to estimate
burden on owners/operators during the period in question, it is necessary to estimate the
following:
For reporting emissions data from facilities to SLTs, the number of facilities that would
be required to report annual total CAPs to SLTs under these proposed requirements; and
Reporting emissions data from facilities to EPA:
o The number of facilities within Indian country that would be required to report
CAP and HAP emissions under these proposed requirements (in 2026);
o The number of facilities that would participate in a one-time collection from
owners/operators for data related to High Electricity Demand Day (HEDD) events
under these proposed requirements;
o The number of rail companies from which EPA would continue to collect data
about rail yards on a voluntary basis; and
o The number of source test data reports that owners/operators would submit to
EPA under these proposed requirements.
In addition to these estimates, Appendix A of the ICR Supporting Statement includes
additional estimated numbers of facilities associated with proposed AERR provisions that would
impact burden in 2027 (the first year of full implementation of the proposal) and beyond.
3.5.1 Estimated number of facilities reporting emissions data to SLTs
To determine the number of facilities required to report to SLTs for the NEI, EPA has
used the existing reporting information from SLTs to EPA and the estimated number of Major
Title V sources from the previous AERR ICR. The design of the AERR point source reporting
requirements is that the facilities that are required to report are these Title V Major sources plus
any additional non-major sources that meet the 0.5 tpy actual emissions threshold for Pb
emissions.
The total number of major sources required to report to states under this proposed action
has been adjusted from that used in the previous ICR: 13,420, which includes all major sources
57
-------
available from the EPA Enforcement and Compliance History Online (ECHO) web application,
plus an additional 12 sources that have 0.5 tpy of Pb or more and are not otherwise identified as
Major Title V sources. Since this number was developed several years ago, and the total number
of major sources tends to decrease over time, we believe this number is conservative (that is, an
overstatement). Since the ECHO database does not indicate whether the facility is a major source
due to its CAP, HAP (or both), EPA has further refined this count to split out the CAP major
(including CAP/HAP major) facilities from those that are only HAP major sources, which allows
for better quantification of burden for the mandatory requirements versus burden for reporting
that SLTs do voluntarily. Any facility that is not a CAP major source but is reported by the state
is considered a voluntarily reported source.
To calculate the number of CAP major facilities, EPA performed additional analysis
using the 2017 NEI,11 Integrated Compliance Information System for Air (ICIS-AIR),12 and a
compilation of Residual Risk and Technology Review (RTR) data. Both designations of major
sources as well as actual emissions in these databases were used. This approach further identified
each NEI facility as best as possible regarding whether it is a CAP major, CAP/HAP major, or
HAP major source. More information on this analysis is available in the Technical Support
Document for this proposal.13 This approach identified 10,831 major sources, with 9,991 of these
either CAP major or CAP/HAP major. To estimate the total number of CAP major for purposes
of this RIA, EPA multiplied the 13,420 total major sources by the ratio of the 9,991 CAP major
to the total 10,831 major. This approach resulted in an estimated 12,379 CAP major sources,
which is the number used for this analysis for facilities that would be required to report CAPs to
SLTs under the proposed rule.
The proposed AERR would continue to require fewer facilities to report for the 2024 and
2025 inventory years, using higher PTE emissions reporting thresholds and excluding Pb from
11 2017 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) Data, U.S. EPA, https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/2017-
national-emissions-inventorv-nei-data.
12 Integrated Compliance Information System for Air (ICIS-AIR), U.S. EPA, https://www.epa.gov/enviro/icis-air-
search.
13 Technical Support Document for the Proposed Revisions to the Air Emissions Reporting Rule. U.S. EPA. July
2023.
58
-------
the thresholds that require states to report point sources in those years. The EPA has chosen to
use the same number of interim year facilities as was used in the previous ICR, which is 2,510
facilities. This origin of this number is described in Section 3.4.2. Across the three-year initial
period of this RIA (2024-2026),, the average number of facilities per year is (2 x 2,510 +
12,379)/3 = 5,800.
3.5.2 Estimated number of facilities reporting emissions data to EPA
EPA estimated 4 values to quantify the possible reporting directly to EPA for the 3-year
period covered by this RIA: (1) the number of facilities within Indian country potentially subject
to a revised AERR, (2) the number of facilities that would participate in a one-time collection
related to HEDD events, (3) the number of rail companies, and (4) the number of source test
reports that EPA would expect to receive under these proposed requirements. The paragraphs
below explain each of these separately.
To estimate the number of facilities within Indian country potentially subject to a revised
AERR, EPA identified 85 major-source permits for facilities within Indian country from EPA
databases, which reflects the complete list of such major sources. To estimate the number of non-
major sources that could be potentially subject, EPA multiplied the count of 85 by the estimated
number of non-major facilities expected nationally starting in 2027 (115,835) and divided by the
total number of major facilities expected nationally (13,420). The calculation 85 x 115,835 /
13,420 yields an estimated 733 facilities, with a resulting total of 819 facilities.
As described in the preamble for the proposed AERR revisions, EPA proposes a "One-
time Collection Option" that would require Curtailment Service Providers (CSPs) and other
operators or aggregators of small generating units to report certain data to EPA. CSPs are entities
that administer electricity demand response programs by working with companies that use and
generate electricity to decrease electricity demand by deploying capacity from smaller units like
backup generators that can reduce demand from the electricity grid. Reducing demand from the
grid can involve deploying temporary electricity generation units that cause emissions and can
impact air quality.
59
-------
To estimate burden for the One-time Collection Option, EPA estimated the number of
CSPs and similar entities. To do this, EPA first contacted the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) to determine what data are available about the number of CSPs in the U.S.
A FERC representative indicated that there is no national database of such entities. The Energy
Information Administration does not require CSPs to file with FERC and the last voluntary
survey available was in 2012 and, therefore, very outdated. FERC staff indicated that the best
available data could be found from online lists for each of the regional transmission
organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISO). Figure 3-2 below provides a
map of the RTO/ISOs.
Figure 3-2: RTO/ISOs and associated states.
CaMomta ISO
(CAJSOl*-
Source: FERC, 2022 https://www.ferc.gov/power-sales-and-markets/rtos-aiid-isos.
While online lists may be incomplete according to FERC, EPA determined that no better
data were readily available. In addition, for states that are not a part of an RTO or ISO, EPA
reviewed an available list of demand response programs and assessed which of the programs
60
-------
listed could cause small unit generation that would need to be reported under the One-Time-
Collection Option. If the same electric company ran a similar program in multiple states, that
company was counted for each program rather than as a single company to help make the
estimated number more conservative. Table 3-15 provides the list of RTO/ISOs and associated
entity counts compiled from the sources shown, which results in an estimated 235 entities.
Table 3-15: List of RTO/ISOs and estimated number of respondents for the One-Time-
Collection Option.
RTO/ISO/
State
Entity
Count
Source
PJM
97
https://www.pim.com/markets-and-operations/demand-response/csps
CAISO
31
http://www.caiso.com/documents/listofdemandresponseparticipants.pdf
ERCOT
18
"Demand Response Providers.xlsx" linked from
https://www. ercot.com/services/Droarams/load
MISO
31
https://www.potomaceconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/2020-
MISO-SOM Report Bodv Compiled Final rev-6-l-21.pdf (paee 8)
SPP
0
NYISO
22
https://www.nviso.com/documents/20142/1398619/Demand-Response-
Providers-List.pdf/a9943929-edf6-4b5a-cl6f-2c42bdebdl8d
ISO-NE
0
https: //www. iso -ne. com/markets-operations/markets/demand-re sources/about
AL
2
https: //www. energy. go v/e e re/fc m p/de m an d - re sponse-and-time -variable -
AR
4
FL
4
GA
2
IN
3
IA
2
pricina-proarams-southeastern-and-midwestern-states
KY
1
LA
1
MI
3
MS
1
61
-------
RTO/ISO/
State
Entity
Count
Source
MO
3
NC
1
OH
1
OK
1
SC
2
TN
2
WI
3
Total
235
Another voluntary aspect of the proposed AERR is participation by rail companies to
provide data to EPA regarding rail yards. The EPA has worked with rail companies in past years
and is aware of 7 rail companies that could participate. Thus, the number of rail companies used
for the purposes of voluntary cost estimates for this RIA is 7.
3.5.3 Estimated number of facilities collecting release point latitudeAongitude
On a one-time basis, certain facilities reporting under the proposed AERR would need to
collect the latitude/longitude locations for each release point. Collecting such data would allow
facilities outside states' implementation planning authority to report such information in 2026
(for the 2025 inventory year) and in 2027 (for the 2026 inventory year). The EPA assumes that
the facilities would collect the latitude/longitude data for release points during the analytical
period covered by the ICR.
The EPA estimated the number of facilities per year starting with the total number of
facilities expected to report, which is included in Appendix A of the ICR based on an estimation
approach described in the TSD for this proposal referenced above. The number estimated to need
to report starting in 2027 is 129,490 facilities. The EPA adjusted this number downward by
8,309 facilities to account for the number of facilities for which states are already reporting
release point latitude/longitudes to EPA via the states. The EPA derived this number by
analyzing the 2020 NEI data to identify all facilities for which the reported latitude or longitude
62
-------
was 0.0005 degrees or more from the latitude or longitude (respectively) that represented the
whole facility. EPA's estimate of facilities affected annually reflects that facilities must only
collect this information once because release points generally do not move. This calculation
gives an estimated 40,3158 facilities per year that would need to collect release point
latitude/longitude during the 2024-2026 period.
3.6 Burden on owners/operators
3.6.2 Estimating burden of source testing
Finally, EPA has developed an approach to estimate the burden for reporting source test
data. To calculate the number of hours for such reporting, EPA has used the formula:
Hours burden = N x T x H
Where, N is the number of facilities, T is the average number of tests per facility per year,
and H is the average number of hours to prepare the electronic form to submit each test. Because
major sources are those sources that would typically be required to perform tests, EPA used the
same estimated number of major sources for required emissions reporting, or N = 13,420.
To estimate the number of tests per facility, EPA relied on information from selected
states about their current source test collection, since source test data for state and federal
purposes are collected and managed by states. The EPA contacted 9 states for input on how
many source tests have been historically collected by states. Then, EPA compared the number of
total source test reported by states to the number of major sources within those states. Since
major sources often have testing requirements, it is reasonable to expect that the number of major
sources might be a useful predictor of the number of source tests. Table 3-16 shows the raw data
collected from the 7 of the 9 states who replied with the number of major sources and source test
counts.
63
-------
Table 3-16: Number of source tests versus number of major
sources provided by selected states
State
Number
source tests in
2020
Number of
major sources
Illinois
450
557
Connecticut
131
56
Massachusetts
53
116
North Carolina
250
327
Washington (Island,
Skagit and Whatcom
Counties)
120
21
Maine
100
55
Texas
6,938
870
Using these data, EPA evaluated the linear regression and determined that the coefficient
of determination (R2) is 0.71 with a ratio of 5.35 tests per major source per year. The Texas test
number seemed to be an outlier because it was much higher than all the other states compared to
the number of major sources in Texas. After dropping the Texas data point and re-estimating the
linear regression with the intercept going through the origin, this resulted in an R2 of 0.93 and a
ratio of 0.81 tests per major source per year. However, this result had a significant
underprediction bias at the low end of the data. Since neither linear regression was ideal, EPA
took the midpoint between the 5.35 result and the 0.81 result, which gave 3.08 tests per facility
per year. Based on this result, EPA used an estimated 3 tests per facility per year, or T= 3.
Finally, EPA polled several source testing experts within EPA, who have previous source
testing experience for industrial contractors, regarding the number of hours it takes to complete a
source test report and submit to the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
(CEDRI). The range of estimates received was from 2 to 6 hours. The EPA selected the midpoint
of this range of 4 hours, or H = 4. The product of the number of tests per facility per year (3) and
the number of hours per test (4) provides the estimate of 12 hours per facility that is included for
activity 5 of Table 3-17 below.
64
-------
3.6.2 Burden for Owners/Operators for emissions reports
The burden for owners/operators to comply with the proposed AERR revision is driven
by both mandatory and voluntary collections. For mandatory collections, burden includes
owners/operators reporting to SLTs so that SLTs can comply with the proposed AERR
requirements for annual and triennial reporting requirements. Additional burden from mandatory
activities would include reporting of certain source test data that may be reported to states
already, reporting emissions data to EPA for certain facilities in Indian country starting in 2026,
and reporting needed if EPA finalizes the AERR proposal's One-Time-Collection option for
HEDD related data. For voluntary collections, burden would include activities by rail companies
to provide rail yard data.
While different burdens exist for owners/operators reporting to a given state collection
approach versus the approach from another state, EPA is unable to reflect those distinctions in
this RIA because data are not available about burden from each of those systems. Similarly, we
do not try to quantify the difference in facility burden for those states or local agencies who have
adopted CAERS as their collection approach.
EPA has estimated burden for owners/operators to reply to report annual emissions
inventories in compliance with the proposed AERR, which includes both workflows to states as
well as directly to EPA. Table 3-17 provides the estimated number of facilities and number of
hours for each facility to respond to the data collection by a state. Although some
owners/operators who operate multiple facilities may report those data centrally and have
efficiencies that reduce the burden, these estimates assume that all facilities report individually.
For items 1 through 3 in Table 3-17, these hours cover reporting CAPs to states. Any
time taken for HAP reporting for the 2023-2025 inventory years (covered by this RIA) result
from state requirements and are not driven by AERR requirements. The number of hours
included is for reporting emissions data only and includes the time that staff at facilities may
need to spend to answer follow-up questions from the state. The time taken by facilities to collect
necessary data (e.g., throughput, source testing) to comply with the reporting requirements is
assumed to be a part of state permitting, compliance, and other requirements, which go beyond
the scope of the RIA. Since most facilities reporting during the period covered by the RIA have
65
-------
been reporting emissions data for many years, the RIA does not include the additional hours
associated with collecting facility attributes (such as facility latitude/longitude).14
In Table 3-17, the hours shown are the estimated hours needed to accomplish the task
within a single year (not the hours averaged over 3 years). To estimate an annual burden per
facility even though different activities would occur within each year, Table 3-17 uses the
average facility count over 3 years. Within each 3-year period, activity 1 occurs just once and
activity 2 occurs twice. Thus, the average facility count shown reflects those frequencies {i.e.,
[12,379 + 2,510 + 2,510] / 3 = 5,800 facilities).
Table 3-17: Annual burden per facility for owners/operator reporting
Activity
Facility
Count in
1 Year
Annual
Ave.
Facility
Count Over
3 Years
Hours per Facility
Facility
Cost/
Year
Manager
Hrs/yr @
$160.50/Hr
Engineer
Hrs/yr @
$101.18/Hr
Total
Required activities
1. Report annual CAPs
by facility to states
for use in triennial
(2023) AERR report
12,379
5,800
1
24
25
$2,589
2. Report annual CAPs
by facility to states
for use in 2024 and
2025 AERR report
2,510
1
24
25
$2,589
3. Report annual CAPs
and HAP to EPA by
facility in 2026 (for
facilities within
Indian country that
meetNAICS and
reporting thresholds)
819
273
2
40
42
$4,368
4. Report source test
data to EPA
13,420
13,420
0
12
12
$1,214
14 While some changes are proposed for latitude/longitude and other facility attributes, these changes would not go
into effect until the 2026 inventory year reported in 2027. These changes are described in of the RIA because they
are outside the period covered in our burden analysis.
66
-------
Activity
Facility
Count in
1 Year
Annual
Ave.
Facility
Count Over
3 Years
Hours per Facility
Facility
Cost/
Year
Manager
Hrs/yr @
$160.50/Hr
Engineer
Hrs/yr @
$101.18/Hr
Total
Required One-Time Activities
5. Collect release point
latitude-longitude
and other parameters
40,315
40,315
2.1
10.5
12.6
$1,399
Sub-total weighted
average per year
for required
activities:
40,315
40,315
2.26
18.22
20.48
$2,206
Required activities lor
')nc-Tinic-Collcclion option lor IIKDI)
6. Report facility
attributes and daily
fuel use or heat input
for small generating
units
235
10
120
130
$13,746
Voluntary activities lor triennial inventory years
7. Provide rail yard
data to the EPA for
2023 (in 2024)
7
2
10
12
$1,333
Since each row of Table 3-17 includes entities in separate categories, the hour estimates
listed here are not cumulative in some cases. The respondents for activities 1 and 2 overlap,
meaning some respondents do 2 or 3 of these activities. Thus, the total number of respondents for
activities 1 and 2 are 12,379, with 2,510 of them expected to also perform activity 2. Thus, the
range of hours for such facilities reporting to states is between 25 and 50 hours.
The entities performing activity 4 are expected to be different from those performing
activities 1 and 2, since the activity 3 facilities are primarily within Indian country and are,
therefore, not reporting data to states. The major sources reporting in activities 1 through 3
overlap with the same respondents performing activity 4. Thus, the 12 hours per respondent for
67
-------
activity 4 would be added to the total hours per respondents reporting to states (activities 1 and
2) and the respondent reporting to EPA (activity 3).
Activity 5 overlaps with the facilities performing activities 1 through 3 and includes
additional facilities beyond those reporting activities. In most cases, the facilities included in
activity 4 will also overlap with those included in activity 5. However, these activities are only
performed one time and are shown in the table as occurring for one-third of the facilities each
year, as described in Section 3.5.3.
Activities 6 and 7 are distinct from the other activities, so while some entities such as
EGUs may need to perform activity 6 in addition to activities 1 through 3, those CSPs that are
not electricity generators are additional entities not otherwise reporting under the proposed rule
revisions and would only have the requirement for activity 6. Finally, since the rail companies
are distinct from other types of entities reporting emissions, activity 7 is not expected to be
cumulative with other activities.
Respondents/affected entities: For the 2024-2026 period, the EPA estimates the proposed rule
would impact 85 state/local/tribal respondents and 819 owners/operators of facilities within
Indian country and 120,945 (or 40,315 per year) would need to prepare for reporting starting in
2027. Also during this period, the EPA estimates that owners/operators of 13,420 facilities would
report source test and performance evaluation data each year. Based on these proposed
requirements, states would continue to collect emissions data from owners/operators of an
estimated 13,420 facilities (based on state regulations requiring owners/operators to do so).
Starting in 2027, Appendix A of the draft ICR identifies owners/operators of an estimated
129,490 facilities from which this proposed rule would require HAP reporting and for about 235
owners/operators, reporting of small generation unit data.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Under this proposed action, the EPA estimates that 85
governmental entities would be required to report to EPA. Authority for such collection is
provided by CAA Sections 110, 114, 172, 182, 187, 189, and 301(a). In addition,
owners/operators would be required to report data to EPA, and authority for these collections is
provided by the same CAA sections. Additionally, 7 railroad companies are expected to
68
-------
voluntarily provide data to the EPA once every three years but would be under no obligation to
do so.
Estimated number of respondents: During the 2024-2026 period, the EPA expects 85
governmental entities and owners/operators from an estimated 40,315 facilities (per year) to
respond. The description above provides additional detail on the numbers and types of
respondents for the initial three-year period and for subsequent periods.
Frequency of response: States would submit emissions data annually, with more data required
every third year. Owners/operators of facilities within Indian country would report each year,
starting in 2026 (for the 2025 emissions inventory year). The frequency of source test data
reports depends on the testing requirements set by the EPA and states. Frequency can range from
several times per year to once every several years. However, for the purpose of the RIA, the
EPA estimates that owners/operators reporting source test data would report an average of 3
source tests per year. Starting in 2027, the states and owners/operators of facilities affected by
this proposed rule would report both the same amount of data every year.
Total estimated cost: Annual capital or operation and maintenance costs include costs for the
EPA and states. The EPA's expected annual capital costs for its data systems needed from 2024
through 2026 are $600,000. EPA's additional annual system development, operations, and
maintenance costs are expected to be $3,625,000. States' expected annualized capital costs are
estimated to be $127,500, and their operation and maintenance costs about $10,156,000.
The total burden estimates for this proposed action are separated into two categories
of respondents: SLTs and owners/operators. In each case, optional activities covered
by this RIA are listed separately from mandatory activities.
3.7 State/local/tribal burden
As described in previous sections of this RIA, SLT burden includes burden for both
required and voluntary activities associated with one-time tasks), annual, and triennial tasks. This
section brings together all these burden estimates and includes capital and associated
maintenance costs, which will provide annualized hours and costs for SLTs.
69
-------
As previously described in this RIA, EPA forecasts that 29 SLTs, on average, will use
CAERS during the period of the ICR, and the remaining 56 would use their existing reporting
approaches. For the purposes of the ICR, EPA also has forecasted which CAERS cases SLTs
may elect to adopt. To date, CAERS cases 3 and 4 have been of most interest to SLTs,
presumably because these cases have the lowest burden estimates overall. Although case 4 has
greater burden reductions than case 3, many SLTs seem to prefer the autonomy that case 3
provides (the states retain their back-end point source database). Based on these considerations,
EPA assumes 10 percent of SLTs will select cases 1 or 2, 30 percent case 3, and 60 percent case
4. Starting with the average of 29 SLTs using CAERS, these percentages map to 3 SLTs using
cases 1 or 2, 10 using case 3, and 19 using case 4.
The EPA has estimated annualized capital costs associated with workstations needed for
SLTs to submit data required or voluntarily submitted based on the proposed requirements. The
EPA assumes that each agency would require five workstations to comply with the reporting
provisions of the AERR (one for point sources, one for nonpoint sources, one for onroad and
nonroad mobile, one for wildfires and prescribed fires, and one for managerial/coordination
activities). The number of workstations has been assumed to be unaffected when states
participate in CAERS because although data system maintenance is reduced or eliminated,
agency staff still need a workstation to access CAERS to perform their data oversight and
submission functions.
The cost for replacing a workstation including new basic software and peripherals (i.e.,
hardware needed in replacing a workstation (cables, new laptop, etc.), when replacement
becomes necessary, is assumed to be approximately $1,500 per agency. For this RIA, it is
assumed that 20 percent of the workstations will be replaced each year. Thus, the costs of
replacement per agency would be:
5 workstations/agency x 20 percent replacement/year x $l,500/workstation =
$ 1,5 00/agency/y ear
Cost of workstation replacement for all agencies equals: $l,500/replacement costs/year '
x 85 agencies/year = $127,500/year
70
-------
Workstation maintenance costs are attributed to the normal maintenance of the
workstations used to submit the required annual and triennial reports to EPA. This includes
annual software costs, service costs, and warranty costs. It is assumed that the total cost of
ownership over give years is four times the original purchase price, or $6,000. Thus, the annual
maintenance costs are $6,000 minus the $1,500 capital cost divided by 5, or $4,500/5, which is
$900/year per workstation. We conservatively assume (that is, more likely to overstate) that one-
third of the workstation annual maintenance cost can be attributed to the AERR. The resulting
estimated costs associated with AERR are estimated to be approximately $300 per workstation
per year, which is $1,500 per agency per year. Total maintenance costs for the respondents are
estimated to be:
$l,500/agency/year x 85 agencies = $127,500/year.
As a result, the total capital and maintenance costs per year are $3,000/agency/year.
Table 3-18 provides a summary of all costs that would be incurred by SLTs during the 2024-
2026 based on the proposed action. The source of the data for each row is provided here:
For the one-time required activities for prescribed burning, EPA assumes that 50
states and 2 territories would create a data system to collect that information. Local
agencies within the state would use their state's system. The per-state hours and costs for
developing such a system are from Table 3-5.
For the annual required activities for point sources, the number of SLTs are the same
as for the previous row, and the hours and costs are taken from the annual reporting
estimates from Table 3-7. For the EIS and CAERS cases 1 and 2 columns, the values are
used as-is from the "submit annually reported point sources" row of Table 3-11, whereas
for the CAERS case 3 and case 4 columns, the appropriate burden reduction is subtracted
from that using the values in Table 3-12.
For the triennial required activities for point sources, the calculations are made in the
same way as for the annual required activities for point sources, but the triennial hours
and costs are included from Table 3-11.
71
-------
For the triennial required activities for other sources, the calculations are the same for
EIS and all CAERS cases. The number of SLTs is the same as the previous row, but the
average hours and costs are taken from the other triennial activities summary row of
Table 3-11.
For the point data collection system O&M, the number of SLTs are the same as for the
annual and triennial required activities for point sources, and the hours estimates are
taken from the "point source data collection system operations and maintenance" row of
Table 3-11.
For the capital and maintenance costs, the number of SLTs are the same as for the
previous row, and the costs are $3,000 per entity as described earlier in this section.
For the one-time voluntary activities, SLTs would update their reporting rule and apply
to EPA only if they will be reporting HAP on behalf of owners/operators. For SLTs using
EIS or CAERS cases 1 or 2, EPA assumes that the same fraction of states that currently
reports HAP would take these voluntary steps. The EPA estimated this fraction as
88percent using the current number of SLTs reporting HAP (75) divided by the total
number of SLTs (85). Then, EPA multiplied this fraction by the 59 SLTs expected to use
EIS or CAERS cases 1 or 2 to give 52 SLTs that EPA expects would continue to report
directly to EIS (including CAERS cases 1 and 2). The EPA assumes that 4 (25 percent)
of 16 SLTs using CAERS case 3 would report HAP on behalf of owners/operators and
that 6 (19 percent) of the 32 SLTs using CAERS case 4 would do so. The hours and costs
for these values are taken from the optional activities row of Table 3-17.
Finally, for the triennial voluntary activities, the number of SLTs, hours, and costs are
from the summary row of Table 3-11 for triennial voluntary activities. These values are
not split out for CAERS cases 3 and 4.
72
-------
Table 3-18: Annual Total SLT Burden and Cost by Activity
Information Collection
Activity
EIS, CAERS Cases 1 and 2
CAERS Case 3
CAERS Case 4
Total
No.
of
SLTs
Total
Hours/
Year
Total Cost/
Year
No.
of
SLTs
Total
Hours/
Year
Total Cost/
Year
No.
of
SLTs
Total
Hours/
Year
Total
Cost/
Year
Hours/
Year
Costs/
Year
One-Time Required,
Prescribed Burning1
52
116,480
$10,398,053
116,480
$10,398,053
One-Time Required,
Point Sources
37
23,877
$2,103,905
16
10,325
$909,797
32
6,101
$569,750
40,304
$3,583,452
Annual Required, Point
Sources2
56
2,979
$277,199
10
400
$37,230
19
289
$27,512
3,668
$341,942
Triennial Required, Point
Sources
56
4,247
$398,563
10
515
$48,469
19
486
$46,457
5,248
$493,489
Triennial Required, Other
Sources
84
36,540
$3,368,347
36,540
$3,368,347
Labor Subtotal
(Required)
184,123
$16,546,068
11,240
$995,496
6,877
$643,720
202,240
$18,185,283
Point Data Collection
System O&M
56
98,560
$8,566,596
10
12,892
$1,114,039
19
3,762
$347,574
115,214
$10,028,208
Capital and Maintenance
56
$168,000
10
$30,000
19
$57,000
$255,000
Total (Required)
282,683
$25,280,663
24,132
$2,139,535
10,639
$1,048,293
317,454
$28,468,492
One-Time Voluntary:
HAPs
49
47,106
$4,230,819
4
3,813
$342,495
6
5,720
$513,742
56,639
$5,087,056
One-Time Voluntary:
CAERS
0
0
$0
16
21,589
$1,907,247
32
10,325
$964,193
31,915
$2,871,440
73
-------
Information Collection
Activity
EIS, CAERS Cases 1 and 2
CAERS Case 3
CAERS Case 4
Total
No.
of
SLTs
Total
Hours/
Year
Total Cost/
Year
No.
of
SLTs
Total
Hours/
Year
Total Cost/
Year
No.
of
SLTs
Total
Hours/
Year
Total
Cost/
Year
Hours/
Year
Costs/
Year
Annual and Triennial
Voluntary1
56
10,136
$936,320
10
229
$21,425
19
194
$18,492
10,558
$976,237
Total Voluntary
57,242
$5,167,139
25,631
$2,271,167
16,239
$1,496,427
99,112
$8,934,733
1 Costs associated with this activity are not broken out by CAERS cases. All costs are included with the group for EIS, CAERS cases 1 and 2.
2 Excluding point source collection system O&M, included later in this table.
74
-------
3.8 Owners/operators burden
As described earlier in this RIA chapter, owners/operators burden includes burden for
various activities. These include required and voluntary activities related to reporting annual
CAPs by facility to states and the additional costs of reporting annual CAPs and HAP to EPA by
facility for facilities outside of states' planning authority (e.g., certain Indian Country and
Federal waters) that meet NAICS and reporting thresholds and report source test data to EPA.
The costs also include the activities for a possible one-time collection of data for small electric
generators, which is an option in the proposed AERR revisions.
Table 3-19 provides a summary of all costs that would be incurred by owners/operators
during the period of this proposed action. The source of the numbers of facilities was previously
provided in Section 3.5. While the number of facilities for any given year would vary, the
average number of facilities has been used to properly calculate the annual total burden and
costs.
Table 3-19: Annual Total Owner/Operator Burden and Cost by Activity
Information Collection
Activity
Number of
Facilities
Total
Hours/Year
Total Cost/
Year
Required activities
1. Report annual CAPs by
facility to states for use in
triennial (2023) AERR report
5,800
144,993
11,466
$15,014,213
$1,192,498
2. Report annual CAPs by
facility to states for use in
2024 and 2025 AERR report
3. Report annual CAPs and
HAP to EPA by facility in
2026 (for facilities within
Indian country that meet
NAICS and reporting
thresholds).
273
4. Report source test data to
EPA
13,420
161,040
$16,293,705
Required One-Time Activities
5. Collect release point latitude-
longitude and other parameters
40,315
507,973
$56,418,297
75
-------
Information Collection
Activity
Number of
Facilities
Total
Hours/Year
Total Cost/
Year
Required Activities Sum
40,315
825,473
$88,918,714
Required activities Cor One-
Timc-Collcction option lor
II 111) 1)
6. Report facility attributes and
daily fuel use or heat input
for small generating units.
235
30,550
$3,230,402
Voluntary activities lor
Iricnnial inventory years
7. Provide rail yard data to the
EPA for 2023 (in 2024)
7
84
$9,330
The EPA activities associated with the AERR as a whole include:
Maintaining a database of emissions factors (e.g., WebFIRE) for use by states and the
point sources regulated by states;
Developing guidance and training materials for states for each emissions inventory
reporting cycle and maintaining communication through EPA's website and other
methods, including providing in-person, webinar-based, and self-guided online training;
Evaluating the adequacy of existing emissions estimation methods and models,
developing method and model revisions, and publishing updated methods and models as
appropriate;
Preparing nonpoint emissions data for review and possible use by states;
Preparing onroad and nonroad mobile model inputs for review and possible use by states;
Preparing data for review of participating agencies, including landing and takeoff data at
airports and fire activity data and emissions;
Receiving, reviewing, and storing emission inventory data submitted by each state;
Processing and updating data submitted by states, including performing quality assurance
of data and coordinating efforts to resolve errors and anomalies;
Fulfilling technical assistance and information requests;
Developing technical documentation of the resulting emissions inventories created from
compiling the collected data;
Maintaining the EIS and associated electronic reporting approaches;
76
-------
Developing, operating, and maintaining the CAERS;
Developing, operating, and maintaining the emissions estimation tool for small
businesses; and
Maintaining reporting codes to use in emissions inventory databases to identify various
aspects of emissions inventories such as emissions unit types, release point types, source
category classifications, and geopolitical entities.
The EPA's costs that relate to this data collection can be grouped into 7 areas:
1) Maintaining a database of emissions factors for use by states and the point sources
regulated by states;
2) EIS annual operation and maintenance costs;
3) CAERS annual development, operation, and maintenance costs;
4) Preparing and providing guidance, plans, and training to states;
5) Revising emissions estimation methods and models to reflect the best available science,
including mobile model updates related solely to support of AERR implementation;
6) Preparing draft nonpoint emissions and mobile-source model inputs;
7) Review, documentation, and publication of data; and
8) Information requests.
As of fiscal year 2022, the annual operation and maintenance costs for EPA's efforts to
maintain emissions factors in support of the NEI program is 2 FTE positions. No data system
costs for the emissions factor program are included in this RIA because these costs are associated
with costs of the CEDRI system and not of the AERR.
As of fiscal year 2022, the EIS annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated to
be: 2.7 FTE positions, $300,000 in Working Capital Funds and $625,000 for an information
technology contractor.
As of fiscal 2022, the CAERS annual development, operation, and maintenance costs are
estimated to be: 3 FTE positions and $1,200,000 for information technology contracting support.
The EPA assumes an additional $300,000 in Working Capital Funds for capital costs associated
with CAERS.
77
-------
The projected estimated annual development cost for the emissions estimation tool,
identified as part of reducing burden for small businesses, is estimated to be 0.5 FTE and
$400,000 for data analysis (of emission factors for facility-wide emissions estimations) and
information technology contracting support. No additional capital costs associated with this tool
are included because EPA expects to build this tool as a module of CAERS.
The labor costs of preparing and providing guidance, plans and training to states is 1 FTE
annually. The labor costs of reviewing and revising emissions estimation methods and models to
reflect the best available science for nonpoint emissions methods is 2 FTE annually.
The labor costs of preparing draft nonpoint emissions and mobile-source model inputs
include the costs associated with developing updated emissions methods, overseeing contractor
resources, quality assuring contractor results, developing documentation, and distributing data
and draft documentation to states. The costs of reviewing data submitted by states include costs
relating to data review, coordination of efforts to resolve any errors or anomalies, and updating
of the data after the quality assurance and reconciliation assurance efforts have been completed.
The costs associated with technical documentation include: compiling summaries of emissions,
reviewing methods documents and notes, word processing, and section 508 compliance steps.
For these activities, EPA requires approximately 1 FTE for point sources, 1.3 FTE for mobile
sources, and 3 FTE for nonpoint sources to prepare draft data and review data submitted by
states. In addition, the OAQPS requires 1 FTE for information requests. The EPA also incurs a
$800,000 annual cost to have environmental engineering contractors assist with developing
emissions methods, building data tools, and keeping input data current.
In addition to the primary roles within OAQPS, EPA Regional Offices annually use about
1 FTE in total across the 10 Regions to coordinate state efforts in making their submissions,
quality reviews, and outreach and communication on behalf of the data collection program.
Thus, the total number of EPA FTEs is 18.5 (6.2 for the data systems and 12.3 for
outreach, data methods, handling, and publication). Since most of the FTEs for this estimate
work in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, we used the pay rates from the General
Services Administration (GSA) with locality adjustment for the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill
area. We conservatively estimated that the average EPA worker for these purposes is a GS-13,
step 7 with a salary rate of $117,866 per year. In addition, a 26 percent increase in this amount
78
-------
was included to adjust for benefits paid by the government. The resulting annual FTE cost
assumed is rounded to the nearest thousand dollars to $149,000. Thus, the total resulting EPA
annual impact for 18.5 FTE is 37,440 hours and $2,682,000.
Table 3-20 summarizes the government costs (including Federal) along with the
respondent costs from the previous sections. For SLT costs, the assumptions about SLT for
CAERS usage are included, but voluntary activities including preparations for adopting HAP
reporting requirements and reporting HAP voluntarily are not included. For owners/operators,
the costs of both the required activities are included, but not the other optional costs or the costs
of the voluntary activities for rail companies to provide data. The annual capital costs for EPA
sum together the $300,000 each for EIS and CAERS. All costs are in 2021 dollars.
Table 3-20: Total Estimated Respondent and EPA Burden and Cost Summary
Burden
Element/Co
st
SLTs
Owners/
Operators
EPA
Total
Number of
Respondents
85
40,315
40,400
Total Hours
Per year
202,240
825,473
38,480
1,066,192
Annual
Capital Cost
$127,500
$0
$600,000
$727,500
Annual
O&M Cost
$10,155,708
$0
$3,025,000
$13,180,708
Total
Annual
Capital and
O&M Costs
$10,283,208
$0
$3,625,000
$13,908,208
Labor Cost
Per Year
$18,185,283
$88,918,714
$2,756,500
$109,860,497
Total Cost
Per Year
$28,468,492
$88,918,714
$6,381,500
$123,768,706
As compared to the previous information collection for the AERR, this AERR proposal
covers substantially more activities. These activities are also reflected in this RIA, and while they
make the analysis in this RIA more complete, they do not represent additional real-world burden
79
-------
to SLTs or owners/operators when compared to activities they are already doing (i.e., there is no
incremental burden). For example, the costs for states to maintain their emissions data collection
systems and the costs of facilities reporting CAP emissions (which is currently occurring due to
state regulations to implement the AERR) are now counted as AERR costs. These additions are
simply covering gaps in previously approved ICRs. Put another way, while the total estimated
costs in Table 3-20 appear to be large, these figures do not simply reflect the costs that will be
incurred due to the proposed revisions to the AERR. These figures also include costs that SLTs,
Owners/Operators, and EPA are already incurring, and would continue to incur in this proposal's
baseline, by way of complying with existing laws and regulations (costs associated with
complying with the existing AERR without the proposed changes).
In addition to the additional burden coverage described above, the proposed updates to
the AERR would affect SLTs in ways that both add burden as well as providing opportunities to
reduce burden. For owners/operators, the proposed changes add burden, but that burden can be
offset to some degree by the choices that SLTs make regarding CAERS. Additionally, some of
the burden impacts would occur starting during the 2024-2026 period covered by this RIA while
others would occur after that period. The figure below illustrates the key elements of the revised
AERR that impact burden and how SLT choices could impact burden for both SLTs and the
owners/operators within each state, local, or tribal boundary.
SLTs must make the following critical choices under the proposed AERR provisions:
1. Whether to report HAP on behalf of owners/operators;
2. Whether and how to incorporate CAERS into SLT data flows for point sources.
For the choice of whether to report HAP on behalf of owners/operators, Table 3-21
provides the various scenarios for impact on the burden included in this RIA. If a SLT chooses to
report HAP on behalf of owners/operators then, during the 2024-2026 period of this RIA, the
SLT would have additional burden to implement the HAP reporting requirements previously
described. During the subsequent period (2027-2029), the SLT would have additional burden to
collect and report HAP. If an SLT chooses to not to report HAP on behalf of owners/operators,
then there would be no impact on the SLT during the initial three-year period but in the
subsequent period, there could be an impact when an SLT chooses to receive HAP data from
80
-------
EPA. There is no significant burden impact of this choice on facilities, unless for SLTs that
continue to require HAP to be reported to the state without integrating with CAERS or accepting
the responsibility of reporting HAP on behalf of owners/operators. Table 3-21 reflects this last
point in the footnote.
Table 3-21: Impacts on burden depending on SLT choice of whether to report HAP
Impacts to RIA
SLT Chooses
HAP Reporting
SLT Chooses No
HAP Reporting
2024-2026
For SLT Estimated Burden
Voluntary
None
For Owners/Operators Estimated
Burden
None
None
2027-2029
For SLT Estimated Burden
Collect and report
HAP data to EPA
Optionally receive HAP data
from EPA via CAERS
For Owners/Operators Estimated
Burden
Collect and report
HAP data to SLT
Report HAP to EPA1; One-
time increase to learn to use
CAERS
1 In this scenario, if an SLT were to retain their own HAP reporting requirements for reporting to the SLT, then an
owner/operator would have duplicative reporting requirements to both SLT and EPA.
For the choice of whether and how to incorporate CAERS into SLT data flows for point
sources, Table 3-22 provides the various scenarios for impact on the burden included in this
RIA. Previously in this chapter, we have described the various CAERS cases that SLTs can
consider. During the 2024 to 2026 period, SLTs retaining their point source collection system or
using CAERS cases 1 or 2 do not have impacts reflected in this RIA. If choosing cases 3 or 4,
SLTs have a one-time burden increase associated with implementation (Table 3-5) and once
implemented a reduction in burden (Table 3-12). The owners/operators' burden is not different
due to the SLT choice.
For the 2027-2029 period, Table 3-22 shows that SLTs choosing CAERS cases 3 or 4
continue to experience burden reductions during this period and would have additional burden
reduction associated with lower implementation for supporting the HAP collection requirements
81
-------
that start in 2027. In all cases in this period, owners/operators would be reporting HAP, but the
impact varies depending on the SLT choices for whether and how to incorporate CAERS. For
SLTs retaining their existing system or implementing CAERS cases 1 or 2, it will be a lower
burden for owners/operators if they also choose to report HAP on behalf of owners/operators
(previous table). Not doing so could create a duplicative requirement for owners/operators when
SLTs have their own HAP reporting requirements. Finally, the burden for owners/operators for
SLTs that choose CAERS cases 3 or 4 would have a one-time increase to learn to use CAERS
but then owners/operators would benefit from the consolidated reporting opportunities CAERS
will provide.
Table 3-22: Impacts on burden depending on SLT choice of whether and how to
incorporate CAERS
Impacts to RIA
SLT System, As-Is
or CAERS Cases 1
or 2
CAERS Case 3
CAERS Case 4
2024-2026
For SLT Estimated
Burden
None
CAERS case 3
Subtotal; case 3
reductions
CAERS case 4
Subtotal; case 4
reductions
For
Owners/Operators
Estimated Burden
None
None1
None1
2027-2029
For SLT Estimated
Burden
None
CAERS case 3
reductions; Additional
HAP burden
reductions
CAERS case 3
reductions; Additional
HAP burden reductions
For Owners/
Operators Estimated
Burden
Depends on SLT
Choice for HAP
Reporting
Approach2
One-time increase to learn to use CAERS;
Burden reduction for consolidated reporting
1 Owner/Operators would need to learn how to report to CAERS, but that part of the burden is not included in the
initial three-year period.
2 If states do not report HAP on behalf of owners/operators but continue to require HAP reporting to the state
separately from CAERS, this would cause owners/operators duplicative reporting.
82
-------
EPA has previously described the choices and assumptions made to forecast the choices
of SLTs. Making different assumptions would significantly impact the overall burden
comparison. For example, if more states choose case 4, then there would be more burden
reduction associated with the proposed rule. If more states choose case 3, then there is more one-
time burden for connecting the SLT data system, but also more burden reduction over time based
on case 3.
In addition to the voluntary choice for mandatory HAP reporting, and the potential one-
time burden increases and long-term burden reductions via CAERS, the following proposed
AERR revisions for point sources would increase burden on states during the initial three-year
period and through the analytical period of the RIA:
Preparation for collecting additional data fields for point sources (for states not using
CAERS case 4);
Clarification on the definition of "actual emissions" (because some states may not be
including startup and shutdown in their emissions reports);
Requirement to separately report upset/malfunction emissions when they occur;
Approach for reporting aircraft data as point sources, which codifies what many SLTs are
already doing voluntarily;
Approach for reporting rail yards, which codifies what many SLTs are already doing
voluntarily;
New approach for collecting and reporting data on portable sources (one of several
options);
Inclusion of portable offshore drilling barges in state waters; and
Clarification that offshore oil rigs in state waters should be included in point source
reports.
For sources other than point sources, the following proposed AERR revisions would increase
burden on states during the initial three-year period and through the analytical period of the RIA:
Preparation for the mandatory collection and reporting of prescribed fire activity data;
83
-------
Requirement to provide documentation of emissions for nonpoint sectors that are not
covered by EPA tools;
For states overlapping tribal regions for tribes that report to EPA, the proposed
requirement that states exclude activity from those tribal regions when reporting county
totals;
For states who choose to report nonpoint source emissions for sectors with EPA tools, the
additional effort to report emissions and documentation in addition to the newly required
nonpoint tool inputs;
For states who choose to report agricultural fire emissions, the additional effort required
to report those as events rather than as county totals; and
For California, the requirement to provide documentation of mobile source emissions
calculations using California tools.
In addition to the opportunity to use CAERS case 4, some AERR proposed and retained
revisions would provide opportunities to decrease SLT burden during the initial three-year period
and through the analytical period of the RIA:
Provision to collect HAP emissions data direction from owners/operators;
EPA providing nonpoint emissions calculation tools for SLT use rather than requiring
each SLT to develop and submit emissions with their own tools;
The proposed provision to SLTs to review and accept nonpoint emission tool data
provided by EPA;
EPA providing mobile source model inputs for all state/local agencies except California,
and the proposed provision to allow state/local agencies to review and accept mobile
source model inputs provided by EPA for onroad and nonroad sources; and
EPA providing activity data for and the proposed provision to allow state/local agencies
to review and accept aircraft, rail yard, commercial marine vessel, wildfire, and
agricultural fire activity data and emissions.
Table 3-23 provides a comparison from the summary information of Table 3-20 with the
previous ICR for the AERR. Because this RIA includes reporting from owners/operators to both
84
-------
SLTs (for CAPs) and to EPA (source test data and owners/operators on tribal lands in 2026), the
rows for owners/operators have been separated out to better illustrate the differences in results
for the SLTs of the AERR changes.
Table 3-23: Burden Change
Currently
Approved ICR
Change
Total
Requested
SI Is
Annual Responses
80
+5
85
Annual Respondent Hour Burden
48,702
+153,538
202,240
Annual Respondent Cost Burden
$4,960,908
$23,507,584
$28,468,492
()\\ Hers Operators
Annual Responses
0
+40,315
40,315
Annual Respondent Hour Burden
0
+825,473
825,473
Annual Respondent Cost Burden
$0
$88,918,714
$88,918,714
i:i\\
All LP A Costs
S5,589,000
$792,500
$0,381,500
These changes show an average annual increase in the number of responses from 80 to 85
for SLTs and an associated hour increase of about 154,000 and cost increase of about $28.5
million. The reasons for the large increase in hours and costs have been described previously.
The increase in the number of SLT respondents reflects the requirement that applies to the 50
states, the District of Columbia, and 3 territories (Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Guam).
Additionally, increased labor rates are included in this RIA as compared with the existing
approved ICR. As mentioned in section 3.2 of this RIA, labor rates have been updated to the
May 2021 labor rates (that are the most recent) from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
Labor Statistics for managers and technical staff (downloaded on 3/21/2022).
As previously described, the costs associated with the proposed AERR include, for the
first time for the AERR, costs to owners/operators for reporting to states, the cost of state data
85
-------
systems operations, and includes source test data reporting to EPA. As such, certain apparent
"increases" are solely due to the addition of those workflows as attributable to the AERR.
EPA costs included in this RIA reflect an update to assumed salary of EPA FTEs to
reflect the latest General Services Administration pay table. The additional cost of developing
the emissions estimation tool to reduce burden on small businesses has also been added to EPA
costs. An additional $300,000 has been included for CAERS capital costs in these estimates, to
reflect the planned system migration as part of overall data system streamlining by EPA, which
will incur a higher cost during the initial three-year period for an eventual cost savings. Other
costs have been recently updated in the AERR ICR approved in 2022, and those have been used
in this RIA.
This RIA quantifies costs of collecting data for the NEI, which is published on an annual
basis. After states submit the data, EPA quality assures the point source data, resolves quality
issues with the data submitters, and publishes the point sources in the EIS within 6-9 months.
The remainder of the NEI data are published in the EIS and on EPA's website within 15 months.
The NEI is used in numerous EPA activities that are described in the latest NEI Technical
Support Document available on EPA's NEI website.15
This RIA also quantifies costs of collecting certain source test data using CEDRI, which
is a data system that transfers the data it collects into the WebFIRE system for publication. The
data collected undergo a review period by SLTs that lasts 30 days after receipt for Periodic and
Notification reports and 60 days after receipt for Performance Test / Evaluation reports. At that
time, the data is transferred to the WebFIRE database for public distribution on the WebFIRE
website.16 More information is available on this process through the Central Data Exchange
Guide for Reviewing Reports in CEDRI. Version 1.0 (April, 2020).17
3.9 Costs of the Proposed Action for 2027 and Beyond
Some of the provisions of the proposed AERR revision, if finalized, would take effect
starting in 2027 (for the 2026 emissions inventory year), and some one-time provisions in the
15 https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-inventories/national-emissions-inventory-nei.
16 https://cfjpub.epa.gov/webfire/.
17 https://dev.epacdx.net/FAQ/ViewDocument?documentNumber=Phx8CgcKgTspercent3D.
86
-------
2024-2026 period would not apply. This section provides information to help explain the
changes to burden that would start in 2027 and continue indefinitely.
Table 3-24 provides the proposed AERR provisions that would take effect for SLTs
starting in 2027 and their associated annual changes in hour and cost burden. The EPA includes
the following assumptions in these estimates:
CAERS further expands for the 2026 reporting year that occurs in 2027 with 13 SLTs
using their own data system or CAERS cases 1 or 2, 24 using case 3, and 48 using case 4.
For activities la through lc, manage and staff hours increase by 10 percent over the hours
for the 2023-2025 period because of the additional HAP pollutants.
For activity la, engineer and IT staff hours increase an additional 20 percent because of
necessary updates to the SLT point collection system.
For activity lb, engineer and IT staff hours increase an additional 10 percent because of
necessary updates to the SLT point collection system. This reduction would be associated
with lower system burden because CAERS would serve as the user interface.
For activity 2, this minor update would impact the staff engineer for supporting facilities
to report additional data under the new requirement
For activity 3, this update would include 5percent managerial hours and the following
breakdown of activities for staff
o Prescribed fires collection system O&M: 40 hours engineering and 520 hours IT
o User support for prescribed fire activity reporting: 120 hours engineering and 20
hours IT
o QA of submitted data and revision support: 80 hours engineering
o Converting data into required format: 8 hours engineering and 2 hours IT
o Submitting final data to EPA via CDX: 4 hours engineering
o Responding to follow-up questions from EPA: 20 hours engineering
For activities 4a through 4c, the work to implement the HEDD collection would have
occurred during the 2023-2026 period as part of the updates to state regulations and
updating the SLT data system (except for CAERS case 4). Thus, these hours represent the
87
-------
minor additional burden associated with collecting data from a small number of
additional units in each SLT.
Activity 4b is expected to take more hours because of the additional time needed to
register more facilities in the SLT data system. This is a one-time impact that would
occur during 2027. Since these estimates are based on an initial three-year period and
subsequent periods, the additional hours over Activity 4a are divided by three. The EPA
estimates that the additional hours (above activity la) that would occur in 2027 would be
12 management hours and 80 engineering hours.
Activity 5 includes additional engineering hours (7) and IT hours (16) to update the SLT
data system with the additional per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pollutants
that would be required. This potential impact would not affect SLTs choosing CAERS
case 4.
Table 3-24: Annual Burden and Additions per SLT Starting in 2027 for Proposed AERR
Changes
No.
of
SLTs
Manager
Hrs/yr @
$118.94/Hr
Engineer
Hrs/yr @
$90.83/Hr
IT
Hrs/yr @
$81.02/Hr
Hours/
year
per
SLT
Cost/
year
per SLT
Activities IVom with changes to hurt
en calculation
la. Point source annual
emissions system O&M,
collection, and reporting
for required CAP and
HAP by SLTs, with SLT
system or CAERS cases
1 or 2
13
189
724
1,508
2,421
$210,446
lb. Point source annual
emissions system O&M,
collection, and reporting
for required CAP and
HAP by SLTs, with
CAERS case 3
24
136
371
1,099
1,606
$138,852
88
-------
No.
of
SLTs
Manager
Hrs/yr @
$118.94/Hr
Engineer
Hrs/yr @
$90.83/Hr
IT
Hrs/yr @
$81.02/Hr
Hours/
year
per
SLT
Cost/
year
per SLT
lc. Point source annual
emissions collection and
reporting for required
CAP and HAP by SLTs,
with CAERS case 4
48
23
168
22
213
$19,772
Additional proposed activities
2. Provision to require
inclusion of certain
facility-dedicated mobile
sources as part of facility
emissions
85
0
40
0
40
$3,633
3. Provision for states to
report activity data every
year for certain
prescribed burns
52
41
272
542
855
$73,493
4a. HEDD Preferred
approach: States to report
fuel data or heat input for
for small generating units
24
1
8
0
9
$846
4b. HEDD Alternative D2:
expand preferred
approach to include all
units deployed by CSPs
24
5
35
0
40
$3,743
4c. HEDD Alternative D3:
restrict preferred
approach to ozone SIP
states
17
1
8
0
9
$846
5. Option: Include per- and
polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS) in
required pollutants
85
0
8
16
24
$2,023
Maximum liurden
Changes per Sl.T
(activities In. 2. 3. 4b.
and 5)
13
235
1,079
2.066
3,380
$293,338
89
-------
No.
of
SLTs
Manager
Hrs/yr @
$118.94/Hr
Engineer
Hrs/yr @
$90.83/Hr
IT
Hrs/yr @
$81.02/Hr
Hours/
year
per
SLT
Cost/
year
per SLT
Maximum Kiirrien
Changes lor CAKUS
case 3 (:icli\ ilies 1 h. 2.
3. 4h. ami 5)
24
182
725
1,657
2,564
$221,744
\ 1 ;i\imiiin Kiirrien
Changes lor CAKUS ease 4
(:icli\ ilies lc. 2. 3. 4b. 21ml
5)
48
69
523
580
1,172
SI 02.664
In Table 3-24, the hours and cost estimates for activities la through lc replace the
analogous estimates in Table 3-18, while the remainder of the rows are estimated additional
burden to the burden estimates form 2024-2026. The maximum burden changes totals include
activities la, 2, 3, 4b, and 5. The SLTs using CAERS case 3 would have a lower burden that
includes activity lb rather than la. The burden is further reduced for SLTs using CAERS case 4
by including activity lc rather than la. The reasons for these lower burdens are both the
reductions as described in the main body above as well as the lower increase in burden
associated with mandatory HAP reporting.
Table 3-25 provides the additional proposed AERR provisions that would take effect for
owners/operators starting in 2027 and their associated annual additions of hour and cost burden.
These burden increases are in addition to the reporting burden included in the main body of this
document. The activity numbers in the table match the numbers used in Table 3-25 and,
therefore, are not sequential. The EPA includes the following assumptions in these estimates:
The total number of facilities reporting is the number of major facilities plus the number
of non-major facilities estimated to report as described in a separate document prepared
for the Small Business Advocacy (SBAR) Panel. This approach is described in an
attachment to the SBAR Panel convening materials "Attachment 4 - Draft AERR small
business estimation method.docx". After the panel as part of continued development of
the AERR proposal, that method was applied to the final list of NAICS and final
90
-------
emissions thresholds proposed by this rule to derive the final estimated number of non-
major facilities and small businesses using the CAA small business size definition.
The estimated number of states that will allow facilities to report HAP directly to EPA is
27. Of the remaining SLTs, 26 would continue to use the SLT system or adopt CAERS
cases 1 or 2. The remaining 32 states would report HAP to EPA using CAERS cases 3 or
4.
The number of facilities reporting under activity la is the total number of facilities times
the number of SLTs collecting using the SLT data system or CAERS cases 1 or 2 (13)
divided by the total number of SLTs reporting (85).
The number of facilities reporting under activity lb/c is the total number of facilities
times the number of SLTs with EPA collecting or that are collecting using CAERS cases
3 or 4 divided by the total number of SLTs reporting (85).
The number of facilities reporting PFAS is based on an Environmental Working Group
report "PFAS Nation: Toxic Discharges Suspected From Almost 500 Industrial Facilities
across U.S." from June 11, 2019, and revised July 2021. The report indicates that more
than 41,000 facilities may use or emit PFAS. The EPA chose to include a cost estimate
based on about 10 percent or 4,000 facilities being subject to reporting PFAS. Given the
lack of information about air emissions of PFAS, this number is highly uncertain, but
since the additional hours to report PFAS are low, the uncertainty does not have a large
impact on the overall burden estimates.
The maximum burden totals in Table 3-25 include activities la, 4b, and 5. The
owners/operators using CAERS case 3 or case 4 would have a lower burden through using the
CAERS user interface. The burden reductions included here for owners/operators using CAERS
result from the inclusion of quality controls during emissions reporting, which avoid submission
errors and repeated report submittals. The EPA expects additional burden reduction from
CAERS because it streamlines reporting across several other data systems, but those additional
burden reductions are not quantified here.
91
-------
Table 3-25: Annual Burden per Facility Starting in 2027 for Proposed A ERR Changes
No.
Facilities
Manager
Hrs/yr @
$160.50/Hr
Engineer
Hrs/yr @
$101.18/Hr
Hours/
year
per
Facility
Cost/year
per
Facility
la. Collection by SLT for facilities
required to report for HAP for
SLT reporting on behalf of
facilities because of new AERR
16,859
1
24
25
$2,589
lb/c. Collection of required annual
HAP by EPA or SLT with CAERS
cases 3 or 4 from
owners/operators due to new
AERR
93,372
1
16
17
$1,779
4a. HEDD Preferred approach:
States to report fuel data or heat
input for small generating units
235
5
60
65
$6,873
4b. HEDD Alternative D2: expand
preferred approach to include all
units deployed by CSPs
235
10
120
130
$13,746
4c. HEDD Alternative D3: restrict
preferred approach to ozone SIP
states
226
5
60
65
$6,873
5. Include PFAS in required
pollutants
4,000
0
2
2
$202
6. CAERS training (one-time costs
hrs /3)
93,372
0
3
3
$304
7. Contractor support for small
businesses with < 20 employees or
<$3M receipts
19,024
-
-
-
$8,094
Maximum liurden per l-'acility
(activities la + 5)
16.859
1
26
27
$2,791
.Maximum liurden per l-'acility
CAKUS cases 3 and 4 (activities
1 b/c + 5 + 6)
93,372
1
21
22
$2,285
.Maximum liurden per Kacilitv
lor ( SIN (activity 4b)
235
10
120
130
$13,746
Weighted average across
facilities
(across 3 maxima and activity 7)
129.490
1
19
20
$3,225
1 This number assumes that states would collect the data from CSPs rather than from individual facilities.
92
-------
To better understand the expected impact of these changes in comparison to this RIA for
the 2024-2026 period, Table 3-26 provides the burden associated with labor hours for SLTs,
owners/operators and the total for both 2024-2026 and for 2027. The table reflects the changes
list in Table 3-26, as well as the removal of the one-time costs occurring during 2024-2026. We
calculated the SLT burden (hours and costs) in 2027 by:
Starting with the total burden from Table 3-19;
Subtracting the burden for "One-Time Required, Prescribed Burning," "One-Time
Required, Point Sources," "Annual Required, Point Sources," and "Triennial Required,
Point Sources;" and
Adding the burden from the three Maximum Burden Changes by SLT from the Bottom of
Table 3-24, using the appropriate number of SLTs for each of the rows to multiply the
per-SLT burden for each.
The primary reasons for the changes to the SLT costs are the increases in burden shown
in Table 3-24 and decreases in burden for one-time activities for all states to update their
regulations and to implement a prescribed burning data collection system. An additional decrease
in burden is reflected because of the additional states expected to use CAERS cases 3 and 4 in
2027 (24 and 48, respectively as compared to 10 and 19 during the 2024-2026 period). Further
estimates of CAERS adoption beyond 2027 have not been included. The costs of voluntary
activities to update HAP regulations are not included in the final summary tables in the ICR
Supporting Statement and thus the removal of those costs is not captured in this RIA as part of
the changes in burden for 2027.
The primary reasons for the changes to the owner/operator costs are that there are many
more facilities required to report starting in 2027 (about 129,500) plus a possible additional 235
CSPs. These numbers are in contrast to the CAP major sources (and few additional Pb emitters)
required in 2024-2026 (12,379). Since the AERR for the 2024-2026 period does not require the
collection of HAP data, the collection of HAP data by SLTs from facilities is not part of the
analysis for that period. With the requirement of collecting HAP emissions starting in 2027, all
burden of owners/operators reporting to both states and directly to EPA becomes a part of the
burden estimate. Although the increase in burden appears large, states are voluntarily collecting
93
-------
CAP and, in some cases, HAP from nearly 59,000 facilities (based on 2017 NEI data) in addition
to the 12,379 required facilities. Thus, the practical impact on owners/operators is lower than
what is captured here because the voluntary SLT collections include far more facilities than the
required minimum. In other words, while this proposed action would require reporting for about
116,000 additional facilities beyond the current AERR, 59,000 of those facilities are already
reporting to states.
Table 3-26: Total Estimated Respondent and EPA Burden and Cost Summary Differences
for 2027 Compared to the 2024-2026 Average*
SLTs
Owners/
Operators
Total
Burden
Element
2024-
2026
2027
2024-2026
2027
2024-2026
2027
Number of
Respondents
85
85
40,315
129,490
40,400
129,575
Total Labor
Hours Per
year
298,710
294,732
825,473
2,857,426
1,124,183
3,152,158
Cost Per
Year
S28.5M
S27.7M
S88.9M
S450.1M
S117.4M
S477.9M
* 2021 dollars. M= $1 million.
3.10 Costs in Terms of Present Value and Equivalent Annualized Value
In addition to the burden estimate costs in the form shown in Table 3-26, EPA also
presents these costs in terms of present value (PV) and equivalent annualized value (EAV). The
PV is a current estimate of the costs spread over a period of time; the EAV is a value of these
costs per year whose sum over that period of time equals the PV. We assume a 10 year time
period for estimating costs in this way, beginning in 2024, which is the first year costs are
incurred to comply with the proposal if finalized. Thus, the final year of the time period is 2033.
Given that the vast majority of the costs incurred by affected sources are for labor, an
undiscounted value, we take those labor costs and include them in our analysis. We include all
affected sources and respondents, both governmental (states/local/tribal, and EPA) and industrial
(owner/operator) sources, (that is, the yearly total cost in Table 3-26) in this analysis. We
94
-------
discount these costs at 3 and 7 percent in according with guidance in the current OMB Circular
A-4.18 All costs are in 2021 dollars and discounted to 2023.
We estimate that the PV of these costs is $3.06 billion at a 3 percent discount rate and
$2.41. billion at a 7 percent discount rate. The EAV of these costs is $358 million at a 3 percent
discount rate and $343 million at a 7 percent discount rate. These total results are shown at the
bottom of Table 3-27.
Table 3-27: Discounted Total Annual Costs, for the Proposed AERR (million 2021$,
discounted to 2023)
Year
3 percent
7 percent
2024
$114.0
$109.7
2025
$110.6
$102.5
2026
$107.4
$95.8
2027
$424.6
$364.6
2028
$412.2
$340.7
2029
$400.2
$318.4
2030
$388.5
$297.6
2031
$377.2
$278.1
2032
$366.2
$259.9
2033
$355.6
$242.9
PV
$3,056.7
$2,410.3
EAV
$358.3
$343.2
18 U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4, "Regulatory Analysis." September 17, 2003. Available
on the Internet at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacY drupal files/omb/circulars/A4/a-4.pdf.
95
-------
Note: Discounted to 2023. Totals may not sum due to independent rounding. Numbers rounded
to two significant digits unless otherwise noted. The EAV is an annualized cost for it is an
estimate calculated from annual costs incurred across the 10 year RIA analytical timeframe.
3.11 Employment Impacts
Regarding employment impacts, environmental regulation including regulation to effect
greater collection of emissions data as included in this proposal, may affect groups of workers
differently, as changes in compliance activities such as those in this proposed action cause labor
and other resources to shift. Standard benefit-cost analyses have not typically included a separate
analysis of regulation-induced employment impacts, especially those involving employment by
state, local, and tribal government entities.19 In this section we discuss qualitatively the potential
employment impacts of this proposed rule.
An environmental regulation affecting the many sectors impacted by this proposed rule as
listed in Chapter 2 is expected to have a variety of transitional employment impacts, which may
include reduced employment at facilities, as well as increased employment for the manufacture,
installation, and operation of equipment related to emissions data collection and services related
to emissions data collection.20 Labor costs and the amount of labor needed for the installation
and operation of monitoring equipment and recordkeeping procedures can be found in the ICR
supporting statement and related appendices and reports for this proposed rule discussed earlier
in this RIA chapter. For this proposed rule, the EPA expects some potential for small changes in
the amount of labor needed in different parts of the affected sectors nationwide, though the
absolute labor hour estimate in absolute are not trivial, as shown by the labor estimates presented
earlier in this RIA chapter.21 These employment impacts, both negative and positive, may be
likely to be relatively small or de minimus, though the discussion of impacts on small entities
19 Labor costs associated with regulatory compliance activities are included as part of total costs in EPA's standard
benefit-cost analyses. See Section 3.1 of this RIA for a discussion of operating, supervisory, and maintenance labor
hours for labor costs associated with operation and maintenance of equipment, and labor expenses required for
monitoring, reporting, and record keeping as estimated in the ICR for this proposal.
20 Schmalansee, R. and R. Stavins (2011). "A Guide to Economic and Policy Analysis for the Transport Rule."
White Paper. Boston, MA. Exelon Corp.
21 The employment analysis in this RIA is part of EPA's ongoing effort to "conduct continuing evaluations of
potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the administration or enforcement of [the Act]"
pursuant to CAA section 321(a).
96
-------
that is part of the IRFA presented in Chapter 4 of this RIA should lead to care in the examination
of such impacts.
3.12 Social Welfare Considerations
As stated in E.O. 12866, when a regulatory action is deemed "significant," an estimate of
the regulation's social cost is compared to its social benefits to determine whether the benefits
justify the costs. The value of a regulatory action is traditionally measured by the change in
economic welfare that it generates. The regulation's welfare impacts, or the social costs required
to achieve environmental improvements, will extend to consumers and producers as economic
agents. Consumers experience welfare impacts due to potential changes in market prices and
consumption levels associated with the proposed rule. Producers experience welfare impacts
resulting from changes in profits corresponding with the changes in production costs, output
levels, and market prices. These benefits are discussed in Chapter 5. A qualitative discussion and
comparison of the net benefits (benefits less costs) of this proposed action is also presented in
Chapter 5.
97
-------
APPENDIX 3-A: COSTS OF EMISSIONS DATA ACTIVITIES FOR STATE
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
In addition to the burden associated with the proposed AERR revisions, this RIA
quantifies the burden of activities that states/locals must do to create emissions inventory data
needed to comply with certain Clean Air Act requirements for SIPs. While the activities by SLTs
to submit such information to EPA were previously examined in the accompanying ICRs
associated with the various SIP requirements rules,22 the activities to develop the emissions data
for SIPs have not been previously quantified. This analysis quantifies emissions data preparation
costs for those expected SIP emissions inventory preparation efforts over the period covered by
this RIA.
The analysis provided in this Appendix is divided into four sections. The first section
provides the approach for estimating the number of SLT respondents, while the second section
provides cost estimates for these. The third section provides estimated costs of additional
reporting by owners/operators to states to provide additional emissions inventory data needed for
SIPs that is in addition to the annual data collected by states for reporting under the AERR.
Finally, the last section includes the total burden associated with these SIP-related emissions
inventory activities for both SLTs and owners/operators.
3-A.l Number of SLT respondents
The number of respondents overall includes all 50 states, but depending on the activity,
some states may have more than one SIP action. The EPA estimates that during the 2024-2026
period, states will prepare 58 periodic ozone season emissions inventories, 28 projected
attainment year inventories, 74 base year inventories for the nonattainment area (total for both
ozone or PM2.5 SIPs), 42 emissions inventories to support modeled attainment demonstrations,
and 50 emissions inventories for regional haze modeling for the third planning period.
Table 3-A-l provides EPA's estimates of the SIP actions expected occur during the 2024-
2026 period. These activities to estimate an annual cost of SIP emissions data preparation
activities that would occur through the RIA analysis period (i.e., through 2033). This approach is
22 Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone State Implementation Plan
Requirements, OMB control number 2060-0695; PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Requirements Rule, OMB control number 2060-0611.
98
-------
used because predicting SIP-related emissions activities occurring after 2026 is highly uncertain.
The leftmost column of the table shows the program name followed in the subsequent columns
by the various emissions-related activities (and any relevant assumptions) and the number of
areas affected. The column labeled "Count by" indicates the basis for estimating the "Number
affected" on that row. These "Count by" labels are for the nonattainment area ("Area"), the
combinations of nonattainment area and SLTs ("Area-SLT"), or the SLT.23 The type of "Count
by" used affects how EPA computed the hours for the burden estimates. The "Emissions
activities 2024-2026" column indicates whether during the 2024-2026 period covered by this
analysis, EPA expects emissions activities to be performed by SLTs.
Table 3-A-l: Evaluation of Potential SIP Activities
Program
Activity
Number
affected
Count
by
Emissions
activities
2024-2026
Ozone NAAQS
(all active)
Periodic Emissions Inventory
58
Area
Yes
Projected 10-year inventory for
maintenance plan
14
Area-
SLT
Yes
Base year inventory for the NAA (for
inventory SIP or maintenance plan)
52
Area-
SLT
Yes
Emissions for modeled attainment
demonstration (base year and
projected attainment year)
38
Area-
SLT
Yes
Ozone NAAQS
(Transport)
No specific requirements, though
upwind linked states may need to use
emissions data.
23
SLT
Yes
23 An area-SLT combination reflects that a single nonattainment or maintenance area may overlap with 3 states, for
example, the New York-New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area overlaps with New York, New Jersey, and
Connecticut. Since each state would separately need to do emissions projections, EPA has counted these separately
for purposes of estimating burden.
99
-------
Program
Activity
Number
affected
Count
by
Emissions
activities
2024-2026
PM2.5 (all active)
Projected 10-year inventory for
maintenance plan or projected
attainment year inventory
14
Area-
SLT
Yes
Base year inventory for the NAA (for
inventory SIP or maintenance plan)
22
Area-
SLT
Yes
Emissions for modeled attainment
demonstration (base year and
projected attainment year)
4
Area-
SLT
Yes
Designations, 5-factor analysis
including emissions evaluations
30
Area-
SLT
No
Infrastructure SIPs/Transport
51
SLT
No
NOx SIP call
Any activity
21
SLT
No
Regional Haze
Statewide emissions inventory needed
for Regional Haze progress reports
due in 2025.
51
SLT
No
Statewide emissions inventory for the
third SIP planning period (due in
2028). Assume modeling inventory
and emissions modeling activities
needed.
51
SLT
Yes
CO
Base year inventory for the NAA (for
maintenance plan)
82
Area
No
N02
Base year inventory for the NAA (for
maintenance plan)
1
Area
No
S02
Emissions for AERMOD modeling
35
Area
No
Pb
Emissions for AERMOD modeling
1
Area
No
For the activities related to the ozone standards shown in this table, EPA reviewed
possible actions that could occur during the 2024-2026 period based on the classification of
nonattainment areas (Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, or Extreme) and the latest
information about ambient conditions in those areas. For the periodic emissions inventory, EPA
assumed all 58 existing nonattainment areas would need to do a periodic inventory. These
100
-------
inventories are not identical to those submitted to EPA for the AERR's triennial reporting
requirement previously described, because the periodic inventories have several differences.
Thus, EPA counts here only the additional effort (beyond what would be done for the AERR)
needed for states with existing nonattainment areas to create the nonattainment area inventories.
For the ozone NAAQS projected 10-year inventory for maintenance plans, EPA has
assumed the following numbers of state-area (or "area-SLT") combinations to arrive at the count
of 14 shown in the table: 2008 ozone standard (3), 2015 ozone standard (11). A state-area
combination reflects that a single nonattainment or maintenance area may overlap with 3 states,
for example, the New York-New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area overlaps with New
York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. This is consistent with EPA's assumption that all 58
existing ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas would need to do a periodic inventory. Since each
state would separately need to do emissions projections, EPA has counted these separately for
purposes of estimating burden.
In addition, for ozone, EPA arrived at a count of 52 new or updated base year inventories
for the nonattainment areas, as follows. Each of the following occurrences would trigger a state
to need to prepare such an inventory: 2008 ozone standard areas reclassified from Serious to
Severe (7), 2015 standard areas reclassified from Marginal to Moderate (5) and from Marginal or
Moderate to Serious (31), and areas needing maintenance plans (9). Lastly for the ozone
standard, a reclassification from Moderate to Severe would cause an area/state to create a new
modeled attainment demonstration, so EPA has counted a possible 38 such demonstrations
requiring modeling inventories during the period of this RIA.
For ozone transport SIPs, there are not necessarily any specific submissions from states
that EPA believes would occur during the 2024-2026 period. However, states may need to
develop emissions inventories (or revise EPA inventories) during the period so that they could
meet requirements for submissions after 2026. Thus, EPA assumes 23 upwind states based on its
latest proposed rulemaking would have emissions inventory activities during the period of the
RIA.
For the PM2.5 standards, EPA reviewed possible actions that could occur during the
period for this ICR based on the classification of nonattainment areas {i.e., Moderate or Serious).
In the case of PM2.5 SIPs, projected inventories could be needed either for a 10-year inventory
101
-------
for a maintenance plan or for a projected attainment year inventory for a Moderate or Serious
SIP. The EPA anticipates that the following could occur during the period of this RIA resulting
in 14 future-year projected inventories: Maintenance plans for the 1997 PM2.5 standard (3) and
for the 2006 PM2.5 standard (7), 2012 PM2.5 standard areas bumped from Moderate to Serious
(2), and 2012 PM2.5 standard Serious area attainment plans due (2). For new base year
inventories for the nonattainment areas, EPA anticipates a total of 22 of these as follows: for all
the cases just described for PM2.5 SIP projected attainment inventories above (14) and for second
maintenance plans (8).
In addition to the ozone and PM2.5 standards where most of the activities would occur
during the 2024-2026 period, EPA considered whether any state activities beyond the AERR
reporting activities would be necessary for the NOx SIP call (40 CFR 51, Subpart G) and
determined that there are not. For Regional Haze SIPs, the inventory work needed for the 2025
progress reports would generally have been completed prior to 2024, but the emissions inventory
work for the third planning period will likely occur in part during 2025 and 2026. The EPA also
considered whether any emissions-related SIP work would be necessary for CO or NO2
maintenance areas and concluded none would occur during the 2024-2026 analysis period.
Finally, for SO2 and Lead nonattainment areas, while some activities related to emissions may
occur, EPA assumes that no additional emissions activities beyond what SLTs do for annual and
triennial emissions reporting and permitting efforts already covered by ICRs would be needed.
This is in part because emissions levels used in modeling for these SIPs are usually PTE levels,
the values for which are available in permits and collected via other ICRs as previously
described.
The EPA additionally has assumed that no further emissions inventory preparation
burden exists for NO2, SO2, or Lead SIP development. This assumption has been made because
SIPs for these pollutants use source-specific analyses that require detailed PTE emissions and
facility emissions release parameters. The PTE information is included in facility permits and its
collection is, therefore, covered by the 40 CFR Part 70 State Operating Permit Program (EPA
ICR Number 1587.15, OMB Control Number 2060-0243) and the 40 CFR Part 71 Federal
Operating Program (EPA ICR Number 1713.13, OMB Control Number 2060-0336). The
emissions release parameters for those facilities needed for completing these SIPs are covered by
the annual emissions inventory collection, for which the burden is included in this analysis.
102
-------
Finally, EPA has identified that no CO maintenance plans or SIPs are due during the 2024-2026
period of this analysis.
3-A.2 SLT burden for emissions-related SIP requirements
To estimate costs associated with SIP emissions inventory data preparation, this
methodology uses three steps. First, as listed in Table 3-A-l, EPA estimated the number of states
or local agencies that will need to create emissions data for each emissions-related SIP activity
occurring during the 2024-2026 analysis period (e.g., for the ozone program this would be the
number of agencies with nonattainment planning obligations; for the regional haze program, this
would be each state air agency). Second, EPA estimated the number of hours associated with
creating the emissions data that are beyond hours associated with emissions work for annual and
triennial submissions under the AERR. Third, EPA multiplied the number of entities and the
number of hours to get the total hours, including hourly cost information in those calculations to
also get annualized costs.
Based on the standards and activities listed in Table 3-A-l, EPA grouped activities across
the air quality standards and aggregated the areas affected. The "Number affected" column in
Table 3-A-2 provides the totals of affected nonattainment areas and/or states. The other columns
in that table provide EPA's estimated number of additional annual hours beyond annual/triennial
reporting to perform the emissions-related steps for SIPs. A party performing these activities
would, at most, perform each activity listed only once during the 3-year analysis period. So, to
provide the annualized burden per entity, EPA divided the total number of hours for each activity
by 3. The EPA assumed that managerial hours for these tasks were 5 percent of the technical
hours. For preparation of periodic ozone season emissions, EPA calculated that there are on
average 1.3 states associated with each ozone nonattainment area. Since the row included
periodic inventories counts by area, the hours were set to be 30 percent higher in this row than
for similar activities in the subsequent two rows.
103
-------
Table 3-A-2: Annualized Burden per SLT respondent for SIP emissions activities
Activity
Number
affected
Count
By
Manager
Hrs/yr @
$118.94/Hr
Engineer
Hrs/yr @
$90.83/Hr
Total
Hours/
Year
Labor
Cost/Year
1. SLT prepare periodic
ozone season emissions for
point, nonpoint, mobile,
and events
58
Area
10.67
208
219
$20,160
2. SLT prepare any
projected year NAA
emissions for point,
nonpoint, and mobile
28
Area
and
State
8.67
173.33
182
$16,774
3. SLT prepare any base
year inventory for the
NAA
74
Area
and
State
17.33
346.67
364
$33,548
4. SLT prepare emissions
for any modeled attainment
demonstration (includes
future emissions and
processing)
42
Area
and
State
8.67
173.33
182
$16,774
5. SLT prepare emissions
for regional haze modeling
for third planning period
51
State
17.33
346.67
364
$33,548
Average Burden per
State
51
State
67
1,324
1,391
$128,175
To calculate an average value across entities, EPA chose to make this calculation by state
(including the District of Columbia), even though some of the burden is also shared by local
104
-------
agencies and tribes. This averaging approach allows for comparison between this analysis and
subsequent analyses that would be needed for future SIP-related ICRs, for which the number of
estimated entities per activity may change. The EPA recognizes that all emissions-related
activities do not apply to all states and that some such activities are performed by local agencies
and tribes. The total burden associated with the rule will not be affected by this calculation, but
rather, we provide this state average only for comparison purposes with other estimates in this
analysis and with subsequent ICRs.
3-A.3 Burden on Owners/Operators Related to Emissions Inventories for SIPs
To estimate burden on owners/operators that is related to emissions inventory
submissions in support of SIPs, EPA has estimated the number of affected facilities and the
number of hours to report seasonal emissions needed for SIPs that go beyond the effort for
annual reporting associated with the AERR (and covered in the primary RIA). These efforts are
to report the seasonal data, such as ozone-season-day emissions.
To estimate the number of facilities affected, EPA has estimated the number of facilities
that SLTs collect to comply with requirements to create inventories for nonattainment areas for
Ozone SIPs and PM2.5 SIPs. Only those standards are included because reporting the season-day
emissions (that can be used for emissions inventories for those standards) would impose
additional burden on facilities and states to estimate those emissions. To estimate the number of
facilities, EPA analyzed NEI facilities within nonattainment areas. Facilities were counted as
being directly or indirectly required to report for SIP reasons if any of the following were true:
1) The facility is listed as a "CAP Major" or "HAP/CAP Major".
2) The facility has emissions of 5 tons or more of NOx or VOC.
3) The facility had lOx or more the minimum value of NOx or VOC of any Major facilities
within the area. This step is done because NOx and VOC emissions reporting thresholds
are based on PTE rather than actual emissions. The minimum values for NOx and VOC
for all Major facilities within any given area are usually much less than 1 tpy, so this
approach is conservative.
105
-------
Based on this approach, EPA estimated 8,947 facilities were required to report based on
nonattainment area emission inventory requirements. This value was rounded to 8,950 for the
burden calculations made for this proposed rule.
To estimate the number of hours, EPA considered that the bulk of emissions reporting
burden is associated with reporting annual emissions to states because annual emissions
reporting covers reporting of all facility attributes (units, processes, release points, etc.) and
emissions of all required pollutants. The incremental burden to add season-day emissions would
be low because these are just a few more emissions values to include in a report. The EPA
assumed this effort would be 15 percent of the annual reporting burden, or 4 hours per facility
once within each three-year period.
3-A.4 Total Estimated Costs per Year of Emissions Inventories for SIPs
Based on the information in the previous sections, Table 3-A-3 provides the resulting
annual costs associated with creating the emissions inventories for SIPs. The estimated total
costs to SLTs are about $6.5 million per year while costs to owners/operators are about $1.2
million per year. As with the other annual costs in this RIA, these costs are in 2021 dollars.
Table 3-A-3: Total Annual Cost of Emissions Inventory Preparation Activities for SIPs
Activity
Average
Number
Entities Per
Year
Total Hours Per
Year
Total Costs Per Year
SLTs collect
required SIP
emissions data
51
70,941
$6,536,925
Owners/Operators
report season-day
CAPs by facilities
within
2,983
11,933
$1,207,391
106
-------
nonattainment
areas to states
107
-------
APPENDIX 3-B: COSTS OF VOLUNTARY ACTIVITES
The RIA and the draft Information Collection Request (ICR) for this proposed action
includes collection of both mandatory and voluntary data from states (defined to include certain
local and tribal governments) for annual and more extensive triennial collections of emissions
data. The draft ICR also covers the proposed collection of mandatory and voluntary data from
owners/operators that emit emissions at or above proposed reporting thresholds and that perform
source tests. The baseline for this proposed action presumes that data submitted to EPA
voluntarily under the current AERR is considered an additional cost of this proposed rule and
therefore has not been included in the RIA's analytical baseline. The RIA describes this issue
regarding the baseline in Chapters 1 and 5. This Appendix describes the costs associated with
activities that are already being done voluntarily.
3-B.l Voluntary Reporting Under the Current and Proposed AERR
While the current AERR provides support for voluntary data collection, and many states
provide a considerable amount of useful HAP data, the EPA has significant evidence that the
current voluntary reporting program from states is insufficient to meet the Agency's data needs,
even when EPA augments the data using the TRI. The EPA discusses this evidence that the
current voluntary reporting program from states is insufficient to meet EPA's data needs in
section IV. A of the proposal preamble. In addition, under the current voluntary program, some
states submit extensive HAP data, while others submit little or no HAP data. Finally, the
longstanding absence of stationary source data from sources within Indian country and the lack
of success in collecting sufficient data for estimating emissions of many prescribed fires in many
states is indicative of several significant gaps in emissions data needed by the EPA to carry out
many required programs. Given the current incompleteness of emissions data, the EPA believes
that one appropriate approach for this RIA is to consider a baseline that does not include the
costs associated with the voluntary collection of emissions data by states.
A significant part of the burden as shown in this RIA is associated with the proposed
requirements that codify collecting data currently reported by SLTs voluntarily. Another part of
the burden includes activities already incurred by states such as operation and maintenance of
their emissions collection system. This Appendix focuses on the burden associated with these
108
-------
voluntary and existing activities. These sources of burden under the current AERR and proposed
AERR, both for the ICR analysis period of 2024-2025 and 2027 and beyond, are listed in Table
3B-1 including the status of those as voluntary or mandatory under the proposed rule. In the
table, ฅ represents voluntary, R indicates required, and V/R indicates a voluntary activity that
becomes required when states choose to report HAP on behalf of owners/operators.
Table 3B-1: List of sources of burden that are voluntary under current or proposed AERR
over time
Source of burden
Current
AERR?
2024-2026*
2027-
States report emissions for nonpoint sources
R
V
V
Owners/operators outside of states' implementation
planning authority report CAP and HAP
V
R
R
Owners/operators report HAP from point sources (and
states can voluntarily report on their behalf)
V
V
R
States report emissions from additional facilities (due
to HAP thresholds under proposed AERR)
V
V
V/R
States prepare for use of CAERS
V
V
V
States update emissions regulations to include HAP
n/a
V
V/R
States apply to report HAP
n/a
V
V/R
States provide activity and related information for
prescribed burning
V
V
R
States provide activity and related information for
wildfires
V
V
V
Rail companies provide rail yard data
V
V
V
* The years shown in this table are the years in which the burden occurs. The related NEI year is
one year earlier.
As shown in Table 3B-1, there are four activities that are currently voluntary that will
become mandatory under the proposed rule. These are (1) owners/operators reporting HAP from
109
-------
point sources, (2) owners/operators reporting CAP and HAP from point sources outside of states'
implementation planning authority, (3) states reporting for additional facilities due to the HAP
threshold change (when reporting HAP on behalf of owners/operators), and (4) states reporting
activity and related information for prescribed burning. Of these, the activity for states to report
additional facilities due to the HAP threshold change is the most significant contribution to the
overall burden.
3-B.2 Total Estimated Burden with Comparison of Burden Estimates Associated
with Voluntary Activities with Those of Mandatory Activities
Table 3B-2 includes total estimated burden split by respondent, activity, and mandatory
or voluntary activities for the analysis period of the ICR (2024-2026). Total estimated burden for
all entities combined is 1,142,927 hours for mandatory activities (or 92 percent) and 99,115 (or 8
percent) for voluntary hours during the 3-year period of the ICR. Of this, the estimated burden
for states is 317,454 hours for mandatory activities (or 76 percent) and 99,087 for voluntary
activities (or 24 percent). Estimated burden for owners/operators is 825,473 hours for mandatory
activities and 28 hours for voluntary activities. Thus, the estimated burden for owners/operators
is almost entirely (more than 99 percent) is for mandatory activities.
Given the nature of these estimates, the distribution of the costs will mirror the
distribution of labor hours associated with these activities. Thus, for the states, roughly 76
percent of the costs of this proposal for the ICR analysis period of 2024-2026 are incurred as a
result of provisions that are mandatory (required for this proposal, and not being done in the
baseline). The costs reflect that 24 percent of what is incurred is due to voluntary provisions. For
owners/operators, virtually all of the costs incurred for the ICR analysis period of 2024-2026 are
due to mandatory provisions. Thus, the issue of whether to consider the costs of voluntary
provisions now codified in this proposal as belonging in the baseline for owners/operators has
little impact on the proposal cost estimates. It is a nontrivial consideration in the costs of the
proposal for states, however. Finally, when impacts across all sources are considered, the impact
of mandatory provisions is 92 percent, with a nontrivial share of 8 percent for voluntary
provisions.
110
-------
Table 3B-2: Total Estimated Burden for Proposed A ERR Requirements for 2024-2026
Entity
Activity
Mandatory
Hours
Voluntary
Hours
Total
Hours
States
Update emissions regulations and
build prescribed burning collection
system
156,784
0
156,784
Convert to CAERS, update
regulations to include HAP, and apply
to report HAP
88,554
88,554
Emissions reporting to EPA
45,456
10,533
55,990
Maintaining emissions collection
system (Operations/Maintenance)
115,214
0
115,214
State SubTotal
317,454
99,087
416,542
Owners/
Operators
Source test reporting
161,040
0
161,040
Emissions data reporting to the EPA
(Indian country and rail companies)
11,466
28
11,494
Reporting required data (for AERR) to
states
144,993
0
144,993
Preparing to report release point
locations
507,973
0
507,973
Owners/Operators SubTotal
825,473
28
825,501
Total
1,142,927
99,115
1,242,043
For 2027 and beyond, the requirement of collecting HAP emissions starting in 2027, after
not being a requirement before that year, means that all burden of owners/operators reporting to
both states and directly to EPA becomes a part of the burden estimate for the proposed rule.
Although the increase in burden to owners/operators from the 2024-2026 period appears large,
states are voluntarily collecting CAP and, in some cases, HAP from nearly 59,000 facilities
(based on 2017 NEI data) in addition to the 12,379 required facilities. Thus, the practical impact
on owners/operators is lower than what is captured here because the voluntary state collections
111
-------
include far more facilities than the required minimum. In other words, while this proposed action
would require reporting for about 117,000 additional facilities beyond the current AERR, 59,000
(or slightly more than 50 percent) of those facilities are already reporting to states. Hence, 58,000
owners/operators (or just less than 50 percent) facilities will have to report such emissions to
comply with the AERR that do not have to under the current AERR.
In conclusion, the issue of the most reasonable and accurate baseline is an important
consideration for the estimation of burden estimates. In particular, as shown above, it is
important for the estimation of burden estimates for states given the amount of voluntary
activities that will continue during the analysis period as compared to mandatory activities. This
baseline issue becomes less of an analytical concern for states beginning in 2027 given that the
bulk of burden estimates will be for mandatory activities to reflect the changes included in Table
3B-1. For owners/operators, this issue has minimal influence on the analysis given that virtually
all of the burden estimates are for mandatory activities during the 2024-2026 ICR analysis
period, and also for 2027 and beyond.
112
-------
4
INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction
Pursuant to Section 603 of the RFA, the EPA prepared an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) that examined the impact of the proposed rule on small entities along with
regulatory alternatives that could minimize that impact. The EPA is soliciting comment on the
presentation of its analysis of the impacts on small entities. As required by Section 604 of the
RFA, the EPA will prepare a final regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for this action as part of
the final rule. The FRFA will address the issues raised by public comments on the IRFA.
An IRFA illustrates how EPA considers the proposed rule's small entity effects before a
rule is finalized and provides information about how the objectives of the rule were achieved
while minimizing significant economic impacts on small entities. We provide a summary of
IRFA elements; the preamble and SBAR Panel report for this proposed rule provide additional
background and details.
4.2 Why Action by the Agency is Being Considered
As stated in the summary to the proposed AERR preamble, this action proposes changes
to the current EPA emission inventory reporting requirements in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, also
called the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements (AERR). The proposed amendments may
require changes to current regulations of air pollution control agencies, meaning state, local, and
certain tribal air agencies. The proposed amendments would require these agencies to report
emissions data to the EPA using different approaches from current requirements and would
require owners/operators of some facilities to report additional emissions data. More specifically,
the EPA is proposing to require certain sources report information regarding emission of
hazardous air pollutants. The proposed revisions would also define a new approach for optional
collection by air agencies of such information on hazardous air pollutants by which state, local
and certain tribal air agencies may implement requirements and report emissions on behalf of
owners/operators. The proposed revisions would also make the requirements for point sources
consistent for every year; phase in earlier deadlines for point source reporting; add requirements
for reporting fuel use data for certain sources of electrical generation associated with peak
113
-------
electricity demand; add requirements for reporting activity data for prescribed fires; clarify
expectations for reporting data for airports, rail yards, commercial marine vessels, and
locomotives; change requirements for nonpoint sources when the EPA has published emissions
methods; add a requirement for completing a nonpoint survey; change nonpoint source
deadlines; change reporting requirements for nonpoint data when an Indian tribe reports; and
make a variety of clarifications and administrative changes.
For owners/operators of facilities that meet criteria described in this proposal, the
proposed revisions would require emissions reporting of hazardous air pollutants, except when
an air agency is approved to report on their behalf; would require sources within Indian country
not reported by an air agency to report all identified pollutants to EPA; and would require
reporting of performance test and performance evaluation data to the EPA for all tests conducted
after the effective date provided in the final rulemaking.
The proposed amendments in this action would ensure that communities have the data
needed to understand significant source of air pollution that may be impacting them and ensure
that the EPA has sufficient information to identify and solve air quality and exposure problems.
The proposed amendments would also allow the EPA to have information readily available that
the Agency needs to protect public health and perform other activities under the Clean Air Act
(hereafter referenced as the CAA or "the Act"). The EPA has taken a systematic approach in
developing this proposed action to ensure that key emissions information is collected in a
streamlined way, while preventing unnecessary impacts to small entities within the communities
we seek to inform and protect. The proposed amendments would continue EPA's partnership
with states in a way that also respects the framework provided by the CAA.
4.3 Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Proposed Rule
With this action, the EPA proposes amendments that would ensure HAP emissions data
are collected consistently for all communities across the country. Currently, the availability and
detail of HAP emissions data varies across states, which creates a situation where some
communities have incomplete or less accurate information than others, while still facing the
same or greater potential risks. To accomplish this within the authorities provided by the CAA,
the EPA proposes new requirements on owners/operators under CAA Part A to report HAP
emissions directly to EPA. Consistent with provisions of the current version of the AERR, the
114
-------
EPA proposes to retain state reporting of CAPs under CAA Part D, retain voluntary state
reporting of HAP, and proposes an approach by which a state may report HAP emissions on
behalf of sources in that state.
To reduce the possibility of redundant or conflicting HAP emissions reports coming to
the EPA from both states and owners/operators of facilities, this action proposes that states may
elect to assume an owner/operator's responsibility for HAP reporting, provided that the state
receives EPA approval that its HAP reporting rules satisfy the proposed requirements that would
otherwise need to be met by owners/operators. Requirements for owners/operators would
continue unless and until the EPA approves the state program, at which point it would become a
state responsibility {i.e., state reporting would no longer be voluntary for that state). In such
cases, the requirement for owners/operators to report directly to the EPA under this proposed
action would be suspended provided that the state continued to have the responsibility and
obligation to report the source's emissions.
Owners/operators already report HAP to many states. To allow for the EPA and states to
streamline reporting for owners/operators, the EPA proposes to require owners/operators to
report to the EPA using the Combined Air Emissions Reporting System (CAERS). This
emissions collection system has been developed by the EPA to streamline reporting from
owners/operators to multiple EPA and state programs. While this proposed amendment would
add reporting requirements on owners/operators, CAERS can offset and even reduce total burden
by providing owners/operators a way to report to the National Emissions Inventory (NEI),
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), as well as state programs. The EPA plans future enhancements
to CAERS to share emissions data with the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reporting Program
(GHGRP) and the Consolidated Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which will help
owners/operators further streamline their reporting requirements.
This proposed action does not require states to use CAERS, but the EPA expects its use
would help streamline emissions reporting efforts for facilities, prevent duplication of effort, and
lessen burden on states for maintaining their own emissions collection systems. The EPA
proposes that if the EPA approves a state for HAP reporting under the proposed option for doing
so, a state would be able to continue using their existing emissions reporting forms and
approaches provided that such approaches were updated to reflect any new AERR requirements.
115
-------
Depending on choices made by a state, owners/operators would either report to the EPA using
CAERS, to the state using CAERS or a state system, or to CAERS for HAP and to a state system
for pollutants required by the state.
The EPA anticipates that many current or future state regulations will have more
stringent HAP reporting requirements than those proposed in this action. A state could require
reporting by owners/operators of facilities and for pollutants that would not otherwise be
regulated based on this proposed action. If that occurs, a state that is approved to report HAP
would be obligated only to report to the EPA those facilities and pollutants that would be
required by this proposed action.
The proposed amendments would also rely on reporting by owners/operators directly to
the EPA to ensure data for all pollutants are submitted by facilities that are outside the state's
implementation planning authority. Most facilities of this type are located within Indian country
and within Federal waters. Under the current AERR, emissions from these facilities are only
reported to the EPA if a tribe chooses to do so, either voluntarily or through a formal TIP in
which the tribe has accepted the AERR reporting requirements. The EPA also collects data from
the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) for certain offshore facilities within their
jurisdiction. In the current AERR, states do not report emissions data from federally permitted
facilities within Indian country or elsewhere that are not regulated by a state. The current AERR
and this proposed revision defines certain facilities as "point sources" to ensure that the EPA has
detailed data on individual facilities when needed. The proposed amendments would ensure that
point source facilities and their emissions are reported to the EPA either via the state where
appropriate or by owners/operators. This requirement would apply regardless of whether a
facility is located within Indian country, offshore, or other locations.
The EPA proposes to revise emissions reporting by states for nonpoint sources (as
defined in the AERR at 40 CFR 51.50) to improve data quality, consistency, and transparency
for triennial reporting. These proposed revisions are based on an evolution of voluntary
approaches that have been implemented under the current AERR and evaluated by the EPA
while implementing the last several triennial NEIs. If finalized, this proposed action would make
mandatory those currently voluntary approaches that support collaboration between states and
116
-------
the EPA on nonpoint source emissions to make the needed improvements. For more information,
please refer to the proposal preamble.
For commercial marine vessel and underway locomotive emissions, the EPA proposes to
add a clarifying statement about treating such sources as nonpoint sources for submission to the
EPA under the AERR. The EPA also proposes to require states to report emissions data
associated with EPA's standardized emissions calculation methods. States would be required to
either (a) report annual emissions and documentation, (b) provide comment on EPA-provided
data, or (c) accept EPA-provided data.
The EPA intends to retain the current requirement for states to report emissions for
nonpoint sources for which the EPA does not have emissions estimation tools. However, the
EPA proposes to add a documentation requirement for such sources, which is not included in the
current AERR. Consistent with the current rule, this proposed requirement would be limited to
CAP emissions, but states may also voluntarily submit HAP emissions for these sources.
The EPA proposes to require states to report activity data for certain prescribed fires on
state, private, or military lands for the purpose of data quality and completeness, specifically
excluding prescribed fires that occur on non-military Federal lands. States would report fire
activity data on a day-specific basis for each broadcast and understory burn affecting 50 acres or
more. Similarly, states would report prescribed fire activity data for a pile burn affecting 25 acres
or more, including fires with both pile and broadcast or understory characteristics. EPA is
committed to helping communities and our Federal, state, local, and tribal partners to manage the
health impacts of smoke from wildland fires including prescribed fires. EPA acknowledges that
these partners view the use of prescribed fire as an important tool for reducing wildfire risk and
the severity of wildfires and wildfire smoke. This proposal would help gather information needed
to best estimate emissions from prescribed burning. The EPA also proposes to add a requirement
that, for the purposes of data reported to EPA, man-made grassland/rangeland fires are
considered prescribed fires and not agricultural fires.
The proposed revisions would clarify how states other than California can meet the
current requirement to report onroad and nonroad emissions model inputs by submitting only
select inputs. California would not be impacted by this proposed clarification because this
proposed action would retain the current requirement for California (at 40 CFR 51.15(b)(3)) to
117
-------
submit emissions data from its own mobile models rather than model inputs. This proposed
action would establish the following minimum model inputs to be reported: a county database
checklist, vehicle miles traveled, and vehicle population. Additionally, the EPA proposes a list of
other mobile model inputs that states can optionally provide and proposes to remove certain
inputs from being submitted in any situation.
The EPA also proposes to add a requirement for California to provide documentation
regarding the onroad and nonroad emissions data they submit, which would describe the inputs,
modeling, post-processing of data, and quality assurance performed by California to create the
emissions submitted to EPA.
The EPA proposes additional changes that impact all source categories. First, this action
proposes to add a definition of "actual emissions" that would apply specifically of this subpart A
of Part 51 (to the AERR). The proposed definition would clarify the relationship between the
term "actual emissions" and other emissions terms including emissions from periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). Second, this proposed action would provide language to
better address the relationship of the requirements of this subpart to the requirements of the NOx
SIP Call, Regional Haze requirements, Ozone SIP Requirements Rules, and the PM2.5 SIP
Requirements Rule.
For additional details on the legal objectives of this rule, please refer to the proposal
preamble.
4.4 Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rule Will Apply
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) defines small entities as including "small
businesses," "small governments," and "small organizations" (5 USC 601). The RFA references
the definition of "small business" found in the Small Business Act, which authorizes the SB A to
further define "small business" by regulation. The SBA definitions of small business by size
standards using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) can be found at 13
CFR 121.201. EPA has used 2017 NAICS codes because EPA has used 2017 emissions data in
preparing this proposal and Panel report and because this work was started before the 2022
118
-------
NAICS codes became the official industry classification list for SBA's small business size
standards as of October 1, 2022.
EPA has developed a methodology to estimate the number of small businesses by each
NAICS code under consideration for inclusion in any new reporting requirements for non-major
sources. Appendix A of the SBAR Panel report provides a listing by NAICS code of SBA
definitions of small businesses for potentially affected industries or sectors. Only the NAICS
codes under consideration for the rule for non-major sources are included in this list, which also
covers the majority (about 12,200 out of 13,400) of major sources. Some other NAICS codes in
the 2017 National Emissions Inventory (NEI) are associated with about 1,200 major sources, and
some fraction of these are also small businesses that could be affected by changes to the AERR
described above. EPA estimates that small entities will be affected by this proposal when they
are major sources, and for non-major sources, have primary NAICS as listed in Chapter 2 of this
RIA. The EPA estimates that approximately 34,000 small entities could be impacted by this rule
based on the CAA definition that the EPA proposes to use for this rule. That number would
increase to approximately 43,000 if the EPA were to use the SBA small business size definitions,
based on information available in Appendix 4-A of this RIA.
However, EPA's methodology for estimating the number of small businesses has
numerous assumptions that would lead to overestimates (as described in Attachment 4 of the
SBAR Panel report). As a result, the fraction of 1,200 major sources not listed in this Report
would not have a significant impact on the Panel's findings and recommendations.
In addition, EPA plans to propose using the small business definition from CAA ง 507
rather than the SBA definition, the latter of which is inclusive of more businesses.24
4.5 Overview of Revisions under Consideration
Through agency review and stakeholder input, a broad range of emissions inventory data
collection improvements have been suggested that may have implications for small businesses.
The following is a listing of regulatory revisions currently being considered by EPA with
potential impact to small businesses and is not final at this time. More details about these (and
24 See 42 U.S.C. 7661f(c).
119
-------
other) revisions under consideration are available in the documents provided in the materials as
listed in Appendix B of the SBAR Panel report.
Revise the definition of "point source" to include all stationary sources with emissions
that exceed pollutant-specific levels.
Require major stationary sources25 and HAP major sources26 to report all HAP.
Require non-major sources with certain NAICS codes to report HAP for which a facility
total exceeds pollutant-specific levels (some of these facilities are expected to be small
businesses).
Require reporting of CAP emissions associated with HAP, when relevant (for example,
require total VOC when any VOC HAP are reported or total PMio and PM2.5 when any
PM HAP are reported).
Require reporting of HAP from owners/operators directly to EPA, except when a state
has been approved by EPA to report on behalf of owners/operators.
For facilities operating within Indian country that meet the point source definitions,
require direct reporting to EPA of those pollutants that exceed the emissions thresholds,
except when the tribe is reporting CAP or has been approved by EPA to report HAP on
behalf of owners/operators.
Require reporting of source tests (performance tests and performance evaluations) for
tests that meet certain criteria.
Require additional data fields for missing information that EPA needs to meet its
obligations, including fuel consumed for combustion processes.
Clarify that certain existing requirements will be enforced during data collection and
clarify definitions, including that the emissions reported must include emissions
25 Sources that emit or have the potential to emit one hundred tons per year or more of any air pollutant (42 U. S.C.
7602(j)), referred in this report at "CAP major sources."
26 Generally, sources that emit or have the potential to emit 10 tons per year or more of any hazardous air pollutant
or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of hazardous air pollutants (see 42 U.S.C. ง 7412(a)(1)), hereinafter
"HAP major sources." In this report, the term 'non-major' refers to stationary sources that are not CAP or HAP
major sources.
120
-------
associated with periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
Define all data reported under the AERR as meeting the definition of "emission data"
and, as such, would not be subject to confidential treatment.
Require that facilities use available source test results to calculate emissions or explain
why they are not able to be used.
Require facilities to use best available emissions calculation methods.
Specify a phase-in of earlier reporting for facilities.
In addition, because EPA plans to revise or add certain requirements on state agencies
required to report emissions data to EPA, small businesses could anticipate such requirements
being passed along to them. The relevant changes to state requirements that could impact small
businesses are not final and are listed below.
Provide states an option to continue to report HAP emissions on behalf of facilities if
they meet various additional EPA requirements consistent with the revised AERR.
Once a year, report daily fuel use or heat input for small electricity units (e.g., boilers,
generators), that generate electricity for the grid or for on-site use (e.g., demand offset
purposes). These data could be collected from individual facilities, curtailment service
providers, or other electricity aggregators.
Specify a phase-in of earlier reporting of point source data for states.
4.6 Cost Impact to Small Entities
As stated earlier in this RIA chapter, there are about 39,000 small entities likely to be
impacted by this proposal using the SBA small business size definitions and 34,000 if using the
alternative definition in CAA section 507. Using the annual cost estimated per owners/operators
for 2027, which are presumed for this calculation to be private sector entities (not SLT), and to
reflect the first year of full implementation of this proposal, as taken from Table 3-28 of this
RIA, we find that the average annual cost of the proposal to entities, small and large, that are
owners or operators to be $3,476 per establishment (2021 dollars). This average proposal cost is
equal to $450,100,000 (the cost in 2027 to owners/operators) divided by 129,490 (the estimated
121
-------
total number of affected owners/operators, which are establishments), as presented in Table 3-28.
In addition, the Technical Support Document (TSD) for this proposal27 estimates that 31,412
facilities are small (or, part of a small entity) out of 129,490 establishments likely to be affected
by the proposal. From these estimates, 24 percent of the affected establishments, or
owners/operators, can be presumed to be owned by a small entity. Thus, the portion of
establishments affected by this proposal in 2027 that are owned by small entities could
reasonably be approximated as 24 percent.
Given the many industries impacted by this proposal, and the uncertainties with
determining how many entities could be impacted by industry, we show the annual revenues that
would be consistent with a potentially significant economic impact. With an average cost per
establishment (defined as a place of business) in 2027 of $3,476, any small entity that may have
costs of 1 percent of their revenues or greater than this amount could be said to experience a
potentially significant economic impact. Thus, small entities with revenues of less than 3,476
*100 = $3,476,000, measured in 2021 dollars, may potentially experience a significant economic
impact assuming they own a single establishment. At a level of impact of 3 percent or greater,
the annual revenues for an entity would be $3,476,000/3 = $1,158,900 for the cost estimate per
establishment arrived at above, and again assuming a single establishment per firm. These
estimates are for an average estimate of revenue per firm and may not be fully reflective of the
annual revenues for many small entities potentially affected by this proposal.
4.7 Related Federal Rules
As mentioned in more detail in Chapter 1 of the RIA, the AERR serves as the reference
for the NOx SIP Call (40 CFR part 51 Subpart G), Regional Haze requirements (50 CFR part 51,
Subpart P), Ozone SIP Requirements Rules (40 CFR part 51, Subparts X, AA, and CC) and the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements Rule (40 CFR part 51, Subpart Z). These other rules point to the AERR
to define certain requirements related to emissions inventories for SIPs, collectively known as
SIP planning inventories.
27 U.S. EPA. Technical Support Document for the Proposed Revisions for the Air Emissions Reporting Rule, June
2023.
122
-------
In addition, 40 CFR ง 2.301 includes special rules governing certain information obtained
under the CAA. Subparagraph 2.301(a) includes a definition of "emission data" that is related to
data collected by the existing AERR and its proposed revisions. This definition is relevant for
interpreting the provision of CAA 114(c), which excludes emission data from the consideration
for confidential treatment.
4.8 Significant Regulatory Alternatives
A number of regulatory alternatives were considered in order to mitigate impacts to
affected small entities while achieving the objectives of this proposal. The SBAR Panel
recommended, among other things, that the EPA propose allowing any small business subject to
revised reporting requirements under this proposal to report aggregated emissions for the facility
as a total fugitive emissions value rather than the detailed emissions by process and release point.
Since the EPA is not proposing to change reporting thresholds for criteria pollutants, this
recommendation only applies to HAP emissions reporting and any incidental CAP emissions (as
described in the proposed AERR preamble, section IV. A. 10).
During the SBAR Panel, the EPA observed that risk modeling using facility total
emissions would be more conservative than using more detailed emissions that could include
stack releases, because all emissions would be modeled as ground-level fugitive emissions. With
more specific data about emissions releases (e.g., through stacks raised above ground level), the
modeling includes more dispersion of pollutants that can lower modeled concentrations at the
ground level thereby lowering modeled risk. The EPA additionally observed that if modeled risk
from facility total emissions were high enough, the Agency would have an interest in collecting
more detailed data to better assess risk. While aggregated data (facility total emissions) are not as
useful to the EPA as the more detailed data, this approach balances EPA's needs for these data
with the burden on small businesses. Under this proposed approach, EPA's available data is less
complete, although still helpful, and the burden on small businesses is reduced when compared
to the requirement to report the full suite of detailed data that the EPA is proposing to require for
other sources that are not small businesses.
Based on these considerations, the EPA proposes to provide owners/operators the option
to report a facility total emissions instead of the detailed data otherwise required when (1) they
meet the small entity definition as proposed by this action, (2) the owner/operator has never been
123
-------
notified that the EPA has modeled a cancer risk for the facility of 20/million or more, or the EPA
has made such a notification less than 180 days prior to the next point source emissions reporting
deadline, and (3) estimates of emissions with the process-level detail that would otherwise be
required by this proposed action are not required by a state.
The EPA is considering the facility total cancer risk level above which an owner/operator
would not be able to use the optional facility-total reporting accommodation (which is item 2 in
the previous paragraph). The cancer risk level range under consideration is from cancer risk of
1/million, which is the level used to develop the proposed emissions reporting thresholds for
HAP to 100/million, which is the level the EPA uses to help formulate emissions reductions
strategies as part of NESHAPs and other HAP regulatory programs. In addition, the EPA is
considering the degree of uncertainty that can exist when estimating risks through modeling and
is recommending that a modeled cancer risk between 10/million and 30/million would be
appropriate to warrant more detail emissions reporting. Using a cancer risk of 1/million for this
purpose would not provide much burden reduction because 1/million is the basis of the proposed
HAP reporting thresholds, above which non-major sources would need to report. Beyond a
cancer risk of 30/million, the upper uncertainty range is more likely to reach 100/million, for
which the EPA certainly needs better HAP data. The EPA encourages commenters to provide
feedback on the proposed choice of the midpoint of this range of 20/million estimated cancer risk
and identify any considerations that the EPA may have failed to consider in proposing this
midpoint.
In addition to allowing for facility-wide reporting in certain situations to reduce burden
on small entities, the EPA is considering how best to reduce burden for reporting the facility
inventory. For owners/operators that are not small entities, the current AERR requires states to
report the attributes for the facility (e.g., name, address) as well as component attributes for
emissions units, release points, processes, and controls. These data elements are required under
the current AERR, but states report the facility inventory separately from emissions because
facility attributes do not vary every year. After the first report for a facility, states under the
current AERR and states and owners/operators under these proposed revisions would need only
to report modifications to the facility inventory after the first year. For example, if a facility adds
or removes a unit, then those changes would be submitted but the other facility attributes could
124
-------
likely be retained without resubmission. In the case of facility-wide emissions reporting, the
facility inventory would not necessarily need sub-facility data to support the emissions reports,
since emissions would not need to be allocated to the units and processes within the facility.
In addition to the facility total emissions, the EPA needs to know which units are present
at facilities and which units are subject to NESHAPs or other air emissions regulations. As
described in section IV.I.8 of the proposal preamble, the EPA is proposing that states and
owners/operators of permitted sources would be required to provide the regulatory codes that
apply to units and/or processes. To fulfill EPA's need for this information while reducing
burden, the EPA is proposing that small entities would only need to report a list of their units,
including all required unit-level data elements. This would reduce burden while still allowing the
EPA to identify which units at each facility are subject to regulations.
To balance the potential burden with the need for information and considering the large
number of businesses in the collision repair industry in particular, the SBAR Panel recommended
that the EPA consider explicitly excluding small entities in the collision shop industry from new
reporting requirements. Such an approach would still collect HAP data from many more facilities
than are available to the EPA currently, while not burdening small entities. To address this panel
recommendation, the EPA proposes to exclude small entities (except for major sources) with
primary NAICS 811121 from any HAP reporting requirements under the AERR. This proposal
reflects this accommodation in Table 1C of Appendix A of this subpart, which lists primary
NAICS codes subject to non-major source HAP reporting requirements.
Another concern identified during the SBAR Panel was that small entities that are not
already reporting emissions data to the EPA or a state may not have the necessary experience and
resources to develop emissions estimation approaches where none are readily available. The
SBAR Panel additionally noted that small entities would have the lowest burden when the EPA
provides an emissions estimation method or there are already some other readily available
emissions estimates to use because that business must report emissions to the state or TRI. The
SBAR Panel Report also noted that small entities may have source test data with which
emissions estimates could be made. The Panel recommended that, consistent with these
concerns, a small entity would not be expected to report emissions for pollutants when the EPA
125
-------
does not provide a way to estimate emissions and there is no other readily available data for that
pollutant.
The EPA is considering how best to address these SBAR Panel recommendations. For
current AERR requirements regarding state reporting, the EPA does not address the availability
of emissions estimation methods for facilities. The presumption of the current regulations is that
states, in collecting data from facilities to report to EPA, would ensure that the requirements to
report all CAP are met when any CAP exceeds the reporting threshold, irrespective of whether
the EPA provides an emissions calculation method.
The EPA has observed in working with states under the current AERR that many states
rely on the EPA WebFIRE database for emissions factors for use by owners/operators to
calculate emissions in state collection systems. In the absence of source test data or site-specific
emissions factors created by the facility, the collections would therefore use an EPA approach
and when none is available, would be less likely to report the pollutant. Many states with HAP
collection programs have also developed emissions factors, and state reports for many HAP
include emissions based on these state factors. As a general matter for emissions reporting under
the current AERR, when EPA, a state, or a trade association does not provide emissions
calculation methods for a process/pollutant combination (even when emissions from such a
combination is likely to exist), the EPA has observed that emissions data reported by states is
much less likely to include emissions for that process/pollutant combination.
Based on this experience, the SBAR Panel recommendation is consistent with EPA's
understanding of the practical reality of the data collection process for all businesses currently
reporting to states. Namely, when EPA, states, or trade associations do not provide an emissions
calculation method for a given process/pollutant combination and owners/operators do not have
source tests or other readily available data, emissions reports do not include emissions for those
process/pollutants. The EPA recognizes that this could be occurring irrespective of whether those
processes/pollutants are required to be reported under the current AERR and state programs. At
the recommendation of the SBAR panel, the EPA intends to provide an emissions estimation tool
for small entities to use in support of implementing the proposed requirements. The EPA expects
that providing this tool will assist with reducing situations where required data are not reported.
126
-------
The EPA also addresses how development and use of this tool would lessen the burden on small
entities if the provisions of this proposal were finalized.
Emissions Estimation Tool for Small Entities
This emissions estimation tool could be used by small entities to help them determine if
their facility-wide emissions are above HAP reporting thresholds and to provide an emissions
value for small entities to submit when emissions exceed the reporting thresholds. The SBAR
Panel recommended that the EPA adopt emissions estimation approaches that rely on
information that small entities can readily gather in the normal course of business.
To address these recommendations, the EPA plans to develop an emissions estimation
tool to help small entities estimate facility-wide emissions. The EPA would develop this tool
between the time this rule is proposed and the first year of any new point source reporting (see
section IV.F of the preamble for timing information). While CAP emissions may be included in
this tool, the EPA would prioritize HAP emissions because other than the addition of incidental
CAP to reporting requirements, the EPA is not considering changing CAP reporting thresholds
with this proposal. The emissions estimation tool would include incidental CAPs as relevant,
depending on the HAP. The greatest, and most urgent, need for assistance will be for those small
entities that do not have to report for any pollutants under the current AERR.
With this tool in mind, the EPA is considering the SBAR panel recommendation that the
EPA should not expect small entities to develop new emissions estimation approaches when
none are available. The EPA agrees in principle with this recommendation but also wants to
maintain a straightforward but flexible implementation of the proposed requirements. The EPA
has proposed the criteria for point source reporting to include major source status, and for non-
major sources, primary NAICS codes and emissions levels. The EPA believes that adding a
regulatory exemption based on emissions estimates generated by a yet to be established and
evolving tool would add unnecessary complexity to the structure of the rule. This is in part
because states can choose to report HAP on behalf of owners/operators. Thus, if the planned tool
were to provide a regulatory exemption, states could also be expected to rely on EPA's tool,
limiting their autonomy for implementation of HAP reporting requirements. While additional
considerations could be included in a proposed rule to avoid that limitation, the EPA expects that
such additions would add complexity and confusion that the EPA is seeking to avoid. Further,
127
-------
such a regulatory exemption which relied on use of such a tool could increase the burden on
small entities {i.e., could increase recordkeeping and reporting burden compared to the current
proposal).
Further, given EPA's observations that common practice under the current AERR is for
states and owners/operators to rely on EPA, state, or trade association emissions estimation
approaches when better information is not available, a logical conclusion is that this situation
would continue to occur under these proposed revisions to the AERR. The EPA would expect
that in circumstances where better data were available for estimating emissions, the emissions
estimation tool would not be used. Such an approach would be consistent with the planned
AERR requirement to use the best available emission estimation methods (see section IV.I.6 of
the proposal preamble). Similarly, when emissions estimates are made by an owner/operator for
TRI or to meet state requirements, those emissions would be appropriate for reporting emissions
to the EPA under these proposed requirements. The EPA emissions estimation tool could be used
when these other emissions estimation approaches are not available, including when a state is
also relying on EPA's tool to support owners/operators reporting to them, so states can report to
the EPA on their behalf.
When none of these other emission estimation approaches are available, and no emissions
are estimated by the emissions estimation tool, the EPA would not expect owners/operators of
small entities to develop their own emissions reporting approaches because the burden associated
with doing so is not warranted. If the EPA is sufficiently concerned about an emissions source,
then the EPA could develop an emissions estimation approach and include it in its emissions
estimation tool to assist small entities. The EPA could do so using other data available from
larger businesses including emissions reports and source test data (as described in section IV.C
of the proposal preamble), or if needed, issue a specialized data collection separate from this
proposed rule.
The SBAR Panel had many additional recommendations about the development and
outreach associated with an emissions estimation tool. Among them are:
That the EPA work with small entities and trade associations to develop emissions
estimation tools that would properly reflect the emissions processes and pollutants
associated with each industry;
128
-------
As the EPA incorporates new information into its emissions estimation tool, the EPA
should provide that information for industry and other parties to review and provide
feedback;
That the EPA should provide adequate time for such feedback and for revising the tool
based on the feedback, dissemination, and training before requiring a new tool to be used
for any given emissions reporting year;
That the EPA coordinate with Small Business Environmental Assistance Programs
(SBEAPs) in each state to support the outreach and developing guidance for small
entities; and
The EPA provide a list of units and processes for which small entities could select for
emissions reporting for review and feedback.
Additionally, the EPA is proposing to provide an optional accommodation for small
entities to report emissions as a facility total under certain conditions and is proposing that the
accommodation would not be available if EPA's risk modeling shows estimated cancer risk of
20/million or more. If a final rule were to exclude the proposed accommodation for facility-total
emissions reporting, the SBAR panel recommended that the EPA make sure that, when requiring
emissions to be provided for higher level of detail, emissions calculation methods are available
for use by a small entity that reports for any such facility.
To address the development and outreach recommendations of the SBAR Panel, the EPA
is considering an ongoing development and review approach for the emissions estimation tool.
First, in developing the initial tool prior to any new reporting for small entities, the EPA would
consult with the public including industry representatives and other interested parties. This initial
development would begin sometime after receiving comments on this proposal and would end
prior to the first deadline for point source reporting under any revised requirements. The EPA
would include in the tool emissions factors from a variety of sources. For the initial release of the
tool, the EPA plans to provide the tool and underlying data at least 12 months before the first
reporting deadline, giving 3 months for feedback. The EPA would consider such feedback and
incorporate changes in the tool before releasing the initial version of tool in advance of any new
reporting deadlines for small entities.
129
-------
The EPA expects that development of the tool would evolve iteratively each year. The
EPA would plan to release any revisions to the tool each year for public review and feedback and
adjust the tool in advance of the next emissions inventory reporting deadlines. If the use of the
tool changed, the EPA would update the training materials. This iterative approach would be
coordinated with the ongoing iterative CAERS development approach that the EPA has been
using very successfully for the past 3 years. The EPA would plan to funnel outreach for these
efforts through SBEAPs within each state.
Currently, the EPA is considering first ensuring that this emissions tool includes key
industrial processes that can be estimated at a facility level, relying on activity information that is
readily available to small entities. Such industrial processes might be fuel combustion, solvent
evaporation, and activities that create toxic dusts. Emission rates would depend on whether
emissions controls are present and the type of controls if present. Emission factors would be used
to translate some activity measure at a facility (e.g., fuel usage) to emissions. To use such an
estimation tool, an owner/operator would need to (1) identify its emitting activities from a list
that the EPA would provide and (2) enter total facility information for fuels, other materials,
energy used, or other information that could even include the number of employees. The type of
information used in the emissions estimation tool would depend on the available data for each
emitting activity. The tool would show the estimated emissions levels and which ones (if any)
were above the reporting thresholds.
Change in Small Entity Definition for Accommodations
To implement the small business accommodations just described, the EPA is proposing a
definition of small entity to be consistent with CAA Section 507(c). This definition limits small
entities to those that meet all of the following criteria: (a) 100 or fewer employees, (b) is a small
business concern as defined in the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. ง631), (c) is not a major
source, (d) does not emit 50 tons or more per year of any regulated pollutant, and (e) emits less
than 75 tons per year or less of all regulated pollutants. The SBA small entity definition is
available at 13 CFR ง121.201.
EPA is proposing this definition for two primary reasons. First, excluding major sources
from the definition best supports the needs for data from major sources as described in proposal
preamble sections IV.A. 1 through IV.A.3. EPA's obligations under the CAA require process-
130
-------
level data from major sources, including control technologies employed. Using this definition,
the proposed accommodations for small entities would not interfere with getting that necessary
data from major sources.
Second, these proposed requirements are for record keeping and data reporting, which
have much lower burden associated with each facility than would a proposal that includes
requirements to install control devices. EPA's estimated yearly average per-facility burden for
reporting emissions data starting in 2027, is just 27 hours when using in-house personnel to
accomplish emissions reporting.28 This number of hours is reasonable given the information that
would be collected and its importance to EPA analyses in support of the public interest. While
still "small" under the SBA definition, larger facilities {i.e., those with more than 100 employees)
could be more likely to emit pollutants at levels of environmental risk of concern and interest by
EPA. The EPA would be able to use the additional process-level emissions data from these
facilities to improve understanding of emissions from small entities at the process level and to
include such sources in EPA's Technology Reviews.
Even so, the EPA is considering whether the CAA definition for small entities is the most
appropriate because it does not provide as much burden reduction as would a definition based in
part on the SBA definition. For the primary NAICS under consideration to define non-major
sources for this proposal, the SBA definition includes owners/operators with between 200 and
1,500 employees, and for certain NAICS define small businesses based on the annual receipts of
the company between $8 million and $41.5 million. As part of the SBAR Panel process, the EPA
estimated the number of small entities that could be affected by the rule using a definition based
on 100 employees for all NAICS codes as compared to a definition based on the SBANAICS-
specific thresholds. More details on the analysis approach are available in the supporting
materials to the SBAR Panel Report included in the regulatory docket for this proposal. The EPA
updated the SBAR Panel analysis with the final NAICS and reporting thresholds included in this
proposal, and the analysis results are included in the TSD for this proposal. Through this analysis
for the final SBAR Panel Report, the EPA estimates that using a definition of 100 employees
would require reporting for about 34,000 small entities, allowing them to use the proposed small
28 See Appendix A, Table A-2 of the ICR Supporting Statement for the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements
(AERR) EPA ICR # 2170.09 for this proposal, available in the docket for this rule.
131
-------
business accommodations. That same analysis estimated that using the SBA small entity
definition would require reporting from about 43,000 small entities. This analysis is limited by
the available data because the 100-employee used to represent the CAA small entity definition
does not reflect the exclusion of major sources or the emissions-based criteria that are part of the
CAA definition. As such, EPA's estimate of 34,000 most likely overestimates the number of
small entities that would be subject to the proposed AERR revision, in part because some major
sources are also small entities.
Given this information, the EPA is considering a "SBA Definition Alternative" that
would modify the proposed definition to replace the 100-employee threshold with the NAICS-
based thresholds available from the SBA definition. This alternative would still exclude major
sources from being within the definition of small business but would include more non-major
small entities in the definition. The EPA encourages commenters to provide information about
benefits of the reduced burden on more owners/operators in comparison to the reduced data
detail that the EPA would have available to estimate risks and analyze for purposes including
Technology Reviews.
Further information on alternatives and efforts to mitigate small entity impacts are found
in section IV of the proposal preamble.
132
-------
APPENDIX 4-A: INDUSTRY SECTORS & NUMBER OF SMALL ENTITIES IN
VARIOUS SIZE CATEGORIES
The columns in the table in this appendix have the following definitions. All definitions
refer only to those NAICS that are included in the AERR for which current emissions data
allows EPA to estimate the number of small businesses potentially affected. The SBA definition
of small firms depends on the NAICS and is provided in Appendix A of the SBAR Panel report.
While the CAA definition has various elements, not all could be assessed, and the definition used
in this summary is firms with less than 100 employees.
No report, SBA Small: Small firms based on SBA definition that EPA estimates would not need
to report
No report, Not SBA small: Firms that are larger than the SBA definition that EPA estimates
would not need to report
AERR report, CAA small: Small firms with less than 100 employees that EPA estimates would
need to report
AERR report, SBA Small: Small firms based on SBA definition that EPA estimates would
need to report (includes small firms in the previous column)
AERR Report, SBA Not small: Firms that are larger than the SBA definition that EPA
estimates would need to report
No
AERR
NAICS
NAICS Description
No
report,
SBA
report,
Not
SBA
AERR
report,
AERR
report,
SBA
Report,
SBA
Not
Grand
Small
Small
CAA Small
Small
Small
Total
211120
Crude Petroleum Extraction
4,405
4,524
46
4,570
211130
Natural Gas Extraction
534
590
36
626
212113
Anthracite Mining
32
32
212111
Bituminous Coal and Lignite
Surface Mining
211
12
15
238
212112
Bituminous Coal
114
o
123
Underground Mining
y
212221
Gold Ore Mining
128
131
131
212230
Copper, Nickel, Lead, and
Zinc Mining
23
23
4
27
212299
All Other Metal Ore Mining
7
7
7
133
-------
NAICS
NAICS Description
No
report,
SBA
Small
No
report,
Not
SBA
Small
AERR
report,
CAA Small
AERR
report,
SBA
Small
AERR
Report,
SBA
Not
Small
Grand
Total
212311
Dimension Stone Mining and
Quarrying
262
3
265
212312
Crushed and Broken
Limestone Mining and
Quarrying
484
40
36
560
212313
Crushed and Broken Granite
Mining and Quarrying
99
5
104
212319
Other Crushed and Broken
Stone Mining and Quarrying
273
13
8
294
212321
Construction Sand and Gravel
Mining
1,264
56
43
1,363
212322
Industrial Sand Mining
77
6
83
212324
Kaolin and Ball Clay Mining
3
3
212325
Clay and Ceramic and
Refractory Minerals Mining
44
3
3
50
212391
Potash, Soda, and Borate
Mineral Mining
3
3
212393
Other Chemical and Fertilizer
Mineral Mining
19
19
212399
All Other Nonmetallic
Mineral Mining
82
6
88
213111
Drilling Oil and Gas Wells
1,704
22
24
1,750
213112
Support Activities for Oil and
Gas Operations
8,354
791
979
243
9,576
221111
Hydroelectric Power
Generation
140
140
221115
Wind Electric Power
Generation
89
89
221112
Fossil Fuel Electric Power
Generation
62
42
103
63
228
221113
Nuclear Electric Power
Generation
6
19
25
221114
Solar Electric Power
Generation
142
142
221116
Geothermal Electric Power
Generation
4
4
221117
Biomass Electric Power
Generation
42
8
8
13
63
221118
Other Electric Power
Generation
25
25
134
-------
No
AERR
NAICS
NAICS Description
No
report,
SBA
report,
Not
SBA
AERR
report,
AERR
report,
SBA
Report,
SBA
Not
Grand
Small
Small
CAA Small
Small
Small
Total
221121
Electric Bulk Power
17
A
12
16
45
Transmission and Control
4
221122
Electric Power Distribution
706
257
466
61
1,233
221210
Natural Gas Distribution
308
6
54
57
419
221310
Water Supply and Irrigation
Systems
3,467
46
3,513
221320
Sewage Treatment Facilities
338
39
42
27
407
221330
Steam and Air-Conditioning
Supply
25
22
12
34
311111
Dog and Cat Food
Manufacturing
296
3
10
309
311119
Other Animal Food
Manufacturing
675
55
141
44
860
311211
Flour Milling
184
12
11
207
311212
Rice Milling
33
33
311213
Malt Manufacturing
20
20
311221
Wet Corn Milling
20
20
20
311224
Soybean and Other Oilseed
Processing
77
3
8
88
311225
Fats and Oils Refining and
Blending
49
3
13
65
311230
Breakfast Cereal
39
7
46
Manufacturing
/
311313
Beet Sugar Manufacturing
3
3
311314
Cane Sugar Manufacturing
9
3
3
12
311340
Nonchocolate Confectionery
Manufacturing
474
12
486
311351
Chocolate and Confectionery
Manufacturing from Cacao
Beans
171
5
176
311352
Confectionery Manufacturing
from Purchased Chocolate
1,058
10
1,068
311411
Frozen Fruit, Juice, and
129
11
140
Vegetable Manufacturing
311412
Frozen Specialty Food
Manufacturing
386
28
414
311421
Fruit and Vegetable Canning
699
4
18
721
311422
Specialty Canning
89
5
94
311423
Dried and Dehydrated Food
Manufacturing
171
6
8
185
135
-------
NAICS
NAICS Description
No
report,
SBA
Small
No
report,
Not
SBA
Small
AERR
report,
CAA Small
AERR
report,
SBA
Small
AERR
Report,
SBA
Not
Small
Grand
Total
311511
Fluid Milk Manufacturing
238
32
270
311512
Creamery Butter
Manufacturing
21
5
26
311513
Cheese Manufacturing
390
11
401
311514
Dry, Condensed, and
Evaporated Dairy Product
Manufacturing
100
5
15
120
311520
Ice Cream and Frozen Dessert
Manufacturing
353
16
369
311611
Animal (except Poultry)
Slaughtering
1,318
3
21
1,342
311612
Meat Processed from
Carcasses
1,156
40
1,196
311613
Rendering and Meat
Byproduct Processing
83
10
93
311615
Poultry Processing
233
40
35
308
311710
Seafood Product Preparation
and Packaging
439
5
9
453
311812
Commercial Bakeries
2,696
54
2,750
311813
Frozen Cakes, Pies, and Other
Pastries Manufacturing
167
15
182
311821
Cookie and Cracker
Manufacturing
318
10
328
311824
Dry Pasta, Dough, and Flour
Mixes Manufacturing from
Purchased Flour
338
21
359
311830
Tortilla Manufacturing
345
3
348
311911
Roasted Nuts and Peanut
Butter Manufacturing
204
3
12
219
311919
Other Snack Food
Manufacturing
321
14
335
311920
Coffee and Tea
Manufacturing
657
10
667
311930
Flavoring Syrup and
Concentrate Manufacturing
114
4
5
123
311941
Mayonnaise, Dressing, and
Other Prepared Sauce
Manufacturing
292
10
302
311942
Spice and Extract
Manufacturing
343
12
15
370
136
-------
NAICS
NAICS Description
No
report,
SBA
Small
No
report,
Not
SBA
Small
AERR
report,
CAA Small
AERR
report,
SBA
Small
AERR
Report,
SBA
Not
Small
Grand
Total
311991
Perishable Prepared Food
Manufacturing
702
12
26
740
311999
All Other Miscellaneous Food
Manufacturing
607
10
17
634
312113
Ice Manufacturing
258
258
312111
Soft Drink Manufacturing
299
22
321
312112
Bottled Water Manufacturing
198
4
202
312120
Breweries
3,206
3,206
312130
Wineries
3,563
10
3,573
312140
Distilleries
751
751
312230
Tobacco Manufacturing
96
16
28
124
313110
Fiber, Yarn, and Thread Mills
183
9
40
14
237
313240
Knit Fabric Mills
137
137
313210
Broadwoven Fabric Mills
238
19
9
266
313220
Narrow Fabric Mills and
Schiffli Machine Embroidery
171
171
313230
Nonwoven Fabric Mills
170
4
16
190
313310
Textile and Fabric Finishing
Mills
518
72
119
8
645
313320
Fabric Coating Mills
81
37
57
3
141
314110
Carpet and Rug Mills
186
4
7
197
314994
Rope, Cordage, Twine, Tire
Cord, and Tire Fabric Mills
116
116
314999
All Other Miscellaneous
Textile Product Mills
2,406
44
9
2,459
315110
Hosiery and Sock Mills
108
108
315210
Cut and Sew Apparel
Contractors
2,917
2,917
315220
Men's and Boys' Cut and
Sew Apparel Manufacturing
430
5
435
315240
Women's, Girls', and Infants'
Cut and Sew Apparel
Manufacturing
1,114
1,114
315280
Other Cut and Sew Apparel
Manufacturing
416
416
315990
Apparel Accessories and
Other Apparel Manufacturing
563
6
569
316110
Leather and Hide Tanning
and Finishing
142
9
15
157
316210
Footwear Manufacturing
197
5
202
137
-------
NAICS
NAICS Description
No
report,
SBA
Small
No
report,
Not
SBA
Small
AERR
report,
CAA Small
AERR
report,
SBA
Small
AERR
Report,
SBA
Not
Small
Grand
Total
321113
Sawmills
1,369
974
1,130
33
2,532
321114
Wood Preservation
142
127
152
4
298
321211
Hardwood Veneer and
Plywood Manufacturing
46
118
148
5
199
321212
Softwood Veneer and
Plywood Manufacturing
7
16
32
4
43
321213
Engineered Wood Member
(except Truss) Manufacturing
24
44
54
7
85
321214
Truss Manufacturing
597
4
10
611
321219
Reconstituted Wood Product
Manufacturing
30
54
76
21
127
321911
Wood Window and Door
Manufacturing
866
71
23
960
321912
Cut Stock, Resawing Lumber,
and Planing
654
48
31
733
321918
Other Millwork (including
Flooring)
1,369
66
23
1,458
321920
Wood Container and Pallet
Manufacturing
2,220
113
7
2,340
321992
Prefabricated Wood Building
Manufacturing
510
20
10
540
321991
Manufactured Home (Mobile
Home) Manufacturing
130
19
149
321999
All Other Miscellaneous
Wood Product Manufacturing
2,519
85
17
2,621
322110
Pulp Mills
5
5
10
322121
Paper (except Newsprint)
Mills
16
16
57
20
93
322130
Paperboard Mills
9
11
31
19
59
322211
Corrugated and Solid Fiber
Box Manufacturing
611
18
15
644
322212
Folding Paperboard Box
Manufacturing
271
21
292
322219
Other Paperboard Container
Manufacturing
156
13
169
322220
Paper Bag and Coated and
Treated Paper Manufacturing
106
318
420
49
575
322230
Stationery Product
Manufacturing
308
4
9
321
138
-------
NAICS
NAICS Description
No
report,
SBA
Small
No
report,
Not
SBA
Small
AERR
report,
CAA Small
AERR
report,
SBA
Small
AERR
Report,
SBA
Not
Small
Grand
Total
322291
Sanitary Paper Product
Manufacturing
24
29
56
6
86
322299
All Other Converted Paper
Product Manufacturing
332
8
18
358
323111
Commercial Printing (except
Screen and Books)
16,346
488
134
16,968
323113
Commercial Screen Printing
5,101
28
25
5,154
323117
Books Printing
444
7
451
323120
Support Activities for Printing
1,257
17
1,274
324110
Petroleum Refineries
11
21
27
59
324121
Asphalt Paving Mixture and
Block Manufacturing
303
36
128
41
472
324122
Asphalt Shingle and Coating
Materials Manufacturing
83
10
21
8
112
324191
Petroleum Lubricating Oil
and Grease Manufacturing
175
19
53
22
250
324199
All Other Petroleum and Coal
Products Manufacturing
35
6
7
48
325110
Petrochemical Manufacturing
3
6
8
14
325120
Industrial Gas Manufacturing
37
11
48
325130
Synthetic Dye and Pigment
Manufacturing
70
7
20
9
99
325180
Other Basic Inorganic
Chemical Manufacturing
191
30
117
55
363
325193
Ethyl Alcohol Manufacturing
88
14
9
111
325194
Cyclic Crude, Intermediate,
and Gum and Wood Chemical
Manufacturing
24
4
9
37
325199
All Other Basic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing
435
86
70
591
325211
Plastics Material and Resin
Manufacturing
461
155
316
75
852
325212
Synthetic Rubber
Manufacturing
92
21
17
130
325220
Artificial and Synthetic Fibers
and Filaments Manufacturing
76
3
15
94
325311
Nitrogenous Fertilizer
Manufacturing
140
6
7
153
325312
Phosphatic Fertilizer
Manufacturing
14
11
6
31
139
-------
NAICS
NAICS Description
No
report,
SBA
Small
No
report,
Not
SBA
Small
AERR
report,
CAA Small
AERR
report,
SBA
Small
AERR
Report,
SBA
Not
Small
Grand
Total
325314
Fertilizer (Mixing Only)
Manufacturing
329
15
12
356
325320
Pesticide and Other
Agricultural Chemical
Manufacturing
137
3
29
14
180
325411
Medicinal and Botanical
Manufacturing
427
21
448
325412
Pharmaceutical Preparation
Manufacturing
913
22
70
1,005
325413
In-Vitro Diagnostic Substance
Manufacturing
169
19
188
325414
Biological Product (except
Diagnostic) Manufacturing
219
39
258
325510
Paint and Coating
Manufacturing
832
46
139
23
994
325520
Adhesive Manufacturing
359
4
40
403
325611
Soap and Other Detergent
Manufacturing
545
593
18
611
325612
Polish and Other Sanitation
Good Manufacturing
402
15
417
325613
Surface Active Agent
Manufacturing
71
76
15
91
325620
Toilet Preparation
Manufacturing
894
3
29
926
325910
Printing Ink Manufacturing
161
3
12
176
325920
Explosives Manufacturing
27
5
6
38
325991
Custom Compounding of
Purchased Resins
299
28
327
325992
Photographic Film, Paper,
Plate, and Chemical
Manufacturing
170
3
9
182
325998
All Other Miscellaneous
Chemical Product and
Preparation Manufacturing
914
70
80
1,064
326111
Plastics Bag and Pouch
Manufacturing
249
20
269
326112
Plastics Packaging Film and
Sheet (including Laminated)
Manufacturing
243
26
30
299
140
-------
NAICS
NAICS Description
No
report,
SBA
Small
No
report,
Not
SBA
Small
AERR
report,
CAA Small
AERR
report,
SBA
Small
AERR
Report,
SBA
Not
Small
Grand
Total
326113
Unlaminated Plastics Film
and Sheet (except Packaging)
Manufacturing
305
13
83
40
428
326121
Unlaminated Plastics Profile
Shape Manufacturing
230
14
61
31
322
326122
Plastics Pipe and Pipe Fitting
Manufacturing
222
16
25
263
326130
Laminated Plastics Plate,
Sheet (except Packaging), and
Shape Manufacturing
167
12
23
202
326140
Polystyrene Foam Product
Manufacturing
263
24
20
307
326150
Urethane and Other Foam
Product (except Polystyrene)
Manufacturing
380
22
40
442
326160
Plastics Bottle Manufacturing
169
14
7
190
326191
Plastics Plumbing Fixture
Manufacturing
289
13
3
305
326199
All Other Plastics Product
Manufacturing
4,059
177
905
223
5,187
326211
Tire Manufacturing (except
Retreading)
43
18
8
69
326212
Tire Retreading
186
24
61
8
255
326220
Rubber and Plastics Hoses
and Belting Manufacturing
172
5
11
188
326291
Rubber Product
Manufacturing for
Mechanical Use
319
4
21
344
326299
All Other Rubber Product
Manufacturing
519
10
32
561
327110
Pottery, Ceramics, and
Plumbing Fixture
Manufacturing
476
57
75
9
560
327120
Clay Building Material and
Refractories Manufacturing
178
118
173
23
374
327211
Flat Glass Manufacturing
54
10
64
327212
Other Pressed and Blown
Glass and Glassware
Manufacturing
319
36
53
11
383
327213
Glass Container
Manufacturing
15
5
20
141
-------
NAICS
NAICS Description
No
report,
SBA
Small
No
report,
Not
SBA
Small
AERR
report,
CAA Small
AERR
report,
SBA
Small
AERR
Report,
SBA
Not
Small
Grand
Total
327215
Glass Product Manufacturing
Made of Purchased Glass
936
15
32
983
327310
Cement Manufacturing
50
10
23
9
82
327320
Ready-Mix Concrete
Manufacturing
1,095
790
957
46
2,098
327331
Concrete Block and Brick
Manufacturing
208
149
199
15
422
327332
Concrete Pipe Manufacturing
82
4
86
327390
Other Concrete Product
Manufacturing
1,375
31
150
34
1,559
327410
Lime Manufacturing
15
3
3
21
327420
Gypsum Product
Manufacturing
101
4
4
8
113
327910
Abrasive Product
Manufacturing
243
3
246
327991
Cut Stone and Stone Product
Manufacturing
1,883
3
14
1,900
327992
Ground or Treated Mineral
and Earth Manufacturing
108
16
23
147
327993
Mineral Wool Manufacturing
150
8
9
167
327999
All Other Miscellaneous
Nonmetallic Mineral Product
Manufacturing
239
6
26
271
331110
Iron and Steel Mills and
Ferroalloy Manufacturing
259
341
26
367
331210
Iron and Steel Pipe and Tube
Manufacturing from
Purchased Steel
92
148
24
172
331221
Rolled Steel Shape
Manufacturing
138
13
13
164
331222
Steel Wire Drawing
175
17
15
207
331313
Alumina Refining and
Primary Aluminum
Production
10
3
6
19
331314
Secondary Smelting and
Alloying of Aluminum
44
7
51
331315
Aluminum Sheet, Plate, and
Foil Manufacturing
37
5
5
47
331318
Other Aluminum Rolling,
Drawing, and Extruding
163
24
20
207
142
-------
No
AERR
NAICS
NAICS Description
No
report,
SBA
report,
Not
SBA
AERR
report,
AERR
report,
SBA
Report,
SBA
Not
Grand
Small
Small
CAA Small
Small
Small
Total
Nonferrous Metal (except
331410
Aluminum) Smelting and
Refining
104
10
114
331420
Copper Rolling, Drawing,
Extruding, and Alloying
128
18
16
162
Nonferrous Metal (except
331491
Copper and Aluminum)
Rolling, Drawing, and
Extruding
202
18
220
331492
Secondary Smelting,
Refining, and Alloying of
Nonferrous Metal (except
Copper and Aluminum)
163
6
9
178
331511
Iron Foundries
222
55
18
295
331512
Steel Investment Foundries
59
26
3
88
331513
Steel Foundries (except
Investment)
149
28
5
182
331523
Nonferrous Metal Die-
274
50
23
347
Casting Foundries
331524
Aluminum Foundries (except
Die-Casting)
319
37
7
363
Other Nonferrous Metal
331529
Foundries (except Die-
Casting)
220
14
10
244
332114
Custom Roll Forming
309
4
31
344
332111
Iron and Steel Forging
284
13
21
318
332112
Nonferrous Forging
22
3
6
31
332117
Powder Metallurgy Part
Manufacturing
101
6
107
Metal Crown, Closure, and
332119
Other Metal Stamping (except
Automotive)
473
646
776
37
1,286
Metal Kitchen Cookware,
332215
Utensil, Cutlery, and Flatware
(except Precious)
Manufacturing
190
4
194
332216
Saw Blade and Handtool
838
Q
13
860
Manufacturing
y
Prefabricated Metal Building
332311
and Component
Manufacturing
511
53
116
12
639
143
-------
NAICS
NAICS Description
No
report,
SBA
Small
No
report,
Not
SBA
Small
AERR
report,
CAA Small
AERR
report,
SBA
Small
AERR
Report,
SBA
Not
Small
Grand
Total
332312
Fabricated Structural Metal
Manufacturing
2,171
492
647
66
2,884
332313
Plate Work Manufacturing
1,042
254
343
19
1,404
332321
Metal Window and Door
Manufacturing
600
138
244
31
875
332322
Sheet Metal Work
Manufacturing
2,880
569
806
66
3,752
332323
Ornamental and Architectural
Metal Work Manufacturing
2,148
86
147
24
2,319
332410
Power Boiler and Heat
Exchanger Manufacturing
188
53
26
267
332420
Metal Tank (Heavy Gauge)
Manufacturing
592
16
27
635
332431
Metal Can Manufacturing
36
12
48
332439
Other Metal Container
Manufacturing
224
21
8
253
332510
Hardware Manufacturing
545
21
566
332613
Spring Manufacturing
295
7
302
332618
Other Fabricated Wire
Product Manufacturing
652
4
21
677
332710
Machine Shops
17,731
98
17,829
332721
Precision Turned Product
Manufacturing
2,099
1,291
1,506
65
3,670
332722
Bolt, Nut, Screw, Rivet, and
Washer Manufacturing
344
209
278
28
650
332811
Metal Heat Treating
591
5
16
612
332812
Metal Coating, Engraving
(except Jewelry and
Silverware), and Allied
Services to Manufacturers
2,167
2,281
57
2,338
332813
Electroplating, Plating,
Polishing, Anodizing, and
Coloring
1,912
2,035
31
2,066
332911
Industrial Valve
Manufacturing
311
34
40
385
332912
Fluid Power Valve and Hose
Fitting Manufacturing
233
37
24
294
332913
Plumbing Fixture Fitting and
Trim Manufacturing
70
12
3
85
144
-------
NAICS
NAICS Description
No
report,
SBA
Small
No
report,
Not
SBA
Small
AERR
report,
CAA Small
AERR
report,
SBA
Small
AERR
Report,
SBA
Not
Small
Grand
Total
332919
Other Metal Valve and Pipe
Fitting Manufacturing
176
11
23
210
332991
Ball and Roller Bearing
Manufacturing
70
9
15
94
332992
Small Arms Ammunition
Manufacturing
133
5
138
332993
Ammunition (except Small
Arms) Manufacturing
28
5
33
332994
Small Arms, Ordnance, and
Ordnance Accessories
Manufacturing
364
10
4
378
332996
Fabricated Pipe and Pipe
Fitting Manufacturing
577
30
35
642
332999
All Other Miscellaneous
Fabricated Metal Product
Manufacturing
3,242
53
225
47
3,514
333111
Farm Machinery and
Equipment Manufacturing
625
318
408
20
1,053
333112
Lawn and Garden Tractor and
Home Lawn and Garden
Equipment Manufacturing
125
7
132
333120
Construction Machinery
Manufacturing
309
216
311
29
649
333131
Mining Machinery and
Equipment Manufacturing
202
8
10
220
333132
Oil and Gas Field Machinery
and Equipment
Manufacturing
472
28
500
333241
Food Product Machinery
Manufacturing
416
10
426
333242
Semiconductor Machinery
Manufacturing
125
8
133
333243
Sawmill, Woodworking, and
Paper Machinery
Manufacturing
323
6
329
333244
Printing Machinery and
Equipment Manufacturing
253
253
333249
Other Industrial Machinery
Manufacturing
1,742
8
61
1,811
333314
Optical Instrument and Lens
Manufacturing
356
9
18
383
145
-------
No
AERR
NAICS
NAICS Description
No
report,
SBA
report,
Not
SBA
AERR
report,
AERR
report,
SBA
Report,
SBA
Not
Grand
Small
Small
CAA Small
Small
Small
Total
333316
Photographic and
Photocopying Equipment
Manufacturing
159
9
168
Other Commercial and
333318
Service Industry Machinery
Manufacturing
1,142
49
40
1,231
Industrial and Commercial
333413
Fan and Blower and Air
375
f.'
15
396
Purification Equipment
Manufacturing
0
333414
Heating Equipment (except
Warm Air Furnaces)
Manufacturing
343
13
356
333415
Air-Conditioning and Warm
Air Heating Equipment and
Commercial and Industrial
Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing
654
6
45
705
Special Die and Tool, Die Set,
333514
Jig, and Fixture
Manufacturing
2,266
14
13
2,293
Cutting Tool and Machine
333515
Tool Accessory
Manufacturing
1,261
10
11
1,282
333517
Machine Tool Manufacturing
756
8
22
786
Rolling Mill and Other
333519
Metalworking Machinery
Manufacturing
369
13
382
Turbine and Turbine
333611
Generator Set Units
Manufacturing
84
20
104
333612
Speed Changer, Industrial
High-Speed Drive, and Gear
Manufacturing
177
3
11
191
Mechanical Power
333613
Transmission Equipment
Manufacturing
172
21
193
333618
Other Engine Equipment
Manufacturing
231
22
253
333912
Air and Gas Compressor
Manufacturing
235
22
257
146
-------
NAICS
NAICS Description
No
report,
SBA
Small
No
report,
Not
SBA
Small
AERR
report,
CAA Small
AERR
report,
SBA
Small
AERR
Report,
SBA
Not
Small
Grand
Total
333914
Measuring, Dispensing, and
Other Pumping Equipment
Manufacturing
416
7
34
457
333921
Elevator and Moving
Stairway Manufacturing
157
6
163
333922
Conveyor and Conveying
Equipment Manufacturing
689
9
18
716
333923
Overhead Traveling Crane,
Hoist, and Monorail System
Manufacturing
250
8
258
333924
Industrial Truck, Tractor,
Trailer, and Stacker
Machinery Manufacturing
285
5
16
306
333991
Power-Driven Handtool
Manufacturing
104
8
112
333992
Welding and Soldering
Equipment Manufacturing
326
8
334
333993
Packaging Machinery
Manufacturing
445
6
17
468
333994
Industrial Process Furnace
and Oven Manufacturing
305
6
311
333995
Fluid Power Cylinder and
Actuator Manufacturing
222
6
21
249
333996
Fluid Power Pump and Motor
Manufacturing
111
10
121
333997
Scale and Balance
Manufacturing
62
62
333999
All Other Miscellaneous
General Purpose Machinery
Manufacturing
1,480
14
64
1,558
334111
Electronic Computer
Manufacturing
281
12
293
334112
Computer Storage Device
Manufacturing
61
5
66
334118
Computer Terminal and Other
Computer Peripheral
Equipment Manufacturing
509
25
534
334210
Telephone Apparatus
Manufacturing
181
8
189
147
-------
No
AERR
NAICS
NAICS Description
No
report,
SBA
report,
Not
SBA
AERR
report,
AERR
report,
SBA
Report,
SBA
Not
Grand
Small
Small
CAA Small
Small
Small
Total
Radio and Television
334220
Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment
Manufacturing
613
41
654
334290
Other Communications
303
11
314
Equipment Manufacturing
334310
Audio and Video Equipment
Manufacturing
451
7
458
334412
Bare Printed Circuit Board
430
10
440
Manufacturing
334413
Semiconductor and Related
667
21
45
733
Device Manufacturing
334416
Capacitor, Resistor, Coil,
Transformer, and Other
Inductor Manufacturing
316
14
330
334417
Electronic Connector
139
14
153
Manufacturing
334418
Printed Circuit Assembly
(Electronic Assembly)
Manufacturing
714
39
753
334419
Other Electronic Component
Manufacturing
1,071
60
1,131
334517
Irradiation Apparatus
Manufacturing
112
11
123
Electromedical and
334510
Electrotherapeutic Apparatus
Manufacturing
552
46
152
51
755
Search, Detection,
334511
Navigation, Guidance,
Aeronautical, and Nautical
System and Instrument
Manufacturing
356
24
41
421
Automatic Environmental
334512
Control Manufacturing for
Residential, Commercial, and
Appliance Use
233
20
253
Instruments and Related
334513
Products Manufacturing for
Measuring, Displaying, and
Controlling Industrial Process
Variables
712
38
750
148
-------
NAICS
NAICS Description
No
report,
SBA
Small
No
report,
Not
SBA
Small
AERR
report,
CAA Small
AERR
report,
SBA
Small
AERR
Report,
SBA
Not
Small
Grand
Total
334514
Totalizing Fluid Meter and
Counting Device
Manufacturing
153
14
167
334515
Instrument Manufacturing for
Measuring and Testing
Electricity and Electrical
Signals
669
39
708
334516
Analytical Laboratory
Instrument Manufacturing
569
37
606
334519
Other Measuring and
Controlling Device
Manufacturing
776
50
826
334614
Software and Other
Prerecorded Compact Disc,
Tape, and Record
Reproducing
372
5
377
335110
Electric Lamp Bulb and Part
Manufacturing
48
3
51
335121
Residential Electric Lighting
Fixture Manufacturing
247
247
335122
Commercial, Industrial, and
Institutional Electric Lighting
Fixture Manufacturing
409
10
419
335210
Small Electrical Appliance
Manufacturing
110
7
117
335220
Major Household Appliance
Manufacturing
102
5
10
117
335311
Power, Distribution, and
Specialty Transformer
Manufacturing
195
13
208
335312
Motor and Generator
Manufacturing
346
25
371
335313
Switchgear and Switchboard
Apparatus Manufacturing
391
16
407
335314
Relay and Industrial Control
Manufacturing
740
55
795
335911
Storage Battery
Manufacturing
105
11
116
335912
Primary Battery
Manufacturing
41
3
44
149
-------
NAICS
NAICS Description
No
report,
SBA
Small
No
report,
Not
SBA
Small
AERR
report,
CAA Small
AERR
report,
SBA
Small
AERR
Report,
SBA
Not
Small
Grand
Total
335929
Other Communication and
Energy Wire Manufacturing
157
18
175
335931
Current-Carrying Wiring
Device Manufacturing
324
9
23
356
335932
Noncurrent-Carrying Wiring
Device Manufacturing
86
8
12
106
335991
Carbon and Graphite Product
Manufacturing
100
9
3
112
335999
All Other Miscellaneous
Electrical Equipment and
Component Manufacturing
735
17
29
781
336111
Automobile Manufacturing
135
3
3
11
149
336112
Light Truck and Utility
Vehicle Manufacturing
26
11
37
336120
Heavy Duty Truck
Manufacturing
41
10
7
58
336211
Motor Vehicle Body
Manufacturing
518
18
90
22
630
336212
Truck Trailer Manufacturing
363
3
10
376
336213
Motor Home Manufacturing
29
3
32
336214
Travel Trailer and Camper
Manufacturing
577
8
11
596
336310
Motor Vehicle Gasoline
Engine and Engine Parts
Manufacturing
670
34
704
336320
Motor Vehicle Electrical and
Electronic Equipment
Manufacturing
524
8
32
564
336330
Motor Vehicle Steering and
Suspension Components
(except Spring)
Manufacturing
196
20
216
336340
Motor Vehicle Brake System
Manufacturing
117
15
132
336350
Motor Vehicle Transmission
and Power Train Parts
Manufacturing
351
37
388
336360
Motor Vehicle Seating and
Interior Trim Manufacturing
279
27
306
336370
Motor Vehicle Metal
Stamping
562
35
597
150
-------
NAICS
NAICS Description
No
report,
SBA
Small
No
report,
Not
SBA
Small
AERR
report,
CAA Small
AERR
report,
SBA
Small
AERR
Report,
SBA
Not
Small
Grand
Total
336390
Other Motor Vehicle Parts
Manufacturing
1,038
155
75
1,268
336411
Aircraft Manufacturing
198
235
24
259
336412
Aircraft Engine and Engine
Parts Manufacturing
275
13
29
317
336413
Other Aircraft Parts and
Auxiliary Equipment
Manufacturing
669
31
48
748
336414
Guided Missile and Space
Vehicle Manufacturing
7
7
336415
Guided Missile and Space
Vehicle Propulsion Unit and
Propulsion Unit Parts
Manufacturing
3
6
9
336419
Other Guided Missile and
Space Vehicle Parts and
Auxiliary Equipment
Manufacturing
15
5
20
336510
Railroad Rolling Stock
Manufacturing
97
10
33
14
144
336611
Ship Building and Repairing
442
40
17
499
336612
Boat Building
782
42
8
832
336991
Motorcycle, Bicycle, and
Parts Manufacturing
413
413
336992
Military Armored Vehicle,
Tank, and Tank Component
Manufacturing
14
6
20
336999
All Other Transportation
Equipment Manufacturing
375
5
380
337110
Wood Kitchen Cabinet and
Countertop Manufacturing
5,883
8
14
5,905
337121
Upholstered Household
Furniture Manufacturing
931
18
9
958
337122
Nonupholstered Wood
Household Furniture
Manufacturing
2,011
6
2,017
337124
Metal Household Furniture
Manufacturing
251
251
337125
Household Furniture (except
Wood and Metal)
Manufacturing
145
145
151
-------
NAICS
NAICS Description
No
report,
SBA
Small
No
report,
Not
SBA
Small
AERR
report,
CAA Small
AERR
report,
SBA
Small
AERR
Report,
SBA
Not
Small
Grand
Total
337127
Institutional Furniture
Manufacturing
562
9
571
337211
Wood Office Furniture
Manufacturing
293
11
304
337212
Custom Architectural
Woodwork and Mill work
Manufacturing
2,041
3
7
2,051
337214
Office Furniture (except
Wood) Manufacturing
175
7
182
337215
Showcase, Partition,
Shelving, and Locker
Manufacturing
874
15
12
901
339116
Dental Laboratories
5,622
3
4
5,629
339112
Surgical and Medical
Instrument Manufacturing
874
1,002
61
1,063
339113
Surgical Appliance and
Supplies Manufacturing
1,456
1,598
53
1,651
339114
Dental Equipment and
Supplies Manufacturing
541
3
4
548
339115
Ophthalmic Goods
Manufacturing
314
13
327
339994
Broom, Brush, and Mop
Manufacturing
152
6
158
339910
Jewelry and Silverware
Manufacturing
1,951
4
1,955
339920
Sporting and Athletic Goods
Manufacturing
1,569
6
6
1,581
339930
Doll, Toy, and Game
Manufacturing
499
499
339940
Office Supplies (except
Paper) Manufacturing
411
7
418
339950
Sign Manufacturing
5,404
47
178
15
5,597
339991
Gasket, Packing, and Sealing
Device Manufacturing
456
12
20
488
339992
Musical Instrument
Manufacturing
578
578
339993
Fastener, Button, Needle, and
Pin Manufacturing
84
84
339995
Burial Casket Manufacturing
70
3
73
152
-------
NAICS
NAICS Description
No
report,
SBA
Small
No
report,
Not
SBA
Small
AERR
report,
CAA Small
AERR
report,
SBA
Small
AERR
Report,
SBA
Not
Small
Grand
Total
339999
All Other Miscellaneous
Manufacturing
5,719
3
12
5,734
424710
Petroleum Bulk Stations and
Terminals
1,755
191
400
179
2,334
424720
Petroleum and Petroleum
Products Merchant
Wholesalers (except Bulk
Stations and Terminals)
1,505
106
213
139
1,857
481111
Scheduled Passenger Air
Transportation
275
26
301
481211
Nonscheduled Chartered
Passenger Air Transportation
1,275
47
1,322
481219
Other Nonscheduled Air
Transportation
489
13
28
517
486110
Pipeline Transportation of
Crude Oil
45
23
68
486210
Pipeline Transportation of
Natural Gas
73
10
38
55
166
486910
Pipeline Transportation of
Refined Petroleum Products
30
7
24
61
486990
All Other Pipeline
Transportation
9
9
9
488310
Port and Harbor Operations
269
11
12
47
328
488320
Marine Cargo Handling
336
55
391
488390
Other Support Activities for
Water Transportation
733
32
21
31
785
493110
General Warehousing and
Storage
5,020
1,375
1,461
1,564
8,045
493120
Refrigerated Warehousing
and Storage
600
148
172
120
892
493130
Farm Product Warehousing
and Storage
350
154
65
96
511
493190
Other Warehousing and
Storage
1,163
310
388
404
1,955
541713
Research and Development in
Nanotechnology
2,580
176
2,756
541714
Research and Development in
Biotechnology (except
N anobi otechnol ogy )
3,045
64
3,109
153
-------
NAICS
NAICS Description
No
report,
SBA
Small
No
report,
Not
SBA
Small
AERR
report,
CAA Small
AERR
report,
SBA
Small
AERR
Report,
SBA
Not
Small
Grand
Total
541715
Research and Development in
the Physical, Engineering, and
Life Sciences (except
Nanotechnology and
Biotechnology)
7,629
390
8,019
541720
Research and Development in
the Social Sciences and
Humanities
1,842
67
1,909
541990
All Other Professional,
Scientific, and Technical
Services
17,176
87
215
17,391
561910
Packaging and Labeling
Services
1,543
1,630
121
1,751
562211
Hazardous Waste Treatment
and Disposal
382
56
73
52
507
562212
Solid Waste Landfill
642
93
105
33
780
562213
Solid Waste Combustors and
Incinerators
7
11
11
8
26
562219
Other Nonhazardous Waste
Treatment and Disposal
208
32
21
14
243
562910
Remediation Services
3,844
440
464
172
4,480
562920
Materials Recovery Facilities
980
223
201
93
1,274
562991
Septic Tank and Related
Services
3,478
36
3
7
3,521
562998
All Other Miscellaneous
Waste Management Services
1,137
8
4
22
1,167
611310
Colleges, Universities, and
Professional Schools
1,632
176
1,210
913
3,755
622110
General Medical and Surgical
Hospitals
1,156
175
2,108
1,430
4,694
622310
Specialty (except Psychiatric
and Substance Abuse)
Hospitals
80
29
254
200
534
811121
Automotive Body, Paint, and
Interior Repair and
Maintenance
33,254
462
33,716
812210
Funeral Homes and Funeral
Services
11,268
16
3
16
11,300
812220
Cemeteries and Crematories
3,847
11
3
34
3,884
812332
Industrial Launderers
223
110
135
20
378
Totals
340,373
2,294
27,307
39,413
12,686
394,766
154
-------
155
-------
5 BENEFITS ANALYSIS AND BENEFIT-COST COMPARISON
In this chapter, we provide the benefits analysis for this proposed rule. While
methodological limitations prevented the EPA from monetizing the potential human health and
environmental benefits given that no changes in emissions or other environmental effects can
currently be estimated that may be associated with the greater availability of emissions data, and
in particular HAP emissions, resulting from the provisions of the proposed AERR if finalized,
we present a qualitative discussion of benefits that accrue to different stakeholders, including to
the public, and to the industries and investors.
We also present a general comparison of the benefits and costs of this proposed
regulation. As explained in the previous chapters, all costs and benefits outlined in this RIA are
estimated as the change from the baseline, which reflects the requirements in the existing AERR.
EPA is considering this proposal to fill gaps in the existing available emissions inventory data,
most notably for HAPs, prescribed burning, and small generation units related to High Energy
Demand Day (HEDD) events.
5.1 Synopsis of Benefits Analysis
The benefits of the proposed revisions to AERR of collecting additional criteria air
pollutant, air toxics, controls, and sub-facility data include improved understanding, awareness,
and decision making related to the provision and distribution of information. The information
shared with EPA, and incorporated into the NEI, could enable the public to make more informed
decisions on where to live and work, strengthen the public's ability to adequately protect
themselves from potential harm from criteria air pollutants and air toxics, and provide a greater
capacity for meaningful involvement in the development and implementation of local pollution
management policies.
The proposed amendments in this action would ensure that communities have the data
needed to understand significant source of air pollution that may be impacting them and address
existing environmental justice issues. Additional benefits to the public include building public
confidence through clear and transparent emission measures and reports and the ability of the
public to make facilities accountable for their emissions.
156
-------
The revised AERR will also enable a more comprehensive inventory of air emissions,
thereby ensuring that the EPA and other regulators such as states have sufficient information to
identify and solve air quality and exposure problems and reducing the potential for policy bias
due to non-reporting by certain sectors.
Benefits to industry include disclosure that provides firms with incentives to reduce
emissions voluntarily, and provides emissions data to service industries, such as insurance and
financial markets. Availability of emissions information to the public, consumers, investors,
corporations, and government regulators provides a better basis for future policy analysis, and
this benefits society as a whole. Accurate and transparent information is necessary for the
implementation of efficient approaches that meet environmental goals with lower costs as
compared to other approaches.
5.2 Benefits of a more comprehensive air emissions reporting program
The revisions to the AERR that increase air emissions reporting and standardize data
reporting through proposing that operators/owners use the Combined Air Emissions Reporting
System (CAERS) will greatly increase the comprehensiveness and data quality of the database.
Such a database would yield benefits to society in myriad ways by lowering the information
costs associated with determining emissions. Both the Organization for Economic Co-Operation
and Development (OECD) (2005)29 and (2023)30 and the EPA (2003)31 have documented ways
in which the public, industry, government, investment community and academic community
have utilized pollutant release and transfer registers (PRTRs) to accomplish varied tasks such as
toxicity weighting of pollutants, offering education and research on pollutants of interests, and
29 Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). 2005. "Uses of Pollutant Release and
Transfer Register Data and Tools for Their PresentationA Reference Manual." Series on Pollutant Release and
Transfer Registers No. 7. http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2005doc.nsf/LinkTo/NT00000AA2/$FILE/
JT00177567.PDF.
30 Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). 2023. "Uses of PRTR Data and Tools for
Their Presentation." Series on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers No. 27.
https://one.oecd.org/document/ENV/CBC/MONO(2Q23)9/en/pdf.
31 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. How Are the Toxics Release Inventory Data Used?
Government, Business, Academic and Citizen Uses (EPA-2600-R-002 004). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/tri/guide docs/pdf/2003/2003 datausepaper.pdf.
157
-------
building partnerships between regulatory stakeholders that would be costly or unattainable
without such available information.
5.3 Benefits to the Public
5.3.1 Policy Development
One of the greatest benefits of additional reporting of criteria air pollutants and air toxics
emissions to the government would be realized in developing future air quality policies. These
revisions would create a foundation of reliable baseline emission estimates for the purpose of
informing future policies and avoiding unexpected consequences of those policies. Better data
supports numerous improved policy outcomes as described in this section.
Since the prior AERR promulgation, the EPA has recognized a gap in the current AERR
approach to collect CAP and HAP emissions from all relevant facilities. The additional
emissions data will improve air quality modeling, which will feed into policy development and
trends analysis. For example, this action also proposes new point source reporting requirements
for states and owners/operators of facilities within Indian country to report daily activity data
(i.e., fuel use or heat input) for certain small generating units operated to help meet electricity
needs on high electricity demand days (HEDDs). The emissions from the small generating units
can be significant when deployed synchronously by many facilities and can contribute to ozone
formation. However, the current AERR only requires annual emissions values or, if these small
generating units are not located at a point source, no emissions reports, so modeling how the
emissions from small generating units affects ozone formation is challenging. Thus, this AERR
provision if finalized will improve the emissions data available to support rulemakings such as
Tribal Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs), which can be designed to reduce ozone precursors
such as VOC and other rulemakings that could impact emissions from sources within Indian
country. One example of such a Tribal FIP is the recently promulgated Uintah FIP, which will
yield an estimated $120 million in annual benefits (2016 dollars) from VOC emission reductions
to the Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in Utah and also reduce HAP emissions as an
ancillary benefit.32
32 U.S. EPA. FIP for Managing Emissions from Oil and Natural Gas Sources on Indian Country Lands Within the
Uintah and Ouray Indian Reservation in Utah. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-R08-QAR-2015-
0709-0001. November 8, 2022.
158
-------
Future benefit analysis for regulations specific to NAAQS implementation can include
better estimates of the ancillary benefits of HAP reductions. For example, the RIA
accompanying the revision of an ambient criteria pollutant standard, such as the RIA for the
recently proposed PM2.5 NAAQS (EPA, 2022) and revisions to national mobile source standards
can describe ancillary benefits of HAP reductions, even when those regulations are being put in
place to reduce VOC or PM2.5 emissions. A complete and integrated HAP emissions inventory
would enhance EPA's ability to better estimate the ancillary benefits of HAP reductions,
including the ability to monetize the benefits of such reductions.
The HAP emissions data also can be useful in further refining chemical speciation to
better meet the Agency's responsibilities under CAA Part D that require air quality modeling
using emissions data to support NAAQS implementation. VOC chemical speciation is a critical
part of such modeling and can be informed by emissions of HAP VOC. EPA's Office of Air and
Radiation (OAR) prioritizes chemicals to nominate for toxicity assessment under EPA's
Integrated Risk_Information System (IRIS) program in part based on their potential for exposure
and hazard. HAP emissions data are used to support these prioritization efforts.
Lastly, to ensure that the EPA had sufficient emissions data to complete its work, some of
these regulatory actions have needed extensive data collection efforts. Such one-time data
collections require affected entities to take additional time and incur additional costs due to the
hurried, non-routine, nature of the requests. Complete HAP reporting would lessen the need for
such data collections, thus reducing the marginal burden that would be in addition to ongoing
costs being incurred and timing difficulties on affected entities.
5.3.2 Environmental Justice
Availability of increased information on HAPs emissions can also be used to advance the
Agency's environmental justice goals by increasing the understanding the potential impacts of
air toxics emissions from regulated facilities on minority and disadvantaged communities who
have been historically burdened by hidden and undisclosed pollution. The required reporting of
HAP emissions data will increase the ability for EPA to accurately conduct technology reviews
pursuant to CAA Section 112(d)(6), and risk reviews under CAA Section 112(f)(2). These
provisions are additionally impacted by Executive Order 12898, which overlays environmental
justice considerations for the EPA to assess as part of such work. Even for owners/operators who
159
-------
also must report emissions to the TRI program, this proposed action would require_additional
sub-facility details necessary for air quality modeling that, in turn, would allow the EPA and
other authorities such as states to assess local-scale community impacts and devise solutions for
high-risk areas.
Additionally, the proposed revisions will overcome an explicit data gap in the current
AERR; the EPA is proposing that facilities located within Indian country for which the relevant
tribe does not have Treatment as a State (TAS) status or approval to submit emissions through a
Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP), and which are outside the geographic scope of the relevant
state's implementation planning authority, will report directly to EPA. By addressing a CAP
emissions data gap, where currently exempt facilities located within Indian country do not have
inventory emission sources, this will increase the data available on emissions in Indian country.
This will increase the ability to conduct and increase the accuracy of regional and national
analyses to support the implementation of the Regional Haze Program and NAAQS for ozone
and PM2.5, and other analyses. This will have localized health benefits for residents living in and
near Indian country.
EPA has also conducted a proximity analysis assessing the demographics of residents
within 5 km of facilities subject to the proposed revisions.33 When comparing the demographics
of nearby communities to the national average, the analysis found that a higher percentage of
minority residents as compared to the nationwide average resided near affected facilities (46
percent of residents near all facilities are minority vs. 40 percent are nationwide), and that a
higher percentage of residents near all affected facilities are below the poverty line as compared
to the nationwide average (15 percent of residents near all facilities are below the poverty line vs.
13 percent are nationwide).
5.3.3 Builds Public Confidence and Trust
The revisions to AERR will increase transparency of facility emissions data. A
qualitative study in the United Kingdom compared similar communities surrounding chemical
complexes with and without right-to-know laws and found that the community with the right-to
33 U.S. EPA, OAQPS/HEID/ATAG. "Analysis of Demographic Factors for Populations Living Near Facilities
Subject to the Proposed Revisions to the Air Emissions Reporting Requirements." October 10, 2022. Prepared by
SC&A, Inc. Chapel Hill, NC.
160
-------
know law and corresponding available data on toxic emissions experienced increased levels of
trust towards government and industry to ensure the environmental protection and public health
(Gouldson, 2004).34
5.3.4 Direct Actions
EPA proposes amendments that would ensure HAP emissions data are collected
consistently for all communities across the country. Currently, the availability and detail of HAP
emissions data varies across states, which creates a situation where some communities have
incomplete or less accurate information than others, while still facing the same or greater
potential risks. Transparent, public data on emissions allows for accountability of polluters to the
public stakeholders who bear the cost of the pollution. Citizens, community groups and labor
unions have made use of data from PRTRs to negotiate directly with polluters to lower
emissions, circumventing greater government regulation. There are several examples in the
literature of environmental organizations and community groups negotiating with facilities
directly based on their publicly available pollution data (EPA, 2003).35 The additional air
emissions data collected under the proposed revisions would allow groups interested in
pressuring industry to reduce their emissions to negotiate with the top emitters.
The air emissions data are used to respond to numerous requests for reports on emission
sources. Typically, the data are provided freely through EPA's website. In some cases, specific
requests of data not available on EPA's website are also made by email and rarely, under the
Freedom of Information Act. Requests come from the general public, teachers, contractors and
consultants; Congress; the press; domestic and international universities; and others involved in
research of many types. The inclusion of these additional data into the NEI will increase the
accessibility of such data to all parties with an interest in it. This is beneficial to the public
because research has indicated that the way environmental data are collected and disseminated
by the government matters. For instance, Bae, et al. (2010) found that public provision of raw
Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) data reduced reported emissions but does not necessarily translate
34 Gouldson, A. 2004. "Risk, Regulation and the Right to Know: Exploring the Impacts of Access to Information on
the Governance of Environmental Risk." Sustainable Development 12(3): 136149.
35 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2003. How Are the Toxics Release Inventory Data Used?
Government, Business, Academic and Citizen Uses (EPA-2600-R-002-004). Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/tri/guide docs/pdf/2003/2003 datausepaper.pdf.
161
-------
into reduced health risks.36 But, as also found by Bae, et al. (2010), the processing of those data
by states to aid in access and interpretation did lead to significant reductions in health risks.
5.3.5 Voluntary Programs
Evaluations of several major voluntary programs have noted that need for a strong
reporting mechanism is necessary (Worrell and Price, 2001).37 A transparent reporting system
increases the credibility of the voluntary program and the reductions attributed to the program. A
standardized reporting system also allows program managers to readjust the programs strategy to
meet the evolving needs of a program.
5.4 Benefits to Industry and Investors
5.4.2 Public Relations
One potential benefit of a more comprehensive and consistent approach to air emissions
monitoring is the value of having independent, verifiable data to present to the public to
demonstrate appropriate environmental stewardship by industrial sources. For example, General
Motors issues its Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Report, which makes use of TRI
data and the Canadian National Pollutant Release Inventory to support its environmental
achievements. Using data from a verified, standard methodology as under AERR gives the
facilities credibility to the public when claiming environmental improvements. Hamilton
(1995)38 and Konar and Cohen (1997)39 are two examples of empirical studies that have
investigated how the release of TRI data has affected firm behavior and stock market valuation.
36 Bae, H., P. Wilcoxen, and D. Popp, 2010. Information disclosure policy: Do state data processing efforts help
more than the information disclosure itself? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(1), pp. 163-
182.
37 Worrell, E., and L. Price, 2001. Barriers and Opportunities: A Review of Selected Successful Energy Efficiency
Programs. Proceedings from 2001 Industrial Energy Technology Conference. Lawrence Berkley National
Laboratory Working Paper No. LBNL-47908. http://industrial-energv.lbl.gov/node/198.
38 Hamilton, J. 1995. "Pollution as News: Media and Stock Market Reactions to the Toxics Release Inventory Data."
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28: 98-113.
39 Konar, S., and M. Cohen. 1997. "Information as Regulation: The Effect of Community Right-to-Know Laws on
Toxic Emissions." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 32: 109-124.
162
-------
Hamilton (1995) finds a stock price return of -0.03 percent due to TRI release.40 In particular,
according to this study, firms that experienced the largest drop in their stock prices also reacted
by reducing their reported emissions most in subsequent years. Thus, this finding suggests that
firms do use these reported emissions as one input to increase or at least maintain their value.
5.4.2 Standardization
Once industrial facilities invest in the institutional knowledge and systems to report
additional emissions as proposed in the revisions, the cost of monitoring CAP and HAP
emissions is expected to fall over time and the accuracy of the accounting should improve. A
standardized and more comprehensive reporting program, which this proposal is meant to
support, will also allow for facilities to better benchmark themselves against similar facilities to
understand better their relative standing within their industry.
Standardized, consistent, information also allows EPA to develop improved quality
assurance processes. When the information collected is based on a set of requirements, the EPA
can check if those requirements are being met. For example, EPA has long advocated for use of
source test information to estimate emissions as a higher quality approach over emission
factors.41 With this proposed approach, using such information when available would become a
requirement, but owners/operators would have the option not to use source test data when it is
not appropriate to do so and explain why such data was not used. The EPA intends to implement
reporting through CAERS to require the source test data be used unless such a reason is given.
Without the standardization this proposal would provide, the EPA does not have an efficient or
effective way to help ensure sources would use source test data when it is available.
As described in Section IV. A. 1 of the preamble to this proposed rule, having complete,
predictable, and routine HAP reporting would significantly lessen the need for EPA to conduct
one-time, intermittent, and non-uniform data collection efforts to gather HAP emissions data and
40 Hamilton, J. 1995. "Pollution as News: Media and Stock Market Reactions to the Toxics Release Inventory Data."
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 28: 98-113.
41 AP-42 is the primary compilation of emissions factors by US EPA since 1972. For more information on AP-42,
please refer to https://www.epa.gov/air-emissions-factors-and-auantification/ap-42-compilation-air-emissions-
factors#:~:text=AP%2D42%2C%20Compilation%20of%20Air.200%20air%20pollution%20source%20categories.
163
-------
facility attribute information. When a standardized data reporting requirement is known in
advance, it provides respondents the opportunity to plan ahead to more efficiently use their
resources to obtain the information to provide in an emissions report. This advantage of
predictability does not exist with one-time collections where each new collection is different
from the last. While the initial burden associated with the requirements proposed here may
appear relatively high, the EPA predicts that the AERR approach will be more efficient in the
long run than the present approach.
5.4.3 Potential Cost Savings and Burden Reduction
The proposed provision of information could also lead to behavioral changes that could
result in reduced costs and additional benefits. In particular, voluntary initiatives by facilities to
review emissions control management practices and facility processes, set goals for reductions in
emissions, and institute "good neighbor" policies may result from provision of the proposed
information. Potential changes in facility operations, such as reductions in the releases, could
yield health and environmental benefits. While behavioral changes from the provision of
information may result from the rule and are, in fact, one goal of these types of policies, they are
not mandated by the proposed action. The reporting of such emission data, and its public
disclosure, may provide social benefits in itself since this data disclosure may incentivize
emission reductions. For example, disclosure of emissions as part of the Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Reporting Program (GHGRP) is shown to have led to a 7 percent reduction in GHG
emissions from a sample of power plants.42
Lastly, in the revisions to AERR, the EPA proposes to require owners/operators to report
to the EPA using the Combined Air Emissions Reporting System (CAERS). CAERS can offset
and even reduce total burden by providing owners/operators a way to report to the National
Emissions Inventory (NEI), Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), as well as state programs. With
CAERS, the air emissions data reported to EPA under this proposal can also be used, via CAERS
and with little additional effort by the reporter, to also meet TRI requirements. Within TRI, an
option is available to import data from CAERS and use that to report air emissions, rather than
42 Lavender Yang, Nicholas Z. Muller, and Pierre Jinghong Liang. "The Real Effects of Mandatory CSR Disclosure
on Emissions: Evidence from the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program." NBER Working Paper 28984. July 2021.
Available on the Internet at https://www.nber.org/svstem/files/working papers/w28984/w28984.pdf.
164
-------
having to re-enter the data into TRI. This reduces burden as compared to a facility having to
report separately to NEI and TRI.
Reductions in total burden, and particularly in operating and maintenance burden, to
owners/operators are shown in Table 3-8 of this RIA.
5.4.4 Data Valuable to Service Industries
In addition to the benefits for the industrial facilities being monitored, the data can be
valuable to companies doing business with air pollutants-emitting firms. Firms have sold
pollution prevention technologies to customers found using TRI data (Pew, 2008).43 In addition,
insurance companies may find these data valuable in assessing risk. In general, improved
information lowers search and transaction costs for providers of mitigation products and
services.
5.4.5 Data Valuable to Industry Stakeholders
The EPA additionally proposes to require owners/operators of facilities to report the
results of stack tests and performance evaluations electronically to the CEDRI system. The EPA
needs these data to support its continuing effort to develop and improve emissions factors. Many
stakeholders including states and industry have previously asked the EPA to improve its
emissions factors. The collection data from stack tests and performance valuations through this
regulatory effort would enable EPA to fulfill these requests.
5.5 Reducing Uncertainty: Benefits to all Stakeholders
Reducing uncertainty in air pollutant emission estimates is an underlying benefit that
increases benefits to all stakeholders. Policy development, direct action by the public and
consumers, standardization, and reliable data for firms, shareholders and service industries to use
in decision-making all require certainty in emission estimates in order to make environmentally
sound and cost-effective decisions. Increased certainty in the emission estimates facilitates the
43 Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 2008. "Greenhouse Gas Reporting and Disclosure: Key Elements of a
Perspective U.S. Program." Innovative Policy Solutions to Climate Change. In Brief, No. 3. Arlington, VA: Pew
Center on Global Climate Change. http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/policv inbrief ghg.pdf.
165
-------
comparison across reduction options, companies and sectors where different data or approaches
have been used.
More frequent reporting of emissions can be consistent with increased certainty of such
data to regulatory stakeholders. Using more current information reduces the uncertainties
associated with changes in emissions from one year to the next. EPA's work with stakeholders
has provided insights into the challenges owners/operators face when EPA includes outdated
data in its NEI releases. For example, in the recent AirToxScreen releases for 2017 through
2019, some commercial sterilizer facilities had either ceased operating or installed additional
controls to reduce ethylene oxide emissions. During review of these data prior to release, states
and EPA regional office representatives heard from these facilities and informed EPA that they
wanted the agency to use the more current data because emissions were lower. Because these
changes in operations had not occurred in the historical years, rather than adjust the modeled
concentrations and risks in these historical years based on more current information, EPA added
notices on the website for each of these facilities to indicate when operations ceased or when
controls had been installed that would reduce emissions after the year of the AirToxScreen
release. Similarly, when EPA used data that was several years old in support of regulatory
decisions, in cases when one-time information collections could not be accomplished due to
timing or other constraints, industry has commented about EPA's flawed data and insisted that
more current data be used. With an annual approach for reporting emissions, the EPA could best
reflect emissions controls and lower emissions in the NEI data, AirToxScreen, and regulatory
assessments.
In light of what has been presented in this RIA, the EPA expects that implementation of
this rule should yield benefits related to the additional emissions data and standardization of data
formats, among other benefits that are included in this RIA, though we are not able to present
monetized benefits results given lack of available valuation data to compare to the costs of rule
compliance. Given that we are unable to present monetized benefits of the proposal to compare
to the estimated costs, we conclude that the monetized net benefits are negative. However, as
explained throughout this RIA, EPA estimates substantial non-quantified and non-monetized
benefits that justify the proposed regulatory action.
166
-------
5.6 Uncertainties and Limitations
Throughout the RIA, we considered a number of sources of uncertainty, both
quantitatively and qualitatively, regarding the benefits, and costs of the proposed rule. We
summarize the key elements of our discussions of uncertainty here:
Projection methods and assumptions: Over time, more facilities who are required
to meet the provisions of the proposed AERR are newly established or modified in
each year, and to the extent the facilities remain in operation in future years, the total
number of facilities subject to the proposed rule could change. We assume 100
percent compliance with the rule, starting from when the sources become affected. If
sources do not comply with the rule, at all or as written, the cost impacts may be
overestimated and the benefits may not be as great as anticipated.
Years of analysis: The years of the cost analysis are 2024, to represent the first-year
sources are affected by this rule, through 2033, to represent impacts of the rule over a
longer period after promulgation, as discussed in Chapter 3. Extending the analysis
beyond 2033 would introduce substantial and increasing uncertainties in projected
impacts of the proposed rule.
Compliance costs: While there are no new monitoring or source testing requirements
in the proposed AERR as mentioned in Chapter 1 of this RIA, there may be an
opportunity cost associated with the installation and use of any equipment (for
purposes of collecting emissions data as necessary for compliance with this proposal)
that is not reflected in the compliance costs included earlier in Chapter 3. If
environmental investment displaces investment in productive capital, the difference
between the rate of return on the marginal investment (which is discretionary in
nature) displaced by the mandatory environmental investment is a measure of the
opportunity cost of the environmental requirement to the regulated entity. This is a
particularly relevant consideration for those companies and private sector entities that
would incur costs as part of compliance with the proposed AERR. To the extent that
any opportunity costs are not added to the compliance costs, the compliance costs
presented above for this proposed rule may be underestimated.
167
-------
As part of estimating the compliance costs, EPA recognizes that many SLTs
subcontract their point source emissions collection systems to a third party, while
EPA's cost estimation approach assumes the system is operated and maintained using
in-house resources. However, EPA assumes that the costs of in-house systems are
higher than outsourcing costs because SLTs are unlikely to outsource such a system
unless costs would be reduced. Since EPA's estimates for data system operations and
maintenance (included in Chapter 3) assume in-house systems only, we believe that
we have not only included outsourcing costs but may have overestimated such costs
in this RIA. This approach would also potentially overestimate burden reduction
associated with CAERS case 4.
Consideration of Voluntary Activities as Incremental Costs: As mentioned earlier
in this RIA, the cost estimates for this proposal include the costs for voluntary
emissions data collection activities (for HAP and other pollutants) carried out by
states, local, and tribal governmental authorities in the absence of this new rule.
Given that these activities will now be required under the proposed AERR, an
argument can be made that the costs of these activities can reasonably be included as
costs of the proposal. However, given that there may be no real increment of costs for
authorities currently carrying out these activities given how the baseline for a
proposed rule such as this one is normally characterized, a counter argument could be
made that these costs can reasonably not be included in the costs of the proposal.
168
-------
United States Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Publication No. EPA-452/P-23-003
Environmental Protection Health and Environmental Impacts Division July 2023
Agency Research Triangle Park, NC
169
------- |