[Federal Register: February 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 36)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8266-8272]
[DOCID:fr24fe10-11]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Subchapter R

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0392; FRL-8798-9]
RIN 2070-AJ21

Final Clarification for Chemical Identification Describing
Activated Phosphors for TSCA Inventory Purposes

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final clarification.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This is a clarification under which certain activated
phosphors that are not on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
section 8(b) Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory) will be
considered to be new chemical substances under TSCA section 5, and thus
will be subject to applicable notification requirements under TSCA
section 5. In certain letters and other statements issued by EPA from
1978 to 2003, the Agency erroneously indicated that activated phosphors
(otherwise known as doped phosphors) constitute mixtures of phosphors
and dopants for purposes of the TSCA Inventory, and thus that they were
not separately reportable as chemical substances under TSCA section
5(a) new chemical notification requirements. This clarification is
necessary because EPA's statements in this area have not been
consistent.

DATES: EPA's clarification is effective August 24, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0392. All documents in the
docket are listed in the docket index available at http://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available in the electronic
docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available in hard
copy, at the OPPT Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in the EPA Docket
Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room hours of operation
are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number of the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202)
566-0280. Docket visitors are required to show photographic
identification, pass through a metal detector, and sign the EPA visitor
log. All visitor bags are processed through an X-ray machine and
subject to search. Visitors will be provided an EPA/DC badge that must
be visible at all times in the building and returned upon departure.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Colby
Lintner, Regulatory Coordinator, Environmental Assistance Division
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address: TSCA-
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     For technical information contact: David Schutz, Chemical Control
Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address: schutz.david @epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Does this Action Apply to Me?

     You may be affected by this action if you are, or may in the
future be, a manufacturer or importer of an activated phosphor that
requires submission of a premanufacture notification (PMN) or exemption
request under TSCA section 5. Special procedures will apply to persons
who manufactured these chemical substances after the publication of the
Initial TSCA Inventory and before the effective date of this final
chemical identification clarification document in the Federal Register.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Chemical manufacturers or importers (NAICS codes 325,
3251), e.g., anyone who manufactures or imports, or who plans to
manufacture or import, an activated phosphor for a non-exempt
commercial purpose.
     Electric lighting equipment manufacturing, electric lamp
bulb and part manufacturing (NAICS codes 3351, 33511), e.g., anyone who
manufactures or imports, or who plans to manufacture or import,
lighting equipment containing an activated phosphor for a non-exempt
commercial purpose.
     This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    EPA is clarifying that certain previous EPA statements which
indicated that activated phosphors are mixtures rather than chemical
substances in their own right were erroneous, and that TSCA Inventory
listing may be required for these materials. This action provides a
clarification in the approach used for the chemical identification of
activated (doped) phosphors for purposes of listing on the TSCA
Inventory. This clarification was proposed in the Federal Register
issue of January 16, 2008 (73 FR 2854) (FRL-8131-8) and a reopening of
comments on the proposed clarification was announced in the Federal
Register issue of May 2, 2008 (73 FR 24187) (FRL-8360-7).
    An activated phosphor is a substance resulting from the chemical
combination of a mixture of metal oxides, carbonates, phosphates or
acid phosphates, chlorides, and/or fluorides, most frequently by
sintering, along with a small amount of one or more dopants. Dopants
can include such substances as

yttrium, europium, germanium, gallium, strontium, antimony, manganese,
or magnesium. When an activated phosphor is electrically excited, it
emits light. The color and electrical efficiency of light emission is a
function of the parent phosphor and of the dopant which is present.
    EPA is required under TSCA section 8(b), 15 U.S.C. 2607(b), to
compile and keep current an inventory of chemical substances
manufactured (which includes import) or processed for commercial
purposes in the United States. This inventory is known as the TSCA
Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory). EPA promulgated a rule
in the Federal Register issue of December 23, 1977 (42 FR 64572) under
TSCA section 8(a), 15 U.S.C. 2607(a), to compile an inventory of
chemical substances in commerce at that time. Building on several
earlier interim policies, EPA promulgated a rule in the Federal
Register issue of May 13, 1983 (48 FR 21722) setting forth procedures
for the submission, receipt, and health and safety review of PMNs
covering chemical substances not yet in commerce when required under
TSCA section 5, 15 U.S.C. 2604. Section 8(b)(1) of TSCA, 15 U.S.C.
2607(b)(1), instructs EPA to add a PMN substance to the TSCA Inventory
as of the earliest date on which it is manufactured or processed in the
United States.
    Manufacture of a non-exempt new chemical substance is prohibited
prior to the expiration of the new chemical notice review period. Once
EPA receives a PMN, the Agency has 90 days to review the notice (unless
for good cause EPA extends the review period); the Agency has 30 or 45
days to complete its review of exemption requests. During the review
period, EPA may act under TSCA section 5(e) or 5(f) to regulate the new
chemical substance. If EPA has not prohibited manufacture of the
chemical substance during the review period, manufacture may begin
subject to any restrictions or testing requirements imposed upon the
submitter during the review period (these restrictions may be imposed
upon others via a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) and subsequent action
under TSCA section 5(e) or 5(f) taken in follow-up to a significant new
use notification (SNUN)). When manufacture begins, the notice submitter
must provide a Notice of Commencement of Manufacture or Import (NOC),
after which EPA adds the chemical substance to the TSCA Inventory. If
the Agency receives a new chemical notice submission for a chemical
substance which EPA determines is excluded from consideration as a
chemical substance under TSCA (generally because it meets the criteria
for one of the excepted categories at TSCA section 3(2)(B), which
include mixtures, pesticides, tobacco, food, drugs, etc.) the Agency
will not accept the new chemical notice. Similarly, during the period
1978-1979, when EPA was accepting submissions for the Initial TSCA
Inventory, and during 1979-1983, prior to promulgation of the May 13,
1983 PMN rule, the Agency rejected notifications for materials which it
determined to be excluded.

B. Why is the Agency Taking this Action?

    Partly as a result of the Agency's incomplete information and
understanding of the chemistry involved in manufacturing activated
phosphors, from 1978 through 2003, EPA was inconsistent in its
statements to potential submitters and in its actions regarding whether
activated phosphors are considered distinct chemical substances for
purposes of the TSCA Inventory. During the period 1978-1979, when EPA
received submissions for the Initial TSCA Inventory, it accepted many
doped phosphors for listing, but in some cases it sent ``problem
letters'' to the manufacturers of doped phosphors indicating that they
were mixtures of the phosphor and dopants and thus ineligible for
listing.
    In October 1979, the Agency wrote to a lighting manufacturer and
stated that such listings could be ``unnecessary'' and that their
continued inclusion on the TSCA Inventory would be ``closely
examined.'' In January 1980, a lighting manufacturer wrote to the
Agency to challenge problem letters it had received. The manufacturer
stated that the materials it manufactured should be excluded from
mixture status because they had characteristic crystal structures and
that volatile reaction products given off during their manufacture
showed that chemical synthesis was occurring. In March 1982, the Agency
wrote to a lighting manufacturer and suggested that certain
chlorophosphate activated phosphors could be regarded either as
physically altered chlorophosphates or as mixtures, thus not subject to
premanufacture notice. In August 1983, the Agency wrote to the lighting
manufacturer which had challenged the problem letters and informed it
that the materials had, in fact, been placed on the TSCA Inventory, and
in addition that a new chemical notice was appropriate for another
activated phosphor but that `low levels' of an activator would not
require a separate new chemical notice.
    In January 1993, a lighting manufacturer submitted a Low Volume
Exemption (LVE) Application for an activated phosphor with a letter
referencing much of the history as described in this document and
asserting that, based on Agency positions, no submission should be
necessary, but the Agency did accept the application and granted the
LVE. After that LVE was granted, the manufacturer submitted a letter
asserting that activated phosphors should, in fact, be considered to be
mixtures and requested that the Agency issue a clarifying statement. In
response, the Agency met with the manufacturer on the issue and
indicated that activated phosphors should be considered chemical
substances instead of mixtures, but did not issue a written
clarification.
    In 1995, EPA issued the publication entitled ``Toxic Substances
Control Act Inventory Representation for Products Containing Two or
More Substances: Formulated and Statutory Mixtures (Formulated and
Statutory Mixtures),'' available at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/
newchems/pubs/mixtures.txt), which provided guidance regarding the
mixture definition given at 40 CFR 710.2(q) and 720.3(u):

    Mixture means any combination of two or more chemical substances
if the combination does not occur in nature and is not, in whole or
in part, the result of a chemical reaction; except ``mixture'' does
include (1) any combination which occurs, in whole or in part, as a
result of a chemical reaction if the combination could have been
manufactured for commercial purposes without a chemical reaction at
the time the chemical substances comprising the combination were
combined, and if all of the chemical substances comprising the
combination are not new chemical substances, and (2) hydrates of a
chemical substance or hydrated ions formed by association of a
chemical substance with water.

    ``Formulated and Statutory Mixtures'' discusses common examples of
mixtures, including paints, blended fuels, and solvent combinations.
``Mixture'' can include, as well, solid solutions--homogeneous
crystalline phases composed of several distinct chemical species.
Alloys are solid solutions, and are considered mixtures. For the
purposes of TSCA, multi-component blends or formulations of chemical
substances, or certain reaction product combinations which can be
completely characterized as consistently formed definite sets of their
constituent chemical substances, are considered to be mixtures of
chemical substances. Mixtures are not reportable, although their
constituent chemical substances are. Most important in the context of

this document, a mixture can often provide its function over some range
of constituent ratios, consequently it is unusual if the ratios of
chemical substances which comprise a mixture are necessarily definite
or stoichiometric, and if the mixture components are deliberately
reacted together to manufacture a chemical substance, EPA does not
consider this reaction product to be a mixture for TSCA purposes except
in very specialized circumstances which are not present in the case of
the activated phosphors.
    In June 1998, a lighting manufacturer wrote to the Agency and
stated that, in the absence of any negative response by the Agency
within 60 days of the letter, it intended to rely on its interpretation
of ``Formulated and Statutory Mixtures,'' and that it believed that
that interpretation precluded TSCA Inventory listing for activated
phosphors. The Agency did not respond to that letter. Based on a 2003
request from a lighting manufacturer, and cognizant of the history
described in this document, EPA held a meeting with the manufacturer in
September 2003 and as a result has reexamined some earlier
assumptions--particularly about non-stoichiometry and non-reaction
between chemical substances used to make activated phosphors--which may
have led it to believe that activated phosphors could be considered
mixtures.
    The result of this reexamination is this clarification that EPA
generally considers activated phosphors to be distinct chemical
substances under TSCA. EPA's clarification on the potential need to
report activated phosphor materials is based on its updated
understanding about reaction characteristics and stoichiometry in
activated phosphor manufacture: Activated phosphors are in general
synthesized by means of a solid state reaction at high temperature and
typically using precise quantities of the precursor chemical
substances, both for the base materials and for the dopants which
control the quality of light emitted. Precise ratios of component
materials are used to maintain strict stoichiometry in the end product,
and component materials are thoroughly blended before reaction for
uniformity of the product. Heat may be absorbed or released by the
reactant mixture at certain temperatures, typically by the release of
water; this is often an indication of chemical substance synthesis.
During the manufacture of activated phosphors, other volatile reaction
products are often emitted, another indication that chemical substances
are being formed. The phosphor and the amount of dopant added need to
be controlled with high precision, and during sintering the doped
phosphor undergoes oxidation state changes. Each of these reaction
characteristics is a strong indication that a chemical substance is
being synthesized. Since most or all of these characteristics are
generally present in activated phosphor manufacture, EPA believes that
activated phosphors are manufactured for commercial purposes with
chemical reaction. Additionally, activated phosphor products have a
different function from the material which would be produced by the
same synthetic process in the absence of dopant, and which would not
emit the characteristic light, which is the primary property sought.
Because dopants provide the primary property sought from these
materials, small or even trace amounts of dopant are considered to be
reactants which must be included in the chemical identity. Therefore,
in EPA's view these materials are not ``mixtures'' of phosphors and
dopants.

C. Why is this Chemical Identity Clarification Necessary?

    Because EPA does not view activated phosphors as mixtures, some
previous EPA statements that such materials may not need to be reviewed
through the new chemicals process were incorrect. As a result of
certain past EPA statements, some manufacturers of activated phosphors
have not submitted new chemical notices under TSCA section 5 because
those statements incorrectly indicated that activated phosphors were
covered for TSCA purposes if the phosphors and activators were already
on the TSCA Inventory. Other manufacturers have submitted new chemical
notices for similar materials, and they have generally been given TSCA
Inventory listings. Several industry representatives have asked EPA to
clarify the Agency's chemical identity policy for activated phosphors.
EPA now agrees that it is necessary to add listings to the TSCA
Inventory for activated phosphors which have been manufactured but not
listed. This document provides a clarification to previous statements
on chemical identity for activated phosphors. On the effective date of
this clarification, activated phosphors that are not on the TSCA
Inventory will be considered new chemical substances under TSCA section
5.
    Because some of the statements provided by the Agency prior to 2003
led some manufacturers to believe that the products they manufactured
were already on the TSCA Inventory if the phosphors and activators were
on the TSCA Inventory, some manufacturers of activated phosphor
products have not submitted new chemical notices required under TSCA
section 5. This chemical identification problem is similar to one
involving monomer acid and its derivatives, which was resolved through
Agency-industry dialog and a period for submission of new chemical
notices (Correction to Chemical Nomenclature for Monomer Acid and
Derivatives for TSCA Inventory Purpose published in the Federal
Register issue of June 27, 2001 (66 FR 34193) (FRL-6784-6)). The Agency
is addressing this activated phosphor situation in a similar manner.

III. Activated Phosphors Under the TSCA Inventory and Implications for
TSCA Section 5 Reporting

     EPA is clarifying that those of EPA's earlier statements which
indicated that activated phosphors are mixtures rather than chemical
substances in their own right were erroneous, and that TSCA Inventory
listing or TSCA section 5(h)(4) exemption will be required for these
materials. Pursuant to TSCA section 5(a)(1), 15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1), new
chemical notices will be required for activated phosphors not on the
TSCA Inventory (and for which a TSCA section 5(h)(4) exemption has not
been granted) and which are manufactured on or after the effective date
of the clarification. See EPA PMN regulations at 40 CFR part 720 for
details regarding when reporting is required. Consistent with TSCA
Inventory correction guidelines published in the Federal Register issue
of July 29, 1980 (45 FR 50544), EPA does not consider activated
phosphors that were never reported for the Initial TSCA Inventory to be
eligible for TSCA Inventory correction as an alternative to new
chemical notice submission.

A. What are the Nature and Scope of this Clarification?

    EPA does not believe that activated phosphors are mixtures rather
than chemical substances in their own right. Thus listing on the TSCA
Inventory established under TSCA section 8(b) may be required for these
chemical substances. This clarification will affect anyone who
manufactures, or who plans to manufacture, an activated phosphor not
currently listed on the TSCA Inventory and for a TSCA-covered use.

B. What are the Key Dates and Provisions of this Clarification?

    The effective date for this clarification, described in Unit II.B.,
will

be 18 months after date of publication of this final document in the
Federal Register. After the effective date, any person manufacturing an
activated phosphor for a non-exempt commercial purposes and who has not
met the new chemical substances requirements of TSCA section 5 will not
be considered in compliance with TSCA. By that date, companies required
to submit PMNs or exemption notices must have done so at least 90 days
(for PMNs, less for exemption notices) before the effective date, to
ensure that Agency review is completed before this clarification takes
effect.
    By that date, companies required to submit premanufacture notices
or exemption applications must have done so at least 90 days (for PMNs,
less for exemption applications) before the effective date, to ensure
that Agency review is completed before this clarification takes effect.
New chemical notice review may entail suspension of the notice review
period (either by EPA or at the request of the submitter). If a new
chemical notice seeking an exemption is rejected, a PMN may need to be
filed. Because manufacture may not continue after the 18-month period
provided in this notice, companies are advised to submit any required
new chemical notices well before the effective date to ensure that all
issues are resolved in a timely fashion.
    EPA will work closely with manufacturers to resolve chemical
identity issues for any specific material that the manufacturer
believes should be viewed as a mixture.
    To facilitate the new chemical notice process for activated
phosphors currently being manufactured but which are not listed on the
TSCA Inventory as distinct chemical substances, EPA will allow an
exception to its TSCA new chemicals program policy limit of six
chemical substances per consolidation notice for these chemical
substances. EPA encourages persons intending to manufacture activated
phosphors to file new chemical notices using the proper chemical
identity immediately instead of delaying their submissions to near the
effective date of this document.
    New chemical notices filed in response to this chemical
identification clarification shall, as specified in 40 CFR 720.50,
include all information normally included with a new chemical notice
submission, such as toxicity data on the chemical substance that are in
the possession or control of the notice submitter, or known to or
reasonably ascertainable by the notice submitter.

C. Will a New Chemical Notice Be Required for Persons Who Did Not
Submit One Due to an Incorrect EPA Statement, Regardless of Whether
They Still Manufacture the Chemical Substance?

    Where required by TSCA section 5 and in accordance with 40 CFR part
720, a new chemical notice must have been submitted for any manufacture
for a non-exempt commercial purpose that takes place on or after August
24, 2011. No new chemical notice need be submitted for manufacture
taking place before that date. For example, if you manufactured such a
phosphor in 1986 but will not be resuming manufacture after August 24,
2011, you are not required to submit a new chemical notice at this
time. However, if you later form an intention to manufacture the
activated phosphor on or after the effective date of this clarification
and the chemical substance has not in the interim been placed on the
TSCA Inventory due to another company's manufacture or import, you will
need to submit a new chemical notice (and the review period must be
completed) before commencing manufacture. Activated phosphors
manufactured before August 24, 2011 can be used or processed after the
effective date, whether a new chemical notice has been filed or not.

D. Discussion of Public Comments on the Proposed Clarification

    The Agency reviewed and considered the comments submitted on the
proposed clarification published in the Federal Register issue of
January 16, 2008. Copies of all submitted comments are available in the
docket for this action.
    1. Comment. Commenter OSRAM Sylvania questions the Agency's
authority for requiring new chemical reporting for chemical substances
that have been in production for some time. The commenter states that
``EPA lacks the authority to extend the scope of the TSCA Inventory and
PMN requirements to the regulations of these existing chemicals.'' The
commenter suggests that the Agency use TSCA Inventory correction
procedures to deal with activated phosphors, and argues that the
clarification as to the TSCA Inventory status of activated phosphors
constitutes rulemaking, as ``it would impose new, substantive legal
obligations upon a class of chemicals and companies.''
    Response. EPA disagrees with the comment. TSCA section 3(2) defines
``chemical substance'' in relevant part as ``any organic or inorganic
substance of a particular molecular identity.'' Two chemicals with
differing molecular identities are therefore considered different
chemical substances under TSCA. TSCA section 3(9) defines a ``new
chemical substance'' as ``any chemical substance which is not included
in the chemical substance list compiled and published under section
2607(b) of this title'' (i.e., the TSCA Inventory). TSCA section
5(a)(1) applies PMN reporting requirements (or applicable exemptions)
to new chemical substances. Thus, regardless of the fact that an
activated phosphor may have been in commerce for years, if it has not
been reported for the TSCA Inventory or added to the TSCA Inventory via
PMN and NOC per 40 CFR part 720, it constitutes a new chemical
substance subject to TSCA section 5.
    This clarification does not create obligations under TSCA.
Requirements for new chemical notice reporting are self-executing in
TSCA, flowing from TSCA section 5(a)(1) (with ``chemical substance''
being defined in TSCA section 3(2) and ``mixture'' defined in TSCA
section 3(8)). The purpose of this document is simply to provide notice
of how EPA intends to enforce these provisions with respect to
activated phosphors. EPA does not believe that this action constitutes
rulemaking, but if it were rulemaking it would be interpretive
rulemaking not subject to notice and comment under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA).
    The TSCA Inventory correction guidelines published in the Federal
Register issue of July 29, 1980 indicate that materials that were never
reported for the Initial TSCA Inventory are not eligible for TSCA
Inventory correction as an alternative to premanufacture notice
submission. The guidelines describe three main categories as
appropriate for correction: Corrections to the identity of previously
reported materials, corrections identifying previously unrecognized
isolated intermediates, and corrections made in response to Agency
communications which identify reporting errors and request corrections.
For the first category, the TSCA Inventory correction procedures are
appropriate when errors may have been made in reporting the identity
(``(1) corrections of typographical or transcriptional errors in
recording chemical identity on the Inventory reporting forms..'') or
when new information improving a previously reported identity can be
developed because improvements in analytical methods and equipment
regarding a previously reported chemical substance indicate that the
accurate description of the chemical substance is different from what
was previously reported (``(2)

refinement of the identity of a reported substance, e.g., by narrowing
the range of the values for a polymer; (3) identification of new
components in the material, e.g., finding that a chemical substance
reported as A is actually a mixture of A and B; and (4) discovery that
a chemical substance is different from that reported previously, e.g.,
determining that a substance reported as A is actually C or that a
substance reported as D is actually a mixture of E and F.'')
Manufacturers' failure to report activated phosphors for the TSCA
Inventory under the first category is covered by none of the four
eligibility criteria listed in this unit, which cover improved
information about a previously reported chemical rather than failure to
report it. Neither the second nor the third category is applicable
here.
    Under these guidelines, a blanket exclusion from TSCA section 5
reporting, and inclusion on the TSCA Inventory by correction, for all
activated phosphors including those first manufactured subsequent to
the reporting period for the Initial TSCA Inventory, would be
inappropriate. EPA believes such an exclusion would prevent these
materials from receiving the environmental, workplace safety, and
consumer safety review contemplated by TSCA.
    2. Comment. Commenter Color Pigment Manufacturers Association
(CPMA) stated that because the EPA made its initial error in 1978, when
materials were being entered into the TSCA Inventory by survey, EPA
should allow for listing of the materials which are the subject of the
action by survey and correction to the TSCA Inventory.
    Response. CPMA has raised three issues here: Addition to the TSCA
Inventory by survey for materials which were first manufactured before
the end of the Initial TSCA Inventory reporting period, addition to the
TSCA Inventory by survey for materials which were first manufactured
after the end of the Initial TSCA Inventory reporting period, and use
of the TSCA Inventory correction mechanism to enter non-TSCA Inventory
materials onto the TSCA Inventory. CPMA's comment provides no apparent
rationale for allowing survey addition to the TSCA Inventory for
materials first manufactured after the Initial TSCA Inventory reporting
closed in 1979. We have responded to the suggestion that the
corrections procedure be used for activated phosphor materials in our
response to the comment by OSRAM Sylvania, in Unit III.D.1.
    In regard to materials which were in commerce already before the
end of the Initial TSCA Inventory reporting period in 1978, the Initial
TSCA Inventory has been closed to survey reporting since the end of
TSCA Inventory reporting in 1979, with the only mechanism for changing
the Initial TSCA Inventory listings and compilation having been TSCA
Inventory corrections. Although there may have been some persons
manufacturing activated phosphors during the Initial TSCA Inventory
reporting period for TSCA who were confused by EPA guidance at that
time, irrespective of the guidance, those persons should have reported
for the Initial TSCA Inventory in some manner to account for their
manufactured activated phosphor products. For example, in their Initial
TSCA Inventory reporting, some persons may have identified their
phosphor compounds without including the activators (dopants) in the
chemical names. Others may have viewed their activated phosphors to be
mixtures of two chemical substances (i.e., the activator and the
phosphor host material), and reported both of their perceived mixture
components.
    EPA believes that a survey process for adding certain activated
phosphors which may have been in commerce before 1978 to the TSCA
Inventory at this late date would not be warranted. TSCA section 5
reporting for all activated phosphors not on the TSCA Inventory (and
for which a TSCA section 5(h)(4) exemption has not been granted) and
which are to be manufactured on or after the effective date of this
clarification is a practical way to enable the affected manufacturers
to come into compliance without undue disruption; it will facilitate
the safety and environmental impact review for these materials intended
in the statute; and the criteria used to assess these materials will be
uniform.
    3. Comment. Commenter American Chemistry Council (ACC) stated that
this is more than a 'clarification', but that it is a reversal of a
position held for 20 years. Therefore, a public review and comment
period, and consultation with stakeholders, is in order.
    Response. Rather than having stated a consistent position, EPA's
guidance has been inconsistent, as noted in the proposal. This
clarification provides the guidance necessary to go forward with one
policy about the activated phosphor materials. A significant number of
manufacturers have in fact submitted PMNs and exemption notices
covering over 200 activated phosphors (this includes reporting forms
for the Initial TSCA Inventory) and the Initial TSCA Inventory
reporting form and PMN substances have been given TSCA Inventory
listings. The Agency has provided an opportunity for stakeholder input
in the comment process via the proposed clarification, and met with one
manufacturer before the clarification was written and one during the
comment period.
    Most of the chemical substances subject to this clarification, and
which are reportable, were manufactured after the close of the TSCA
Inventory reporting period and new chemical notices would have been
submitted had there not been any erroneous guidance from EPA.
Therefore, the net new chemical notice reporting burden should be
little greater than if EPA had issued accurate guidance on activated
phosphors after the publication of the Initial TSCA Inventory. Those
who have already reported activated phosphors will not need to do
anything, while those who have not yet reported such chemical
substances must do so by the effective date of this document. In this
way, new chemical notices will finally have been submitted for all of
the activated phosphors initially manufactured for a non-exempt
commercial use. Due to the confusion caused by EPA's earlier erroneous
guidance, the Agency wishes to minimize any inconvenience to the
chemical industry by providing an exception to its TSCA new chemicals
program policy of a limit of six chemical substances per consolidation
notice for these chemical substances and by setting an effective date
for the consistent interpretation at 18 months after date of
publication of this document in the Federal Register.
    4. Comment. Commenter ACC said 12 months is not sufficient to do
the work required to come into compliance with this clarification. ACC
noted that regulated industry is doing a good deal of ongoing work to
come into compliance with the European Union REACH program. EPA should
lengthen time to come into compliance to 18-24 months.
    Response. The Agency believes that the number of new chemical
notice submissions which will be prepared to conform to the
clarification will not be large, nor will they be unusually difficult
to write. EPA's estimate of the total number of premanufacture notices
it will receive in response to this clarification is 30. After
considering this comment, however, EPA agrees that 1 year could provide
insufficient time to complete the new chemical notice review process
for all activated phosphors affected by this clarification. Therefore,
EPA has extended by 6 months the time that manufacturers and

importers who are currently manufacturing or importing affected
activated phosphors would have had under the proposed clarification to
complete the TSCA section 5 review process.
    Under the proposed clarification, such manufacturers would have had
to submit a premanufacture notice to EPA within 6 months after
publication of the final clarification in order for EPA to have had the
entire 180 day period authorized by TSCA section 5 (90 days plus
opportunity for up to a 90-day extension under TSCA section 5(c)) to
complete the PMN review. This time frame may have been too short in
some circumstances. Under this final clarification, such manufacturers
and importers will have up to12 months to submit a PMN in order for EPA
to have the entire 180-day review period (90 days plus opportunity for
up to a 90-day extension under TSCA section 5(c)) to complete the
review of a PMN. This approach will allow such manufacturers and
importers additional time to compile the information necessary to
prepare and submit PMNs or exemption requests. However, EPA encourages
manufacturers and importers to submit PMNs or, alternatively, exemption
requests as soon as possible after publication of the final
clarification. Doing so will provide EPA with more time to complete any
consent orders and, if necessary, establish testing requirements for
those activated phosphors for which EPA may have concerns of potential
unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.
    5. Comment. Commenter CPMA said this action is onerous and punitive
for CPMA members, and results from EPA's mistake. It will be disruptive
if it results in materials being unavailable for manufacture during the
PMN review process, and will be costly to small businesses.
    Response. As noted in Unit III.D.1., it is the statute that imposes
the requirement for new chemical notice reporting. This document is not
punitive; rather it clarifies EPA's views with respect to the chemical
identity of activated phosphors. The commenter is correct that the need
for this action arises from the Agency's error, and EPA will make a
diligent effort to complete the new chemical notice reviews as quickly
as possible. We recommend that manufacturers submit as promptly as
possible, and well before the effective date of the clarification. As
noted in Unit III.D.4., we have lengthened the time period for coming
into conformity with the clarification to 18 months from 12 months as
proposed, and the effective date of the clarification has been chosen
to enable the reviews to be completed before the effective date. CPMA
provided no information to support the claim that there are such small
businesses and that the economic impact on them would be significant.
EPA estimates that the number of new chemical notices which may be
received from small businesses is 10. When EPA receives applications
from small business as a result of this clarification we will make
every effort to assist these submitters to navigate the process as
necessary.
    6. Comment. Commenter CPMA said the Agency has not provided any
evidence in the proposed clarification that the phosphor materials
subject to the clarification pose a significant risk to humans or the
environment.
    Response. TSCA compels TSCA section 5 review for new chemical
substances, regardless of what information may be available regarding
their risks. A TSCA section 5 notice presents information available to
the submitter regarding risk for review and assessment by EPA.
    7. Comment. Commenter CPMA states that EPA rarely meets the
statutory 90-day review period for inorganic substances, and that a
multi-year review would impose a burden on manufacturers of these
materials. Commenter cited several cases.
    Response. EPA will strive to complete the review of new chemical
notices submitted in response to this clarification promptly. For more
than 80% of submitted chemical substances, the new chemical notice
review process is completed at the EPA Focus meeting, which takes place
well before the end of the statutory 90-day PMN review period, and
without the chemical substance being restricted or regulated in any
way. For those new chemical substances for which EPA determines that
regulatory action may be necessary, the new chemical notice review
period may be suspended by the submitter to enable the Agency to
consider additional information in its review and, if necessary, to
develop and negotiate a consent order. The cases cited by the submitter
were cases in which TSCA section 5(e) consent orders, which enabled the
submitters to commence manufacture subject to certain conditions, were
signed within a year of submission. The Agency recommends that affected
manufacturers should submit their new chemical notices early in the
period following publication of this document, and that they consult
prior to submission with EPA's New Chemicals Management Branch ((202)
564-9373) in the New Chemicals Program to determine what information
will facilitate quick review.
    8. Comment. Commenter CPMA said EPA has not substantiated that
activated phosphors are not statutory mixtures and this action relative
to activated phosphors is inconsistent with EPA policy on other
mixtures.
    Response. EPA believes that activated phosphors are chemical
substances, not mixtures, under TSCA. These chemical substances consist
of reaction products resulting from chemical bond formation between the
activators and the host materials or precursors. As a result, the
Agency considers the activators to be chemically incorporated in the
activated phosphors, becoming part of the phosphor structure and
composition.
    9. Comment. Commenter OSRAM Sylvania said the host portion, not the
activators, should be used in determining the TSCA Inventory status of
phosphors.
    Response. EPA believes that an activated phosphor is appropriately
viewed as a chemical substance instead of a mixture under TSCA because
the activator species (also known as dopants) are chemically
incorporated into the structure of activated phosphors, and because the
dopants provide the essential property of luminescence to the
materials. Chemical incorporation is consistent with the wording used
by the commenter to describe activated phosphors, such as ``The
activator(s) occupies lattice points at random or interstitial
positions in the structure,'' and ``...to form the host materials with
the activators incorporated into the crystal structure,'' and is
consistent with EPA's understanding of the nature of the activators'
chemical interaction and incorporation during the manufacture of
activated phosphors.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

     This document announces a clarification of one aspect of the TSCA
Inventory chemical identification policy. This action is not a
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory
Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). As such, this
action does not require review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
    This document does not contain any new information collection
requirements that would require additional review and approval by OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Under
PRA, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to

respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number, or is otherwise required to submit the
specific information by a statute. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are codified in 40 CFR chapter I, after appearing in the
preamble of the final rule, are further displayed either by publication
in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such as on the
related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The display of
OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in a
list at 40 CFR 9.1.
    The information collection activities related to the submission of
information pursuant to TSCA section 5 have already been approved by
OMB under OMB Control No. 2070-0012 (EPA Information Collection Request
[ICR] No. 574). The burden for that ICR is estimated to average 100
hours per respondent, including time for reading the regulations,
processing, compiling, and reviewing the requested data, generating the
request, storing, filing, and maintaining the data.
    This action is not subject to notice-and-comment requirements under
the APA or any other statute, and is not subject to the provisions of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or to
sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)
(Public Law 104-4). In addition, this action does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments or impose a significant
intergovernmental mandate, as described in sections 203 and 204 of
UMRA. This action will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132,
entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Nor does this
action significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal
governments as specified by Executive Order 13175, entitled
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (59 FR
22951, November 9, 2000).
    Executive Orders 13045, entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) and 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations that
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001), do not apply to this action because this action is not
``economically significant'' as defined by section 3(f) of Executive
Order 12866. Nor does this action establish an environmental standard
that may have a negatively disproportionate effect on children, or
otherwise have any significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy.
    This action does not involve any technical standards that require
the Agency's consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to
section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note).
    This action will not have an adverse impact on the environmental
and health conditions in low-income and minority communities.
Therefore, under Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to
Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), the Agency is not required
to and has not considered environmental justice-related issues.

V. Congressional Review Act

     The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966, does
not apply because this action is not a rule for purposes of 5 U.S.C.
804(3).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Subchapter R

     Environmental protection, Chemical substances, Hazardous
substances, Imports, Manuafacturing, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: February 17, 2010.
James Jones,
Acting Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and
Toxic Substances.

[FR Doc. 2010-3675 Filed 2-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 168 (Thursday, September 2, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 49326]
[FR Doc No: 2021-18905]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER21-2766-000]

Central Line Solar, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-
Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Central Line Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is September 15, 2021.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed
proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225
Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to the Commission's Public
Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency
concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the
President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,
(886) 208-3676 or TYY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: August 26, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-18905 Filed 9-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 73 (Tuesday, April 16, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22415-22416]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08825]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0853; Airspace Docket No. 12-ANM-23]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Astoria, OR

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E airspace at Astoria Regional
Airport, Astoria, OR, to accommodate aircraft using Area Navigation
(RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach
procedures at the airport. This improves the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date, 0901 UTC, June 27, 2013. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eldon Taylor, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 1601
Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On October 9, 2012, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to modify controlled airspace at
Astoria, OR (77 FR 61306). Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. The Western Flight
Procedures Office reassessed the proposal and on January 25, 2013, the
FAA published in the Federal Register a supplemental notice of proposed
rulemaking (SNPRM) to also modify the north extension west of Astoria
Regional Airport, Astoria, OR (78 FR 5325). Interested parties were
invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written
comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. This
action modifies the north extension west of the airport from within 6
miles north to within 11 miles north of the airport 268[deg] degree
bearing. The airspace extension will accommodate missed approach
holding for RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures. This
will add a small area of airspace 700 feet above the surface to the
west of Astoria Regional Airport, Astoria, OR.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of
FAA Order 7400.9W dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designations listed in this document will be published
subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface, at Astoria Regional Airport, to accommodate IFR
aircraft executing RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures
at the airport. Also, to accommodate the modified procedure design
missed approach holding for the RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach
procedure the FAA has added Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface to the west of Astoria Regional Airport.
Extending from the airport 268[deg] bearing to 17.5 miles west, the
airspace is changed from within 6 miles north of the 268[deg] bearing
to 11 miles north. Except for the airspace modification mentioned
above, this rule is the same as published in the NPRM. This action is
necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations.
    The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established
body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this
regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to
issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S.
Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA
Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more
detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is
promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A,
Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with

prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to
ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This
regulation is within the scope of that authority as it modifies
controlled airspace at Astoria Regional Airport, Astoria, OR.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air)

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E. O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9W, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2012, and effective September 15,
2012 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ANM OR E5 Astoria, OR [Modified]

Astoria Regional Airport, Astoria, OR
    (Lat. 46[deg]09'29'' N., long. 123[deg]52'43'' W.)
Seaside Municipal Airport
    (Lat. 46[deg]00'54'' N., long. 123[deg]54'28'' W.)

    That airspace extending from 700 feet above the surface within a
7-mile radius of Astoria Regional Airport; and within 11 miles north
and 8.3 miles south of the Astoria Regional Airport 268[deg] bearing
extending from the 7-mile radius to 17.5 miles west of Astoria
Regional Airport, excluding the portion within a 1.8-mile radius of
Seaside Municipal Airport; and within 4 miles northeast and 8.3
miles southwest of the Astoria Regional Airport 326[deg] bearing
extending from the 7-mile radius to 21.4 miles northwest of Astoria
Regional Airport; and within 4 miles each side of the Astoria
Regional Airport 096[deg] bearing extending from the 7-mile radius
to 12 miles east of Astoria Regional Airport; and within 8.3 miles
north and 4 miles south of the Astoria Regional Airport 096[deg]
bearing from 12 miles east, to 28.3 miles east of Astoria Regional
Airport; and within a 15.9-mile radius of Astoria Regional Airport
extending clockwise from the 326[deg] bearing to the 347[deg]
bearing of the airport; and within a 23.1-mile radius of Astoria
Regional Airport extending clockwise from the 347[deg] bearing to
the 039[deg] bearing of the airport extending from the 15.9-mile
radius to a 23.1-mile radius of Astoria Regional Airport extending
clockwise from the airport 039[deg] bearing to the airport 185[deg]
bearing.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on April 2, 2013.
Clark Desing,
Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2013-08825 Filed 4-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


                          Technical Support Document

Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing PM2.5 Precursors from the Other Non-EGU Point Sources Sector

                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                          Office of Air and Radiation
                 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                       Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

	February 2012

                              CONTACT INFORMATION

      This document has been prepared by staff from the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Questions related to this document should be addressed to Neal Fann or Charles Fulcher, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Risk and Benefits Group, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>fulcher.charles@epa.gov).

Overview

This Technical Support Document (TSD) describes our approach for estimating the avoided human health impacts, and monetized benefits, of reducing emissions of PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors including NOx and SO2 from Other Non-EGU Point Sources using the results of source apportionment photochemical modeling. In this context, "Other" refers to sources that are not part of any other sector for which modeling was performed. We focus in particular on the aspects of our approach that represent a change from the benefit per ton calculation methodology described in Fann, Fulcher and Hubbell (2009) and subsequently applied in several EPA RIAs. We also describe the ways in which these new estimates can improve our characterization of the PM2.5-related health benefits from Other Non-EGU Point Sources and other sectors. We summarize the benefit per ton estimates for both the Other Non-EGU Point Sources sector that were used in the RIA for this rule, as well as 12 other emission sectors.

Summary of Calculations

The procedure for calculating benefit per ton coefficients follows three steps:

   1. Use source apportionment photochemical modeling to predict the directly emitted PM2.5, nitrate and sulfate attributable to each of 13 emission sectors across the Continental U.S., including the Other Non-EGU Point Sources sector; see below for a summary of the sectors modeled.

   2. For each sector, estimate the health impacts, and the economic value of these impacts, associated with the directly emitted PM2.5, sulfate and nitrate PM2.5 using the environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP v4.0.44).

   3. For each sector, divide the PM2.5-related health impacts attributable to each type of PM2.5, and the monetary value of these impacts, by the level of precursor emissions.

Figure 1: Conceptual overview of the steps for calculating benefit per-ton estimates

The example above depicts the total PM2.5 contribution from the pulp and paper sector, though we repeat this process for each of the 13 sectors, which include:

   1. Cement Kilns
   2. Pulp and Paper Facilities
   3. Refineries
   4. Coke Ovens
   5. Iron and Steel Foundries
   6. Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities
   7. Electric Arc Furnaces
   8. Taconite Mining
   9. Ferroalloy Production
   10. Residential Wood Combustion
   11. Other Nonpoint Sources
   12. Other Non-EGU Point Sources
   13. Electricity Generating Units

The "Other Nonpoint Sources" and "Other Non-EGU Point Sources" categories are agglomerations of sectors that were not modeled separately. When selecting a benefit per ton estimate for use with a sector not specifically modeled, it is necessary to determine which composite sector is the best match with respect to the source characteristics that would affect the level of benefits. These attributes include the proximity to receptor populations, the geographic distribution of sources, and the release parameters of the source.

Readers interested in a full discussion of the air quality modeling performed for this rule may consult "Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document: Source Sector Assessments" (U.S. EPA 2011). We project PM2.5 levels for sector to 2016. The appendix to this TSD includes plots of the PM2.5 levels attributed to each of these sectors for which we estimated benefit per-ton metrics.

The photochemical modeling used here also produced estimates of ozone levels attributable to each sector. However, the complex non-linear chemistry governing ozone formation prevented us from developing a complementary array of ozone benefit per ton values. This limitation notwithstanding, we anticipate that the ozone-related benefits associated with reducing emissions of NOx and VOC for many of these sectors would be substantial.

Finally, it is important to note that while most VOCs emitted are oxidized to carbon dioxide (CO2) rather than to PM, a portion of VOC emission contributes to ambient PM2.5 levels as organic carbon aerosols (US EPA 2009). Therefore, reducing these emissions would reduce PM2.5 formation, human exposure to PM2.5, and the incidence of PM2.5-related health effects. However, we have not quantified a VOC benefit per ton estimate in this analysis. Analysis of organic carbon measurements suggest only a fraction of secondarily formed organic carbon aerosols are of anthropogenic origin. The current state of the science of secondary organic carbon aerosol formation indicates that anthropogenic VOC contribution to secondary organic carbon aerosol is often lower than the biogenic (natural) contribution. Photochemical models typically estimate secondary organic carbon from anthropogenic VOC emissions to be less than 0.1 ug/m[3]. For this reason, we have not reported a VOC benefit per ton estimate.

Below we provide an expanded discussion of each of the latter two steps to the calculation -- estimating health impacts and economic value of PM2.5 attributable to each sector and calculating the benefit per ton coefficients. The discussion of these topics is not intended to be exhaustive, and readers interested in learning more about our approach to performing an air pollution health impact and benefits analysis may consult the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)(US EPA 2011).

Estimating the number of PM2.5-related health impacts attributable to each sector

In this stage of the analysis we performed a Health Impact Assessment (HIA), which quantifies the changes in the incidence of adverse health impacts resulting from changes in human exposure to PM2.5 from each sector. HIAs are a well-established approach for estimating the retrospective or prospective change in adverse health impacts expected to result from population-level changes in exposure to pollutants (Levy et al. 2009). PC-based tools such as the environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP) can systematize health impact analyses by applying a database of key input parameters, including health impact functions and population projections. Analysts have applied the HIA approach to estimate human health impacts resulting from hypothetical changes in pollutant levels (Davidson et al. 2007; Hubbell et al. 2004; Tagaris et al. 2009).
The HIA approach used in this analysis involves three basic steps: (1) utilizing CAMx--generated projections of PM2.5 levels attributed to each sector; (2) determining the subsequent change in population-level exposure; (3) calculating health impacts by applying concentration-response relationships drawn from the epidemiological literature  to this change in population exposure (Hubbell et al. 2009). This procedure is operationalized within BenMAP using a health impact function.
A typical health impact function looks as follows:

                        ∆y=yo ∙eβ∙∆x- 1∙Pop

where y0 is the baseline incidence rate for the health endpoint being quantified (for example, a health impact function quantifying changes in mortality would use the baseline, or background, mortality rate for the given population of interest); Pop is the population affected by the change in air quality, whose size and distribution we have projected to 2016 for this analysis; x is the change in air quality; and β is the effect coefficient drawn from the epidemiological study. Tools such as BenMAP can systematize the HIA calculation process, allowing users to draw upon a library of existing air quality monitoring data, population data and health impact functions.
Figure 2 provides a simplified overview of this approach, using PM2.5-related premature mortality as an example, though the procedure is generally the same for other health endpoints. This sequence of steps is repeated for each of the 13 sectors. The PM2.5 health endpoints quantified and the health impact functions applied in this analysis are consistent with the CSAPR RIA. That RIA includes a detailed discussion of each of the data inputs, analytical assumptions and sources of uncertainty. In the interest of brevity, we do not repeat these here in detail. However, it is worth noting that we exclude the value of several important non-health endpoints, including recreational and residential visibility, climate-related impacts and ecological endpoints. Table 1 below summarizes the endpoints quantified in this benefit per ton TSD.

Figure 2: Illustration of BenMAP Approach

Baseline Air QualityPost-Policy Scenario  Air QualityIncremental Air QualityImprovementPM2.5 ReductionPopulationAges 18-65BackgroundIncidenceRateEffectEstimateMortality Reduction

Table 1: Human health effects of PM2.5 quantified and not quantified in this analysis

Category
                                Specific Effect
                          Effect Has Been Quantified
                           Effect Has Been Monetized
                    More Information (refers to CSAPR RIA)
Improved Human Health
Reduced incidence of premature mortality from exposure to PM2.5
Adult premature mortality based on cohort study estimates and expert elicitation estimates (age >25 or age >30)
                                      
                                      
Section 5.4

Infant mortality (age <1)
                                      
                                      
Section 5.4
Reduced incidence of morbidity from exposure to PM2.5
Non-fatal heart attacks (age > 18)
                                      
                                      
Section 5.4

Hospital admissions -- respiratory  (all ages)
                                      
                                      
Section 5.4

Hospital admissions -- cardiovascular (age >20)
                                      
                                      
Section 5.4

Emergency room visits for asthma (all ages)
                                      
                                      
Section 5.4

Acute bronchitis (age 8-12)
                                      
                                      
Section 5.4

Lower respiratory symptoms (age 7-14)
                                      
                                      
Section 5.4

Upper respiratory symptoms (asthmatics age 9-11)
                                      
                                      
Section 5.4

Asthma exacerbation (asthmatics age 6-18)
                                      
                                      
Section 5.4

Lost work days  (age 18-65)
                                      
                                      
Section 5.4

Minor restricted-activity days (age 18-65)
                                      
                                      
Section 5.4

Chronic Bronchitis (age >26)
                                      
                                      
Section 5.4

Emergency room visits for cardiovascular effects (all ages)
                                      --
                                      --
Section 5.4

Strokes and cerebrovascular disease (age 50-79)
                                      --
                                      --
Section 5.4

Other cardiovascular effects (e.g., other ages)
                                      --
                                      --
PM ISA[2]

Other respiratory effects (e.g., pulmonary function, non-asthma ER visits, non-bronchitis chronic diseases, other ages and populations)
                                      --
                                      --
PM ISA[2]

Reproductive and developmental effects (e.g., low birth weight, pre-term births, etc)
                                      --
                                      --
PM ISA[2,3]

Cancer, mutagenicity, and genotoxicity effects
                                      --
                                      --
PM ISA[2,3]
1 We assess these benefits qualitative due to time and resource limitations for this analysis.
[2] We assess these benefits qualitatively because we do not have sufficient confidence in available data or methods.
[3] We assess these benefits qualitatively because current evidence is only suggestive of causality or there are other significant concerns over the strength of the association.

Estimating the economic value of health impacts attributable to each sector

After quantifying the change in adverse health impacts, the next step is to estimate the economic value of these avoided impacts. The appropriate economic value for a change in a health effect depends on whether the health effect is viewed ex ante (before the effect has occurred) or ex post (after the effect has occurred). Reductions in ambient concentrations of air pollution generally lower the risk of future adverse health effects by a small amount for a large population. The appropriate economic measure is therefore ex ante Willingness to Pay (WTP) for changes in risk. However, epidemiological studies generally provide estimates of the relative risks of a particular health effect avoided due to a reduction in air pollution. A convenient way to use this data in a consistent framework is to convert probabilities to units of avoided statistical incidences. This measure is calculated by dividing individual WTP for a risk reduction by the related observed change in risk. For example, suppose a measure is able to reduce the risk of premature mortality from 2 in 10,000 to 1 in 10,000 (a reduction of 1 in 10,000). If individual WTP for this risk reduction is $100, then the WTP for an avoided statistical premature mortality amounts to $1 million ($100/0.0001 change in risk). Using this approach, the size of the affected population is automatically taken into account by the number of incidences predicted by epidemiological studies applied to the relevant population. The same type of calculation can produce values for statistical incidences of other health endpoints.
For some health effects, such as hospital admissions, WTP estimates are generally not available. In these cases, we use the cost of treating or mitigating the effect as a primary estimate. For example, for the valuation of hospital admissions we use the avoided medical costs as an estimate of the value of avoiding the health effects causing the admission. These cost of illness (COI) estimates generally (although not in every case) understate the true value of reductions in risk of a health effect. They tend to reflect the direct expenditures related to treatment but not the value of avoided pain and suffering from the health effect.
We express the economic value of the avoided impacts using constant year 2008 dollars, adjusted for growth in real income out to 2016 (the year of the air quality change) using projections provided by Standard and Poor's. Economic theory argues that WTP for most goods (such as environmental protection) will increase if real income increases. Many of the valuation studies used in this analysis were conducted in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Because real income has grown since the studies were conducted, people's willingness to pay for reductions in the risk of premature death and disease likely has grown as well. We did not adjust cost of illness-based values because they are based on current costs. For these two reasons, these cost of illness estimates may underestimate the economic value of avoided health impacts in 2016. As with the selection of health studies, the economic valuation estimates applied in this analysis are consistent with those used in the CSAPR RIA.

Calculating the benefit per ton estimate

The final step is to divide the incidence of adverse health outcomes, and the economic value of those outcomes, attributable to the directly emitted PM2.5, nitrate and sulfate from each sector by the emissions of directly emitted PM2.5, NOx and SO2. The result is a suite of incidence per ton and $ benefit per ton estimates for each sector. Below we summarize the total $ per ton estimates for each of the 13 sectors (Table 1), as well as more detailed health impacts per ton for the Other Non-EGU Point Sources sector.

                   Pope et al. (2002) mortality estimate[A]

                   Laden et al. (2006) mortality estimate[A]
 Sector
                            Directly emitted PM2.5
                                      SO2
                                      NOx

                            Directly emitted PM2.5
                                      SO2
                                      NOx
Cement Kilns
                                   $360,000
                                    $43,000
                                    $5,700

                                   $890,000
                                   $110,000
                                    $14,000
Pulp & Paper Facilities
                                   $150,000
                                    $45,000
                                    $3,800

                                   $370,000
                                   $110,000
                                    $9,200
Refineries
                                   $330,000
                                    $69,000
                                    $6,800

                                   $810,000
                                   $170,000
                                    $17,000
Coke Ovens
                                   $480,000
                                    $52,000
                                    $11,000

                                  $1,200,000
                                   $130,000
                                    $26,000
Iron and Steel Foundries
                                   $520,000
                                   $420,000
                                    $17,000

                                  $1,300,000
                                  $1,000,000
                                    $41,000
Integrated Iron and Steel Facilities
                                   $520,000
                                    $90,000
                                    $14,000

                                  $1,300,000
                                   $220,000
                                    $34,000
Electric Arc Furnaces
                                   $440,000
                                    $81,000
                                    $9,700

                                  $1,100,000
                                   $200,000
                                    $24,000
Taconite Mining
                                    $85,000
                                    $34,000
                                    $6,200

                                   $210,000
                                    $84,000
                                    $15,000
Ferroalloys Production
                                   $280,000
                                    $44,000
                                    $4,500

                                   $680,000
                                   $110,000
                                    $11,000
Residential Wood Combustion
                                   $370,000
                                   $100,000
                                    $13,000

                                   $910,000
                                   $250,000
                                    $33,000
Other Nonpoint Sources
                                   $330,000
                                    $49,000
                                    $7,900

                                   $800,000
                                   $120,000
                                    $19,000
Other Non-EGU Point Sources
                                   $270,000
                                    $40,000
                                    $6,400

                                   $670,000
                                   $100,000
                                    $16,000
Electricity Generating Units
                                   $130,000
                                    $36,000
                                    $5,300

                                   $330,000
                                    $87,000
                                    $13,000
[A] Value represents sum of the value of avoided morbidity impacts and mortality impacts quantified using the PM2.5 mortality risk estimate noted.
Estimates rounded to two significant figures in this table, but all calculations are performed with the unrounded estimates.

Results

Table 1: Summary of the total dollar value (mortality and morbidity) per ton of directly emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursor reduced by each of 13 sectors in 2016 (2008$, 3% discount rate)

Table 2: Dollar value (mortality and morbidity) per ton of directly emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors reduced in 2016 for the Other Non-EGU Point Sources sector (2008$, 3% discount rate)

                               Pollutant emitted
 Mortality risk estimate
                                      NOx
                                      SO2
                            Directly emitted PM2.5
Risk estimates derived from the epidemiological literature[A]

  Pope et al. (2002)
                                    $6,400
                                   $40,000
                                   $270,000
  Laden et al. (2006)
                                   $16,000
                                   $100,000
                                   $670,000
[A] Value represents sum of the value of avoided morbidity impacts and mortality impacts quantified using the PM2.5 mortality risk estimate noted. Estimates are rounded to two significant digits in this table, but all calculations are performed with the unrounded estimates.

Table 3: Incidence per ton of avoided mortalities and morbidities from the Other Non-EGU Point Sources sector for directly emitted PM2.5 and PM2.5 precursors reduced in 2016

 Health Endpoint
                               Pollutant emitted

                                      NOx
                                      SO2
                            Directly emitted PM2.5
Premature mortality

  Pope et al. (2002)
                                   0.000709
                                   0.004527
                                   0.030196
  Laden et al. (2006)
                                   0.001821
                                   0.011618
                                   0.077553
Morbidity

   Chronic bronchitis
                                   0.000507
                                   0.003073
                                   0.021082
   Respiratory emergency room visits
                                   0.000543
                                   0.003475
                                   0.023347
   Acute bronchitis
                                   0.001135
                                   0.006805
                                   0.047404
   Lower respiratory symptoms
                                   0.014437
                                   0.086648
                                   0.603231
   Upper respiratory symptoms
                                   0.010903
                                   0.065553
                                   0.455821
   Acute respiratory symptoms
                                   0.582557
                                   3.497060
                                   24.255076
   Work loss days
                                   0.098143
                                   0.588890
                                   4.092673
   Asthma exacerbation
                                   0.023960
                                   0.143794
                                   1.000293
   Non-fatal heart attacks
                                   0.000800
                                   0.005119
                                   0.033306
   Respiratory hospital admissions
                                   0.000135
                                   0.000900
                                   0.005704
   Cardiovascular hospital admissions
                                   0.000301
                                   0.001940
                                   0.012489

Lowest Measured Air Quality Level Exposure Assessment

Assessments quantifying PM2.5 related health impacts generally find that cases of avoided mortality represent the majority of the monetized benefits. For this reason, EPA has historically performed a series of analyses that characterize the uncertainty associated with the PM-mortality relationship and the economic value of reducing the risk of premature death (Mansfield et al. 2009; Roman et al. 2008; US EPA 2011). Here we focus on the level of uncertainty associated with the avoided premature deaths estimated to occur due to air quality improvements below the lowest levels of PM2.5 observed in the epidemiological studies used to quantify such risks.

We include a "Lowest Measured air quality Level" (LML) assessment, which identifies the baseline (i.e. pre-rule) annual mean PM2.5 levels at which populations are exposed and the minimum observed air quality level of each long-term cohort study we use to quantify mortality impacts. In general, our confidence in the estimated number of premature deaths diminishes as we estimate these impacts in locations whose PM2.5 levels are below this minimum level. While an LML assessment provides some insight into the level of uncertainty in the estimated PM mortality benefits, EPA does not view this minimum value as a concentration threshold. The central benefits estimates reported in this RIA reflect a full range of modeled air quality concentrations. We maintain a high confidence in the PM2.5-related impacts estimated from air quality changes down to the LML of the two major cohort studies used to quantify PM-related premature deaths. That is -- our confidence in the estimated benefits above the LML should not imply an absence of confidence in benefits estimated below the LML.

Because we cannot estimate PM2.5 air quality changes for every policy scenario for which these source apportionment model results might be used, we cannot quantify the distribution of mortality impacts across baseline PM2.5 levels for each rule. As an alternative, we provide the percentage of the population exposed at baseline PM2.5 levels. It is important to note that baseline exposure is only one parameter in the health impact function, along with baseline incidence rates population, and change in air quality.  In other words, the percentage of the population exposed to air pollution below the LML is not the same as the percentage of the population experiencing health impacts as a result of a specific emission reduction policy.  A very large proportion of the population is exposed at or above the lowest LML of the cohort studies (Figures 3 and 4), increasing our confidence in the PM mortality analysis. Figure 3 shows a bar chart of the percentage of the population exposed to various air quality levels in the baseline. Figure 4 shows a cumulative distribution function of the same data. Both figures identify the LML for each of the major cohort studies. Using the Pope et al. (2002) study, the 77% of the population is exposed to annual mean PM2.5 levels at or above the LML of 7.5 ug/m[3]. Using the Laden et al.  (2006) study, 25% of the population is exposed above the LML of 10 ug/m[3].

Figure 3:Percentage of Adult Population According to Annual Mean PM2.5 Exposure in the Baseline

Figure 4:Cumulative Distribution of Adult Population According to Annual Mean PM2.5 Exposure in the Baseline

Limitations

This analysis includes many data sources as inputs, including emission inventories, air quality data from models (with their associated parameters and inputs), population data, health effect estimates from epidemiology studies, and economic data for monetizing benefits. Each of these inputs may be uncertain and would affect the benefits estimate. When the uncertainties from each stage of the analysis are compounded, small uncertainties can have large effects on the total quantified benefits. This analysis does not include the type of detailed uncertainty assessment found in the PM NAAQS RIA (US EPA, 2006). However, the results of the Monte Carlo analyses of the health and welfare benefits presented in Chapter 5 of the PM RIA can provide some evidence of the uncertainty surrounding the benefits results presented in this analysis.

In this analysis we assume that all fine particles, regardless of their chemical composition, are equally potent in causing premature mortality. This is an important assumption, because PM2.5 produced via transported precursors emitted from EGUs may differ significantly from direct PM2.5 released from other industrial sources. However, the scientific evidence is not yet sufficient to allow differentiation of effect estimates by particle type. We also assume that the health impact function for fine particles is linear down to the lowest air quality levels modeled in this analysis. Thus, the estimates include health benefits from reducing fine particles in areas with varied concentrations of PM2.5, including both regions that are in attainment with fine particle standard.

It is also important to note that the monetized benefit-per-ton estimates used here reflect specific geographic patterns of emissions and specific air quality and benefits modeling assumptions. Great care should be taken in applying these estimates to emission reductions occurring in any specific location, as these are all based on national emission reduction assumptions and therefore represent an average benefits-per-ton over the entire United States. The benefits-per-ton for emission reductions in specific locations may be very different from the estimates presented here. The maps in the Appendix that follows provide an indication of the location of the facilities that were modeled as well as the associated PM2.5 levels.

Appendix: Modeled annual mean PM2.5 levels attributable to 13 Sectors in 2016

References
Davidson K, Hallberg A, McCubbin D, Hubbell B. 2007. Analysis of PM2.5 using the Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP). Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part A 70:332-46; doi:10.1080/15287390600884982.
Fann N, Fulcher C, Hubbell B. 2009. The influence of location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health 2:169-176; doi:10.1007/s11869-009-0044-0.
Hubbell B, Fann N, Levy J. 2009. Methodological considerations in developing local-scale health impact assessments: balancing national, regional, and local data. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health 2:99-110; doi:10.1007/s11869-009-0037-z.
Hubbell BJ, Hallberg A, McCubbin DR, Post E. 2004. Health-Related Benefits of Attaining the 8-Hr Ozone Standard. Environmental Health Perspectives 113:73-82; doi:10.1289/ehp.7186.
Laden F, Schwartz J, Speizer FE, Dockery DW. 2006. Reduction in fine particulate air pollution and mortality: Extended follow-up of the Harvard Six Cities study. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine 173:667-72; doi:10.1164/rccm.200503-443OC.
Levy, JI, LK Baxter, and J Schwartz. 2009. Uncertainty and Variability in Health-Related Damages from Coal-Fired Power Plants in the United States. Risk Analysis 29(7):1000-1014.
Mansfield, Carol; Paramita Sinha; Max Henrion. 2009. Influence Analysis in Support of Characterizing Uncertainty in Human Health Benefits Analysis: Final Report. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. November. Available on the internet at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/Benefits/influence_analysis_final_report_psg.pdf>.
Pope III C a. 2002. Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 287:1132-1141; doi:10.1001/jama.287.9.1132.
Roman H a, Walker KD, Walsh TL, Conner L, Richmond HM, Hubbell BJ, et al. 2008. Expert judgment assessment of the mortality impact of changes in ambient fine particulate matter in the U.S. Environmental science & technology 42: 2268-74.
Tagaris E, Liao K-J, Delucia AJ, Deck L, Amar P, Russell AG. 2009. Potential impact of climate change on air pollution-related human health effects. Environmental science & technology 43: 4979-88.
U.S. EPA. 2011. Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document: Source Sector Assessments. EPA:  Research Triangle Park, NC.
US EPA. 2009. Integrated Science Assessment for Particulate Matter (Final Report) EPA-600-R-08-139F. National Center for Environmental Assessment -- RTP Division. <http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=216546>. Accessed March 30, 2011.

US EPA. 2006. Regulatory Impact Analysis, 2006 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, Chapter 5. Available at <http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/Chapter%205--Benefits.pdf>.
US EPA. 2011. Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.