[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 72 (Thursday, April 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20971-20973]
[FR Doc No: 2011-9069]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2299-075]

Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District;
Notice of Intent To File License Application, Filing of Pre-Application
Document (PAD), Commencement of Pre-Filing Process, and Scoping;
Request for Comments on the PAD and Scoping Document, and
Identification of Issues and Associated Study Requests

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application for
a New License and Commencing Pre-filing Process.

    b. Project No.: 2299-075.
    c. Dated Filed: February 10, 2011.
    d. Submitted By: Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation
District.
    e. Name of Project: Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: The Don Pedro Project facilities are located on the
Tuolomne River in Tuolomne County, California. Portions of the Don
Pedro Project occupy lands of the Bureau of Land Management Sierra
Resource Management Unit.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Robert M. Nees, Director of Water
Resources and Regulatory Affairs, Turlock Irrigation District, P.O. Box
949, Turlock, California 95381,<PHONE_NUMBER> and Greg Dias, Project
Manager, Modesto Irrigation District, P.O. Box 4060, Modesto,
California 95352,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Jim Hastreiter at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item o below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part 402 and (b) the California State
Historic Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National
Historical Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating the Turlock Irrigation
District and Modesto Irrigation District as the Commission's non-
federal representative for carrying out informal consultation, pursuant
to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Turlock Irrigation District and Modesto Irrigation District
filed with the Commission a Pre-Application Document (PAD; including a
proposed process plan and schedule), pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the
Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
(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. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in paragraph h.
    Register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filing and issuances
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support.
    o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and
Commission's staff Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests.
All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to
the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD
and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and
all communications to and from Commission staff related to the merits
of the potential application must be filed with the Commission.
Documents may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit
brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration,
using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact information at the
end of your comments. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support. Although the Commission strongly encourages electronic filing,
documents may also be paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and
seven copies to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    All filings with the Commission must include on the first page, the
project name (Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project) and number (P-2299-075),
and bear the appropriate heading: ``Comments on Pre-Application
Document,'' ``Study Requests,'' ``Comments on Scoping Document 1,''
``Request for Cooperating Agency Status,'' or ``Communications to and
from Commission Staff.'' Any individual or entity interested in
submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency
requesting cooperating status must do so by June 10, 2011.
    p. Our current intent is to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). This meeting will satisfy the NEPA scoping
requirements.

Scoping Meetings and Environmental Site Review

    Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of
the project at the time and place noted below. The daytime meeting will
focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental
organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for
receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and
to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the
scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental
document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:

Daytime Scoping Meeting

Date and Time: Wednesday, May 11, 2011, 9 a.m. (PST)
Location: CSU-Stanislaus, University Student Union-Events Center, 801
W. Monte Vista, Turlock, California

Evening Scoping Meeting

Date and Time: Wednesday, May 11, 2011, 7 p.m. (PST)
Location: Double Tree Hotel-Modesto, Ballroom 3, 1150 Ninth Street,
Modesto, California

    Scoping Document 1 (SD1), which outlines the subject areas to be
addressed in the environmental document, was mailed to the individuals
and entities on the Commission's and Turlock Irrigation District and
Modesto Irrigation District mailing lists. Copies of SD1 will be
available at the scoping meetings, or may be viewed on the web at
http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Follow the directions
for accessing information in paragraph n. Based on all oral and written
comments, a Scoping Document 2 (SD2) may be issued. SD2 may include a
revised process plan and schedule, as well as a list of issues,
identified through the scoping process.

Environmental Site Review

Date and Time: Tuesday, May 10, 2011, 9 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (PST)
Location: meet at the Don Pedro Recreation Agency Headquarters &
Visitor Center, 10200 Bonds Flat Road, La Grange, California 95329.

    Please notify Jim Hastreiter at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by May 2, 2011, if you plan to attend the
site visit.

Meeting Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Initiate scoping of the
issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions and resource
management objectives; (3) review and discuss existing information and
identify preliminary information and study needs; (4) review and
discuss the process plan and schedule for pre-filing activity that
incorporates the time frames provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's
regulations and, to the extent possible, maximizes coordination of
federal, state, and tribal permitting and certification processes; and
(5) discuss the appropriateness of any federal or state agency or
Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for development of an
environmental document.
    Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues
and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping
meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are
included in item n. of this document.

Meeting Procedures

    The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will be placed
in the public record of the project.

    Dated: April 8, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-9069 Filed 4-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 103 (Tuesday, May 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31629-31631]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12872]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[USCG-2012-0149]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding Information Collection Requests (ICRs),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension
of its approval to the following collection of information: 1625-0095,
Oil and Hazardous Material Pollution

Prevention and Safety Records, Equivalents/Alternatives and Exemptions.
Additionally, the U.S. Coast Guard requests approval of a revision to
the following collections of information: 1625-0099, Requirements for
the Use of Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Compressed Natural Gas as
Cooking Fuel on Passenger Vessels and 1625-0103, Mandatory Ship
Reporting System for the Northeast and Southeast Coasts of the United
States. Our ICRs describe the information we seek to collect from the
public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure we only impose paperwork
burdens commensurate with our performance of duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before June
28, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2012-0149] to the Docket Management Facility (DMF) at the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and/or to OIRA. To avoid
duplicate submissions, please use only one of the following means:
    (1) Online: (a) To Coast Guard docket at http://www.regulations.gov. (b) To OIRA by email via<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: (a) DMF (M-30), DOT, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. (b) To
OIRA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503, attention Desk Officer
for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Hand Delivery: To DMF address above, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is
202-366-9329.
    (4) Fax: (a) To DMF,<PHONE_NUMBER>. (b) To OIRA at<PHONE_NUMBER>. To
ensure your comments are received in a timely manner, mark the fax,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    The DMF maintains the public docket for this Notice. Comments and
material received from the public, as well as documents mentioned in
this Notice as being available in the docket, will become part of the
docket and will be available for inspection or copying at room W12-140
on the West Building Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. You may also find the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Copies of the ICRs are available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
Commandant (CG-611), Attn: Paperwork Reduction Act Manager, U.S. Coast
Guard, 2100 2nd St. SW., Stop 7101, Washington DC 20593-7101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Kenlinishia Tyler, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>, for
questions on these documents. Contact Ms. Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>, for questions on the docket.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collections. There is
one ICR for each Collection.
    The Coast Guard invites comments on whether these ICRs should be
granted based on the Collections being necessary for the proper
performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard
would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the
Collections; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the
Collections; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
information subject to the Collections; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collections on respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology. These comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve
the ICRs referred to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG 2012-0149], and must be received by June 28,
2012. We will post all comments received, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov. They will include any personal information you
provide. We have an agreement with DOT to use their DMF. Please see the
``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number [USCG-
2012-0149], indicate the specific section of the document to which each
comment applies, providing a reason for each comment. You may submit
your comments and material online (via http://www.regulations.gov), by
fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. If
you submit a comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the DMF. We recommend you include your name, mailing
address, an email address, or other contact information in the body of
your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding
your submission.
    You may submit comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the DMF at the address under ADDRESSES, but please
submit them by only one means. To submit your comment online, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, and type ``USCG-2012-0149'' in the
``Keyword'' box. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery,
submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches,
suitable for copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by
mail and would like to know that they reached the Facility, please
enclose a stamped, self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will
consider all comments and material received during the comment period
and will address them accordingly.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this Notice as
being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, click
on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted in
blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2012-0149'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the DMF in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Numbers: 1625-0095, 1625-0099 and 1625-0103.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received in
dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act statement
regarding Coast Guard public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of
the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (77 FR 16044, March 19, 2012)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.

Information Collection Requests

    1. Title: Oil and Hazardous Material Pollution Prevention and
Safety Records, Equivalents/Alternatives and Exemptions.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0095.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of bulk oil and hazardous
materials facilities and vessels.
    Abstract: The information is used by the Coast Guard to ensure that
an oil or hazardous material requirement alternative or exemption
provides an equivalent level of safety and protection from pollution.
    Forms: None.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden remains 1,440 hours a year.
    2. Title: Requirements for the Use of Liquefied Petroleum Gas and
Compressed Natural Gas as Cooking Fuel on Passenger Vessels.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0099.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Owners and operators of passenger vessels.
    Abstract: The collection of information requires passenger vessels
to post two placards that contain safety and operating instructions on
the use of cooking appliances that use liquefied gas or compressed
natural gas.
    Forms: None.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has increased from 5,288
hours to 5,948 hours a year.
    3. Title: Mandatory Ship Reporting System for the Northeast and
Southeast Coasts of the United States.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0103.
    Type of Request: Revision of a currently approved collection.
    Respondents: Operators of certain vessels.
    Abstract: The information is needed to reduce the number of ship
collisions with endangered northern right whales. Coast Guard rules at
33 CFR part 169 establish two mandatory ship-reporting systems off the
northeast and southeast coasts of the United States.
    Forms: None.
    Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 211 hours
to 200 hours a year.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended.

    Dated: May 21, 2012.
R.E. Day,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Assistant Commandant for Command,
Control, Communications, Computers and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2012-12872 Filed 5-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


Data on sales and employees are missing for two of the 48 companies.  An analysis was done to determine the potential impact on these companies if they were small.  The median sales for small companies with sales data is $52 million.  If this figure represented the sales for the companies without sales data, the impact would be below 1% of sales.  The overall sales of the two companies would need to be less than $600,000 each in order for price impacts to be near or exceed 1% of sales.  This value is 50% below the sales of the company with the lowest sales.  The same is true for the single company identified as small with employment data but lacking sales data.  Finally, none of the companies without data manufacture any of the chemicals for which the cost impact of the testing exceeds 1% of the sales of the chemicals. – BENEFITS

Benefits derived from a regulation can be interpreted as the value of the advantages that result from implementation of the rule.  Regulations under Section 4 of TSCA require the testing of specified chemicals to provide information on the effects of those chemicals on human health and the environment.  The final rule is no exception.  The final rule targets chemicals for which basic toxicological (hazard) information is unavailable despite their high level of production.  The benefits of the testing requirements derive from the development of a basic set of hazard information on these chemicals and from its provision to and use by the public, industry, and government.

The final rule can be viewed as a necessary correction of the failure of a market to independently provide a socially optimal level of hazard knowledge.  The information developed as a result of the rule will be made publicly available and will increase scientific understanding of the health and environmental effects of a number of chemicals to which individuals and the environment are exposed.  A wide range of groups is expected to benefit from the availability of this information, including consumers, workers, scientists, industry representatives, government organizations, public health officials, the medical community, and foreign interests.

The toxicological information provided by this rule may also enable users to make better-informed decisions about where to work and live and what chemicals to use.  The use of this information will help address externalities that occur because hazard information is lacking.

The current economics literature on the theoretical value of information can be traced to Arrow (1962) who argues that the value of information is inextricably tied to its expected future use.  Therefore, to understand the value of toxicity data from the final test rule, and, thus, the benefits of the rule, it is necessary to understand the users and the expected use of the hazard information to be generated.

Potential Users of Chemical-Specific Information

Numerous databases and sources contain toxicological information.  A few examples of these sources include the Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB), Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS), Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), the Toxic Substances Control Act Test Submissions (TSCATS), and TOXicology information onLINE (TOXLINE).  These databases provide a variety of toxicological information in the form of study abstracts, information on effects, and more comprehensive information combining hazard and exposure information to provide risk information (e.g., IRIS).  A wide community extensively uses the databases.

The National Library of Medicine (NLM) houses TOXLINE, a bibliographic database that includes the toxicological effects of drugs and other chemicals.  Users can access TOXLINE through the Internet.  NLM estimates that a single month’s access to the database (November, 2003) consisted of 80,962 searches via the Internet (Hudson, 2003).  Usage of another database housed by NLM, the HSDB, suggests the breadth of users of toxicologic information in 1998 (see Table 5-1) (Hudson, 1998).  According to the NLM, however, this information is no longer allowed to be released, though they stated that current HSDB usage is similar to the distribution of users found in 1998.

Table 5-1

Distribution of the Users of the HSDB Database through the National Library of Medicine for October 1998

User Category	Percentage of Use

Industry	41%

Healthcare	8%

Foreign	7%

Government	10%

Education	2%

State	5%

Library User	8%

Other	19%

Source: Hudson, Vera.  National Library of Medicine.  Personal communication with Lynne Blake-Hedges, USEPA.  November 1998.

In addition, the distribution of TSCATS user accounts purchased through the vendor, Chemical Information System (CAS) supports that the users of toxicological data are diverse.  In 1998, CAS suggested that 6 percent of account holders were government, 38 percent were the private sector, 4 percent were academic organizations, 40 percent were foreign interests, and 11 percent were nonsubscribers (estimates may not add due to rounding) (Hoffman, 1998).  Since then, these data are no longer tracked by CAS.  However, they do track the subscribers and non-subscribers to whom CAS supplies copies of toxicological studies cited in the TSCATS database.  CAS supplies approximately 38 percent of the copies to U.S. industrial entities, 27 percent to U.S. non-industrial entities, 19 percent to non-U.S. governments, 7 percent to US consultants, and 11 percent to international consultants (Earle, 2003).

Potential Uses of Toxicologic Information Generated by the Final Rule

 Consumers/Buyers

Economic theory maintains that competitive markets provide goods and services to the extent that the marginal benefit of the good or service to consumers is greater than or equal to the marginal cost of production.  Underlying this conclusion are two assumptions: both consumers and producers have perfect information, and the cost of conducting a market transaction is negligible.  The need for chemical testing information stems from the fact that, in some cases, neither producers nor consumers have perfect information regarding the hazards associated with certain chemicals.  If basic information on chemical hazards were known, consumers may alter the amount they would be willing to pay for the chemical.  Therefore, in the absence of complete information, the private market may be misallocating resources to the production of the chemical substance.

Thus, one advantage of mandatory testing and dissemination of test results is that consumers can make better choices about products containing chemicals if they are better aware of the potential hazards.  Consumers can respond to additional information by changing their purchasing decisions (i.e., increasing or decreasing consumption, as appropriate); by reducing the amount they are willing to pay for the product; or by changing the way they handle, store, use, or dispose of the product.  This may move the market toward a more efficient allocation of resources.  Thus, the role of toxicity information in resolving uncertainties can be particularly valuable.

Workers

Hazard information can play a role in guiding workers’ employment decisions and work practices.  If workers are aware of workplace hazards (e.g., the hazard associated with chemical substances to which they are exposed), they may choose not to work at a particular facility.  If they decide to work there, informed workers can make better decisions about what precautions, if any, should be taken to reduce their exposure to that chemical.  These precautions may include taking proper care while handling and using certain chemicals or wearing protective clothing.  Alternatively, a worker may seek a wage premium to compensate for increased workplace risk.  Viscusi and O’Connor (1984) conclude that the value of new information to the worker can be measured by the increase in the wage premium (differential) as a greater understanding of workplace risk is gained.  Thus, workers can seek a risk premium or take averting actions to protect themselves if information is available about the health effects of the chemicals they come into contact with at work.  EPA expects the potential benefits to be large for chemicals on the final rule since they are manufactured and processed in large volumes.

Science and Health Communities

Chemical toxicity information is useful to a variety of scientific and health communities.  For example, medical professionals are concerned about the health of patients exposed to chemicals, poison control centers distribute information on toxicity and treatment associated with poisoning, and scientists use toxicity information to characterize the effects of chemicals and to assess risks of chemical exposure.  The literature includes specific examples where toxicity data have been summarized and interpreted.  Kapp et al. (1996) summarize the results of TSCA Section 4 test rule studies for Isopropanol.  Other examples include Glickman et al. (1995) who report the results of aquatic toxicity studies for Cumene (Isopropyl Benzene), and Bogdanffy et al. (1990) who present results of subchronic inhalation tests for Vinyl Fluoride.

In addition, several published studies also rely on information from the RTECs database.  RTECS is a database of toxicological information compiled, maintained, and updated by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).  Numerous vendors currently offer access to the database.  RTECS currently covers more than 152,000 chemicals and provides data on mutagenic effects, reproductive effects, tumorgenic effects, and acute toxicity effects, for example (NIOSH, 2005).  Examples of published scientific literature using this particular database include Ruder et al. (1990) and Jones et al. (1998).  The former study uses toxicity data available from the RTECS database to compute national estimates of occupational exposure to animal bladder tumorigens, while the latter study uses toxicological data from the RTECs database to compute relative potency factors for chemical compounds associated with increased risk of atherosclerosis to humans.

The test results generated by the final rule are also expected to be used by scientists to increase the understanding of the health and environmental effects of these chemicals to which people may be exposed in the places where they live, work, study, and play.

The General Public

In addition to its impact on consumers of chemicals or products, the production or use of a chemical substance may impose external costs on society in the form of increased health risks to the general public and increased risks to the physical environment.  If these external costs are known, individuals can take averting actions to protect themselves.  However, if the existence of such externalities is unknown to the public, inefficiencies in the production and consumption of the chemical substance will persist.

The final test rule is valuable because the health and environmental data it generates provide a better understanding of the external costs involved in the production and use of chemical substances.  Because the information will be made publicly available, the general public is then empowered to help address the market failure through individual actions they may take to protect themselves from exposure to the chemical substance (averting behaviors) or activities designed to pressure firms or governments to reduce the externalities associated with production (e.g., lobbying activities).

One can expect that if reliable test data are disseminated to the public, community and public interest groups can initiate a dialogue with the manufacturers of hazardous chemicals and encourage them to improve their safety measures and assess their environmental management plans.

Firms and their Shareholders

As noted earlier, industry is an important user of chemical hazard information.  Such information is used to understand better the handling and safety of chemicals, develop emergency preparedness plans, follow principles of Responsible Care®, and competitively participate in today’s chemical market.

The American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) Responsible Care® Initiative includes as guiding principles the following:

	“To make health, safety, the environment, and resource conservation critical considerations for all new and existing products and processes;

	To work with customers, carriers, suppliers, distributors, and contractors to foster the safe use, transport, and disposal of chemicals; and

	To support education and research on the health, safety, and environmental effects of our products and processes” (American Chemistry Council, 2005).

Consideration of these principles supports the need for toxicologic information on chemical products used and manufactured by this industry.  The Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology (CIIT), a research institute sponsored by ACC, government, and industry, notes that chemical research has helped companies ensure safety in manufacturing, use, and disposal of chemicals (Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology, 2001, 1998).  Thus, companies are more likely to avoid potential liability concerns from inappropriate handling of chemicals.  Similar advantages are expected from the information developed as a result of the final rule.

Data generated as a result of the final rule are also expected to be sufficient for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Screening Information Data Set (SIDS) program.  Data meeting the requirements of the SIDS program can be used to develop initial assessments of chemicals that are shared worldwide.  Because this information is shared, companies may avoid duplicative efforts to meet the requirements of other countries where they may also manufacture and sell certain chemicals.  This could lead to cost savings for companies that operate internationally.

Corporate shareholders also benefit from the data developed in the rule.  Basic microeconomic theory assumes that the primary objective of any firm, whether privately or publicly held, is to maximize profits.  When a firm is incorporated and its shares are traded on the stock market, maximizing a firm’s profits is analogous to maximizing shareholder value.  There are a number of ways in which the provision of information regarding the production practices and output of a firm can affect shareholder value.  First, production processes and output that result in adverse consequences to human health and the environment may eventually result in substantial liabilities to the firm.  Therefore, any new information regarding potential threats to human health or the environment may cause investors to re-evaluate the potential future liabilities (and hence profitability) of a firm.  Second, when an investor who prefers providing capital to environmentally benign companies discovers that a firm’s use of toxics is inconsistent with his or her preferences, he or she may move their investment funds toward other more environmentally friendly firms.

There is a growing body of empirical literature evaluating the effects of environmental information disclosures on firms and their shareholders.  In an effort to estimate the economic cost of hazardous waste mismanagement, Muoghalu and Rogers (1992) modeled the effect of Superfund lawsuit announcements on firms’ stock values.  The authors estimated that stock values dropped an average of $30.7 million when news of a new Superfund lawsuit was made public.  Blacconiere and Patten (1994) examined the effect of the 1984 Union Carbide chemical leak in Bhopal, India, on other chemical firms’ stock prices.  They found that firms in which chemical operations made up a larger portion of total revenue experienced greater losses in stock value immediately following the leak.

Thus, some evidence suggests that investors respond to new information regarding a firm’s potential environmental liabilities by reassessing the value of the firm’s stock.  If test results are disseminated to the public, shareholders can better consider the importance placed on the firm’s manufacture or use of particular chemicals and may encourage the firm to address shareholder concerns regarding chemical production and use to avoid potential losses in the capital markets.  It is clear that, while beneficial to shareholders, this information may also cost the company if share values drop.  These costs would offset some of the benefits to shareholders.

Government

The information developed in response to the final rule will benefit society by reducing cost and improving the quality of government decision and policy making.  EPA itself is a user of TSCA Section 4 test results in three primary ways.  First, EPA can use the chemical-specific information acquired through a test rule to help identify hazards of concern and to screen and prioritize regulatory activities, including identifying areas where regulatory intervention is not required.  Second, EPA can serve its "clients" by providing these test results to other agencies within the Federal government as well as to public agencies at other levels of government.  Finally, EPA can use information reporting rules as an alternative to other forms of regulation.  Each of these uses is discussed below.

Support EPA Regulatory Activities.  When developing risk management strategies, EPA must decide whether or not to regulate the use of a chemical substance or mixture to protect society.  Basic toxicity data are not available for many chemicals, but exposure controls have no environmental value if these chemicals are not a concern.  The lack of data on health and environmental effects can affect sound decision-making by government and others (Wehmeier, 2001). Regulating most certainly involves costs to both EPA (e.g., resources required to develop, promulgate, and enforce a regulation) and to society at large (e.g., foregone benefits derived from the use of the chemical substance, resources diverted from other uses).  Although not regulating avoids these costs, society will face a welfare loss if the chemical turns out to harm human health and the environment.

Taylor et al (1993) considered the value of test information in supporting decisions about the control of chemicals whose cancer potency is untested or unknown.  While not specifically addressing the value of the basic toxicity testing data required by this final rule, their results suggest there is value to (cancer) testing information, particularly at intermediate levels of anticipated human exposure to a chemical.  The authors contend that information (from cancer testing) may be less valuable where very high levels of exposure are expected because no test can perfectly distinguish carcinogens from noncarcinogens.

In the EPA context, the probability that a chemical poses a risk depends on the chemical’s toxicological properties, exposure pathways, dose-response relationships, and other factors.  Testing rules help resolve some of these uncertainties.  Thus, test information can help EPA decision makers avoid over-regulating a relatively safe chemical and under-regulating a risky chemical.

Provide Information to Other Government Agencies.  Under TSCA Section 4, EPA has the authority to require firms to conduct tests of specific chemicals to determine the potential risk posed by these substances.  However, other governmental agencies, such as the FDA, CPSC, NIOSH, and OSHA, share regulatory authority over chemical substances or products containing them, or, in the case of NIOSH, compile summaries of available information and recommend exposure limits.  Therefore, EPA serves as a conduit for chemical hazard information between the chemical producers and these other agencies.  In addition to providing chemical test results to other Federal agencies, EPA may make this information available to other interested parties such as State, local, and tribal government agencies, which can use the data to inform their own decision making.

The toxicity data developed as a result of the test rule is also expected to save other countries expense of collecting and interpreting toxicological data.  At the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992, delegates adopted Agenda 21 of Chapter 19, which discusses chemical safety and includes program areas.  One program area is international assessments of chemical risks, part of which includes the assessment of chemical hazards.  The International Forum on Chemical Safety (IFCS) was formed in 1994 and has developed priorities for action in the implementation of Agenda 21.  These include recognition of the activities sponsored by the OECD in the area of chemical management and encouragement of the use of the OECD as a means to carry out activities on chemical safety (IFCS, 1998).  Data developed as a result of the final rule will be sufficient for the development of initial assessments of chemicals under OECD’s SIDS program.  Thus, other countries will benefit from the development of these data and can use the data without having to independently develop the information.  Such information exchange will result in cost savings to other countries and will enable their governments to more effectively manage chemicals for safety as adopted under Agenda 21.

Information Provision as an Alternative to Traditional Regulation.  Publicly disclosing TSCA Section 4 chemical test results also provides an alternative to traditional regulation.  As described above, the provision of chemical pollution and hazard information can be used to, among other things, empower individuals to take actions that they deem appropriate in response to chemical risks.  In addition to fulfilling democratic notions of "right-to-know" information, regulations provide a low-cost avenue for pollution and hazard control when the regulatory resources are scarce due to the large number of substances to be controlled (Tietenberg, 1998).

Summary

Clearly numerous people use toxicological data.  It is expected that the same people and organizations that currently use toxicological data will use the data developed as a result of the final test rule.

The basic toxicity information generated by this final rule will also provide a better understanding of the effects related to many chemicals that are produced in high volumes and to which there may be exposure to humans and/or the environment.  Scientists can use this information to further refine the understanding of the risks posed by these chemicals.  Consumers of the chemicals will have a better understanding of the hazards associated with the chemicals they are using and can, thus, make more informed choices about the use of the chemical.  Companies benefit because they can promote the safe use, manufacture, and disposal of chemicals and meet Responsible Care Initiative® requirements.  EPA itself can use the test results to guide future regulations.  Finally, other regulatory authorities can use this information, in conjunction with exposure-related information to identify and prioritize risks and to target monitoring efforts. – OTHER IMPACT ANALYSES

Several statutes and Executive Orders pertain to the final test rule.  This chapter presents statements discussing unfunded mandates, environmental justice, children’s health, and paperwork burden.

Unfunded Mandates Statement

Federal agencies are required to assess the effects of Federal regulations on State, local, or tribal governments, and on the private sector under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA).  In particular, UMRA requires that agencies prepare a written statement to accompany any rulemaking that "includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more (annually adjusted for inflation) in any one year" (Section 202(a)).  The written impact statement under Section 202 must include (1) an identification of the statutory authority; (2) an assessment of the benefits and costs of the rule; and (3) a description of the agency’s consultation with State, local, and tribal government officials during the development of the rule.

EPA estimates that the final rule will not cost the private or public sectors $100 million or more in any one year.  As shown in Chapter 3, the maximum total cost incurred by the private sector in complying with the final rule and associated requirements triggered by the rule is approximately $3.90 million (average cost scenario).  This includes laboratory and administrative costs, as well as the cost of export notifications under the average cost scenario.  Assuming a 7 percent discount rate and a 15-year amortization period, the maximum annualized compliance cost for industry is approximately $0.43 million per year (average cost scenario).  Government cost, annualized using similar assumptions, is estimated to equal $4,300 per year.

Furthermore, because the final rule is focused on manufacturers and importers of chemicals, EPA does not believe that it imposes costs on any non-Federal governmental entity, or on State, local, and tribal governments.  Moreover, while it does not impose costs on State, local, and tribal governments, the final rule can be of value to these agencies.  As explained in Chapter 5, if EPA makes the test data collected as a result of the final rule publicly available, then other governmental agencies can use the data to inform their own regulations and decision making.

Executive Order 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR 58093, Oct. 28, 1993), requires Federal agencies to determine whether certain regulatory actions create unfunded Federal mandates on State, local, or tribal governments.  Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (63 FR 27655, May 19, 1998), requires Federal agencies to determine whether certain regulatory actions significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments.

EPA’s determination under UMRA and Executive Orders 12875 and 13084 that no State, local, or tribal governments would be affected by this final rule is based on a search conducted in March 1999 of past submissions to EPA.  This search demonstrated that State, local, or tribal governments have never submitted letters of intent to test, exemption applications, or export notifications to EPA.

Environmental Justice Statement

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, requires each agency to address and identify “....disproportionally high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations....” (59FR 7629; Section 1.1).

The final rule is directed at 19 chemicals listed on the final rule for which basic toxicity information is currently unavailable even though they are widely used in commerce.  All consumers of these chemical products and all workers who come into contact with these chemicals could potentially benefit if data regarding the chemicals’ health and environmental effects were developed.  Therefore, it does not appear that the costs and the benefits of the final rule will be disproportionately distributed across different geographic regions or among different categories of individuals.

Children’s Health Statement

Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, requires that Federal agencies examine the impacts of each regulatory action on children for any economically significant regulation (as defined by Executive Order 12866) that the agency has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children.  Although the final  rule is not subject to the Executive Order, for the reasons described in the rule, the information obtained by the testing in this rule will be used to inform the Agency’s decision making process regarding chemicals to which children may be disproportionately exposed.  This information will also assist the Agency and others in evaluating these chemical substances for potential health or safety risk concerns, and will serve to further the Agency’s goal of identifying and controlling human and environmental risks as well as provide greater protection and knowledge to the public.

Burden Hour Estimate

The Paperwork Reduction Act mandates that Federal agencies estimate the record keeping and reporting burden of a rule.  In this context, the term "burden" is interpreted as the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by people to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.  This includes the time needed by regulated entities to review instructions and to develop, acquire, install, and use technology and systems to collect, validate, verify, and disclose information.  Time taken to adjust existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements and to train personnel to respond to the information collection task is also included.  In this section, burden hours for both the industry respondents and the government are estimated.

Industry Burden

In this report, total industry burden hours represent the sum of time spent on reporting and on other administrative activities.  Industry respondents will spend time on reporting activities associated with TSCA Section 4 test rules:  preparing letters of intent and study plans, preparing test results for submission to EPA, recording test results, preparing laboratory reviews, preparing corporate reviews, conducting associated clerical work for final report preparation, conducting record keeping activities, and applying for exemptions.  Under this rule, respondents are also asked to submit robust summaries on a voluntary basis.  In addition to the reporting burden, respondents will spend additional time on other administrative activities such as soliciting laboratory bids, comparing standard laboratory fee schedules, developing cost-sharing agreements, and preparing for and overseeing the testing program.  The procedure for estimating the total industry burden follows.

Reporting Burden.  As shown in Section 3.1.3 of this report, EPA estimates that approximately 15 panels will submit letters of intent and study plans resulting in 98 final reports.  EPA also assumes that it will receive five exemption applications per panel, resulting in a total of 75 requests pursuant to the final rule.  Additionally, it is estimated that 10% of final test reports will be accompanied by a robust summary of results.  It is estimated that it takes a respondent 40 hours to prepare a letter of intent and study plan, 73 hours to write a final report for a short-term study, 12 hours to prepare a robust summary, and 2 hours to prepare an exemption application.  The unit labor hours are derived from the previous information collection requests and are believed to reflect the burden that will be incurred for the final rule.  The reporting burden estimates for this rule are detailed in Table 6-1.  The total reporting burden generated by the rule is estimated to be approximately 8,351 hours.

Table 6-1

Reporting Burden Estimate for the Final Rule

Item	Hours Per Item	Total Items	Total Hours

Letter of Intent and Study Plans	40	15	600

Final Reports	73	98	7,154

Robust Summaries	12	19	228

Exemption Requests	2	75	150

Total	8,132

Other Administrative Burden.  Respondents also spend time on other administrative activities including development of cost-sharing agreements, organization of a testing program, obtaining and reviewing bids from laboratories that would conduct the testing, and preparing and submitting samples to the laboratory for testing, and monitoring testing.  EPA has calculated the costs and burdens of these activities as 25% of the total laboratory testing costs discussed in Section 3.1.1.  Based on this calculation, other administrative costs associated with laboratory testing are estimated to cost approximately $503,000 ($651,000) under the least (average) cost assumption.  These costs are translated into burden estimates using an average labor cost of $51.27 per hour, which is based on a labor mix that is 20 percent managerial, 60 percent technical, and 20 percent clerical.  The estimated administrative burden based on this approach is 9,819 (12,698) hours under the least (average) cost assumption.

Estimate Export Notification Burden.  As explained in Section 3.1.4, EPA expects 25 export notifications to be filed for each chemical included in the final rule.  This analysis assumes that the export notification burden ranges from 0.5 hours to 1.5 hours per notice.  Thus, this report assumes that export notification requires 0.5 hours per notice under the least cost scenario and one hour per notice under the average cost scenario.  Consequently, the export notification burden triggered by the final rule is estimated to equal 238 hours (475 hours) under the least (average) cost scenario.

Estimate Total Industry Burden.  The total industry burden is the sum of the total administrative burden and the export notification burden.  Total industry burden estimates are summarized in Table 6-2.  The total industry burden is estimated to equal 18,189 hours (23,439 hours) in the least (average) cost scenario.    The average burden per panel is estimated to be 1,267 (1,496) hours in the least (average) cost scenario.

Table 6-2

Total Industry Burden Hour Estimate for the Final Rule

Activity	Least Cost Scenario

(Hours)	Average Cost Scenario

(Hours)

Reporting Activities	8,132	8,132

Other Administrative Activities	9,819	12,698

Total Administrative Burden	17,951	20,830

Export Notification Burden	238	475

Total Industry Burden	18,189	21,305

Burden Per Panel (15 panels)1	1,213	1,420

Notes

1 The per panel cost assumes that the export notification burden is distributed evenly across all panels.

Government Burden

The government will also spend time processing, reviewing, and analyzing the information that will be collected under the final test rule.  As explained in Section 3.2, this work is assumed to be performed by a GS-12, Step 1, FTE employee.

It is further assumed that 15 letters of intent and study plans, 98 final reports, 19 robust summaries, and 75 exemption requests will be filed in response to this rule.  The estimated unit government burden for processing letters of intent and study plans (3 hours), final reports (5 hours), and robust summaries and exemption applications (1 hour each) is derived from the previous information collection requests.  Table 6-3 presents the estimated government burden hours based on these assumptions.  The total government burden is estimated to equal 629 hours.

Table 6-3

Estimated Government Burden for the Final Test Rule

Item	Hours Per Item	Total Items	Total Hours

Letter of Intent and Study Plans	3	15	45

Final Reports	5	98	490

Robust Summaries	1	19	19

Exemption Requests	1	75	75

Total	207	629

REFERENCES

American Chemical Society.  Chemical Abstracts Service.  <  HYPERLINK "http://www.cas.org"  http://www.cas.org >.

American Chemistry Council.  2006a.  Responsible Care Guiding Principles.

	 < HYPERLINK "../../Local Settings/Temp/notesFCBCEE/%3chttp:/www.american" HYPERLINK <http://www.american http://www.american chemistry.com/rc.nsf/unid/nnar-4ctqzm?opendocument>.

American Chemistry Council.  2006b.  Guide to the Business of Chemistry.

Arrow, K. J. 1962.  “Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention.” In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors. Princeton, NJ: National Bureau for Economic Research Conference.

Blacconiere, W. G., and D. M. Patten.  1994.  “Environmental Disclosures, Regulatory Costs, and Changes in Firm Value.”  Journal of Accounting and Economics 18:357-377.

Blake-Hedges, Lynne.  1999.  “Treatment of 12(b) Export Notification Unit Costs for Section 4	Test Rule Analyses”, memorandum to EPAB staff. April 1, 1999.

Bogdanffy, M. S., C. R. Kee, D. P. Kelly, M. C. Carakostas, and G. P. Sykes.  1990.  “Subchronic Inhalation Study with Vinyl Fluoride: Effects on Hepatic Cell Proliferation and Urinary Fluorise Excretion.”  Fundamental Applied Toxicology 15(2): 394-406.

Brealey, R., and S. Meyers.  1996.  Principles of Corporate Finance.  5th Edition.  Mc-Graw Hill.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).  2006a.  Employer Costs for Employee Compensation: Changes to NAICS and SOC, Table. Series ID CCU120000111000D, CCU120000111000p.  Wages and Salaries; Private Goods Producing; Executive, Administrative, and managerial; Professional Specialty and technical occupations; and Administrative support, including clerical workers.  < HYPERLINK "../../Local Settings/Temp/notesFCBCEE/%3chttp:/www.bls.gov%3e." HYPERLINK <http://www.bls.gov>. http://www.bls.gov>.

Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).  2006b.  Employment Cost Index.  Series ID ECS12002I. Private Industry, Total Compensation, Goods-producing industries. 2nd Quarter.  <  HYPERLINK "http://www.bls.gov>."  http://www.bls.gov>.

Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology.  1998.  Business Impact from CIIT.  <www.ciit.org/busimp/busimp.html>.

Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology.  2001.  “2001 Annual Report. CIIT Centers for Health Research.  25 Years of Excellence in Science.”   <http://www.ciit.org/about/pdfs/2001CIITAnnualReport.pdf>.

Chemical Market Reporter.  November, 2006.  Chemical Market Reporter online 	catalog.  	<www.chemicalmarketreporter.com>.

Colour Index International Online.

<  HYPERLINK "http://www.colour-index.org/content/fingerprint.asp?cino=3928"  http://www.colour-index.org/content/fingerprint.asp?cino=3928 >.

D’Ruiz, C. and B. J. Riordan.  September 23, 1988.  Review of Economic Impact Methodology Applied to TSCA Section 4 Test Rules.  Prepared under USEPA Contract No.  68-02-4235.

Dun & Bradstreet.  2007.  Dun’s Market Identifier Database [computer file].  New York, NY: Dialog  Corporation.

Earle, B.  December 2, 2003.  Chemical Information System.  Personal communication 	with Jason Sacks, Abt Associates.

Fischer Chemical Company.  2006.  Fischer Chemical Company online catalog.

	<https:// www.fishersci.com>.

Glickman, A. H., H. C. Alexander, R. J. Buccafusco, C. R. Morris, B. O. Francis, D. C. Surprenant, and T. J. Ward.  1995.  “An Evaluation of the Aquatic Hazard of Cumene.”  Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 31(3): 287-289.

Hoffman, M. A., Chemical Information System.  November 12, 1998.  Personal communication with Brooks Depro, Research Triangle Institute.  Distribution of TSCATS users.

Hudson, V., National Library of Medicine.  November 1998.  Personal communication with Lynne Blake-Hedges, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Distribution of HSDB users.

Hudson, V., National Library of Medicine.  December 2003.  Personal communication with Jason Sacks, Abt Associates, Inc.  Distribution of HSDB users.

International Forum on Chemical Safety.  1998.  Resolution on Priorities for Action in Implementing Environmentally Sound Management of Chemicals.  Intergovernmental Forum on Chemical Safety.  <http://www.who.int/ifes/fs_res2.htm>.

Jones, T. D., M. D. Morris, and S. R. Basavaraju.  1998.  “Atherosclerotic Risks from Chemicals: Part II.  A RASH Analysis of In Vitro and In Vivo Bioassay Data to Evaluate 45 Potentially Hazardous Compounds.”  Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 35(1):165-177.

Kapp, R. W., C. Bevan, T. H. Gardiner, M. I. Banton, T. R. Tyler, and G. A. Wright.  1996. “Isopropanol: Summary of TSCA Test Rule Studies and Relevance to Hazard Identification.”  Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 23(3): 183-92.

Meylan, W.M. and P.H. Howard.  1992.  “Atom/Fragment Contribution Method for Estimating Octanol-Water Partition Coefficients).”  Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 84(1): 83-92.

Meylan, W.M, Howard, P.H., and R.S. Boethling.  1996.  “Improved Method for Estimating Water Solubility From Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient.”  Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 15(2): 100-106.

Muoghalu, M. and J. E. Rogers.  1992.  “The Economic Impact of Superfund’s Litigation on the Value of the Firm:  An Empirical Analysis.”  Journal of Economics and Finance 16(3): 73-87.

National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.  2005.  “Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances (RTECS).”  <http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/rtecs.html>.  Last updated January 2001.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) WebBook.

	< http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/>.

Office of Management and Budget.  2003.  Circular A-4.  Washington, DC.  <http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.html>.

Office of Personnel Management.  2007.  “2007 General Schedule Locality Rates of Pay 	for Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV.”  Effective January 2007. 	<http://www.opm.gov/oca/03tables/pdf/DCB.pdf>.

Ogunniyi, D.S. 2006.  “Castor oil: A vital industrial raw material”, Bioresource Technology 97 (2006), pp. 1086-1091.

Rice, C.  June 10, 2002.  Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release 	Inventory Program.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Roquette, “Sodium Erythorbate in photographic applications, available at <  HYPERLINK "http://roquette.fr/fr/bibliotheque/Erythorbate.pdf"  http://roquette.fr/fr/bibliotheque/Erythorbate.pdf >.

Roquette, Food Business Unit Newsletter, Number 8, June 2000.  <  HYPERLINK "http://www.esters-cationic-anionic-ethers-starches.com/fr/Qnews/pub/act ualites/foodnews08-2000-10-13-15-25-53.PDF"  http://www.esters-cationic-anionic-ethers-starches.com/fr/Qnews/pub/actu alites/foodnews08-2000-10-13-15-25-53.PDF >.

Ruder, A. M., L. J. Fine, and D. S. Sundin.  1990.  “National Estimates of Occupational Exposure to Animal Bladder Tumorigens.”  Journal of Occupational Medicine 32(9): 797-805.

Schall, L., and C. Haley.  1991.  Introduction to Financial Management.  6th Edition.

Scorecard: the Pollution Information Site. <www.scorecard.org>.

Sigma-Aldrich Company.  November, 2006.  Sigma-Aldrich online catalog. <www.sigma-aldrich.com>.

Silagi, W.  June 1992.  Economic Analysis in Support of the Final Rule Promulgated under 	TSCA Section 12(b).  Washington, DC:  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office 	of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Regulatory Impacts Branch.

Specialty Chemicals Electronic Sourcebook. September, 2003.  Compiled by Michael and Irene Ash.  Synapse Information Resources, Inc.

Spectrum Quality Products Inc.  November, 2006.  Spectrum Online Catalog.   <www.spectrumchemical.com>.

Taylor, A. C., J. S. Evans and T. E. McKone.  1993.  “The Value of Animal Test Information in Environmental Control Decisions.” Risk Analysis 13(4):403-412.

Tietenberg, T.  1998.  “Disclosure Strategies for Pollution Control.”  Environmental and Resource Economics 11:587-602.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  1992.  Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs), Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  2000.  Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses.  EPA 240-R-00-003.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  EPAB 2002.  Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report, August 2002.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Public website Inventory Update Reporting Rule Data. <http://www.epa.gov/oppt/iur/tools/data/index.htm>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  2004a.  EPA TSCA Export Notification Tracking System (ENTS), March.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  2004b.  Analysis of Laboratory Capacity to Support U.S. EPA Chemical Testing Program Initiatives.  Washington, DC: Economics and Policy Analysis Branch.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  2006.  Inventory Update Rule Chemical

	ProductionVolume Data - Confidential Business Information.  Washington, DC.  2006.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  2007.  Administrative Costs Associated with TSCA Test Rules and Voluntary Chemical Testing; Industry Response to Interview Questions, January 2007.

U.S. International Trade Commission.  1996.  Synthetic Organic Chemicals, United States 	Production and Sales, 1994. [computer file].  Washington, DC:  U.S. International Trade	Commission.

U.S. National Library of Medicine.  2006. ChemIDplus Lite.

	<   HYPERLINK "http://chem.sis.nlm.nih.gov/chemidplus/chemidlite.jsp"  http://chem.sis.nlm.nih.gov/chemidplus/chemidlite.jsp >.

U.S. National Library of Medicine.  2006. Hazardous Substances Databank.

	< http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?HSDB>.

U.S. Postal Service.  2006.  Mailing and postage rates. <http://www.usps.com>.

U.S. Small Business Administration.  2004.  Table of Small Business Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes.  Effective January 28, 2004.

Van Horne, J. C. and J. M. Wachowicz, Jr.  1997.  Fundamentals of Financial Management.  8th Edition.  Prentice-Hall.

Viscusi, W. K. and C. J. O’Connor.  1984.  “Adaptive Responses to Chemical Labeling: Are Workers Bayesian Decision Makers?” American Economic Review. 74(5): 942-956.

Wehmeir, Helge.  2001.  As quoted in “CIIT and LRI will Help Close ‘Knowledge Gap’”.  Centers for Health Research. <http://www.ciit.org/news_events/news_01/release2001_10_12.htm>.

Weinstein, Harriet G and Mark A. Loewenstein.  2004.  “Comparing Current and Former Industry and Occupation ECEC Series.”  U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

< http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20040823ar01p1.htm>.

APPENDIX A – WAGE RATE CALCULATIONS

This appendix describes the derivation of the fully loaded labor rates and inflation factors used in calculating costs of labor, materials, and other inputs. All cost estimates are presented in 2006 dollars.

A.1.	Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates

The fully loaded unit labor cost for technical, managerial and clerical labor in the regulated industry and for EPA staff is estimated by adding fringe benefits and overhead costs to the hourly wage or annual salary for each category following the method described in Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (Rice, 2002).  This appendix describes the method employed to estimate the fully loaded unit labor costs for each labor category, and presents the results of the analysis.

Labor categories used in the analysis correspond to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system.  In March 2004, BLS began using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) instead of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) System, and the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system instead of the Occupational Classification System (OCS).  Table A.1 summarizes the crosswalk between old and new occupational titles, and lists the SOC titles that correspond to the managerial, technical, and clerical labor categories used in this analysis.

Table A.1

Detail of Labor Categories Used in the Analysis

Labor Category Used in the Analysis	BLS Old Title (OCS)	BLS New Title (SOC)

Managerial	Executive, administrative, and managerial 	Management, business, and financial

Professional/Technical	Professional specialty and technical	Professional and related

Clerical	Administrative support, including clerical 	Office and administrative support

Source: Employer Costs for Employee Compensation: Changes to NAICS and SOC, Table 2. ECEC Occupational Comparability between SOC and OCS (BLS, 2006a); and Weinstein, 2004.

A.1.1	Derivation of Unit Labor Rates for Technical, Managerial, and Clerical Industry Employees

Wages and fringe benefit data for technical, managerial, and clerical labor are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) data, for December 2006, for manufacturing industries.

The cost of fringe benefits such as paid leave and insurance, specific to each labor category, are taken from the same ECEC series (December 2006).  Fringe benefits as a percent of wages are calculated separately for each labor category.  For example, for December 2006, the average wage rate for professional/technical labor was $32.38 and the average fringe benefit was $16.77.  Therefore, fringe benefits as a percent of wages were $16.77/$32.38, or approximately 51.8 percent.

An additional loading factor of 17 percent is applied to wages to account for overhead.  This approach is used for consistency with Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics economic analyses for two major rulemakings: Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program, June 10, 2002 (Rice, 2002), and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report, August 2002 (EPAB, 2002).  This overhead loading factor is added to the benefits loading factor, and the total is then applied to the base wage to derive the fully loaded wage.  For example, the December 2006 fully loaded wage for professional/technical labor is $32.38 × (1+0.5179 + 0.17) = $54.65.

Fully loaded costs for managerial, clerical, and production labor are calculated in a similar manner, as shown in Table A.2.

A.1.2	Derivation of Unit Labor Rates for EPA Staff

Unit labor rates for EPA staff are calculated based on annual Federal salaries for the Washington-Baltimore area published by the Office of Personnel Management and effective January 2007 (OPM, 2007).  The average salary for one Full Time Equivalent (FTE) staff is estimated as the salary for a GS-13 Step 1 employee, which is $79,397 annually without fringe benefits and overhead costs.  In order to derive the fully loaded salary, EPA multiplied the annual salary by an assumed loading factor of 1.6 to reflect Federal fringe benefits and overhead, which results in a fully loaded annual salary of $127,035.

The Agency loading factor of 1.6 is from an EPA guide entitled Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (OPPE, 1992, page 30, footnote 9).  The 60 percent assumption was labeled “the benefits multiplication factor” in the EPA Guide, but has been used in many EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ICRs to reflect both fringe benefits and overhead for Federal staff.  For example, it was used in an August 2000 document supporting ICR No. 1139.06, with the following explanation:

“The annual costs per FTE are derived by multiplying the annual pay rate by 1.6 (the benefits multiplication factor). The multiplication factor used is recommended in EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation's Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (June 1, 1992). An EPA internal phone call between Carol Rawie (OPPT/EETD/RIB) and Carl Koch (OPPE/RMD/IMB) on May 3, 1994, indicated that the 1.6 factor included not only benefits but also overhead.”  (ICR No.1139.06)

Table A.2

 (e)	(g)	(h)=(f)  (g)

Managerial	BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing industries, “Mgt, Business, and Financial”4	Dec-06	$39.77	$18.83	47.35%	17%	1.64	$65.36	1	$65.36

Professional/

Technical	BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing industries, “Professional and related“4	Dec-06	$32.38	$16.77	51.79%	17%	1.69	$54.65	1	$54.65

Clerical	BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing industries, “Office and Administrative Support”4	Dec-06	$16.07	$8.20	51.03%	17%	1.68	$27.00	1 $27.00

EPA staff FTE	Annual Federal staff cost: OPM Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-PA-VA-WV, area, GS-13 Step 1 pay rates, with 60% overhead.5	Jan-07	$ 79,397

 (annual)	--	[Included in 60% overhead]	60%	1.60	$127,035

(annual)	1	$127,035    (annual)

	38.17

(hourly)	--

$61.07

(hourly)

$60.86

(hourly)

Notes:

1Wage data are rounded to the closest dollar figure in this table.

2An overhead rate of 17% was used based on assumptions in Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program  (Rice, 2002), and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report  (EPAB, 2002).

3An inflation factor of “1” means wage data was not escalated to reflect inflation.

4 BLS, 2006b.

5The Federal salary is the unloaded Federal GS-13 Step 1 salary ($79,397 for 2007), from the Office of Personnel Management salary table for Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia (OPM, 2007).  The 60% fringes-and-overhead rate is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (OPPE, 1992, page 30, footnote 9).  Hourly rates are based on annual salary divided by 2080 hours.

APPENDIX B

COST DETAILSTable B-1

Industry Compliance and Government Costs, Least Cost Scenario

CASRN	CHEMICAL NAME	Testing

Cost	Analytical Methodology Validation Cost	Total

Administrative

Cost1	Export Notification Cost	Total

Industry Compliance

Cost2	Government

Cost	Total

Social

Cost3

75-07-0	Acetaldehyde 	$89,960	$9,500	$31,459	$639	$131,558	$1,054 $132,612

78-11-5	Pentaerythritol tetranitrate	$25,877	$6,000	$13,331	$639	$45,847 $750	$46,597

84-65-1	9,10-Anthracenedione	$9,845	$6,000	$9,323	$639	$25,807	$750 $26,556

89-32-7	1H,3H-Benzo[1,2-c:4,5-c']difuran-1,3,5,7-tetrone 	$194,187 $16,500	$77,900	$639	$289,226	$2,880	$292,106

110-44-1	Sorbic acid	$9,845	$6,000	$9,323	$639	$25,807	$750	$26,556

118-82-1	Phenol, 4,4'-methylenebis[2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-	$30,799 $6,000	$14,562	$639	$52,000	$750	$52,750

119-61-9	Methanone, diphenyl- 	$37,489	$6,000	$19,708	$639	$63,836 $1,054	$64,890

144-62-7	Ethanedioic acid 	$74,656	$9,500	$44,999	$639	$129,794	$2,575 $132,370

149-44-0	Methanesulfinic acid, hydroxy-, monosodium salt	$7,932	$3,500 $8,845	$639	$20,916	$750	$21,665

2524-04-1	Phosphorochloridothioic acid, O,O-diethyl ester 	$146,194 $16,500	$74,670	$639	$238,003	$3,488	$241,491

4719-04-4	1,3,5-Triazine-1,3,5(2H,4H,6H)-triethanol	$9,845	$6,000	$9,323 $639	$25,807	$750	$26,556

6381-77-7	Sodium erythorbate	$41,935	$6,000	$22,470	$639	$71,044	$1,358 $72,402

31138-65-5	D-gluco-Heptonic acid, monosodium salt, (2.xi.)- 	$205,359 $20,000	$87,640	$639	$313,638	$3,488	$317,126

66241-11-0	C.I. Leuco Sulphur Black 1 	$214,793	$20,000	$95,293	$639 $330,725	$3,793	$334,517

68187-76-8	Castor oil, sulfated, sodium salt 	$187,629	$20,000	$73,242 $639	$281,511	$2,575	$284,086

68187-84-8	Castor oil, oxidized 	$161,621	$16,500	$63,267	$639	$242,028 $2,271	$244,299

68479-98-1	Benzenediamine, ar,ar-diethyl-ar-methyl- 	$203,558	$16,500 $82,065	$639	$302,762	$2,880	$305,641

68527-02-6	Alkenes, C12-24, chloro 	$152,732	$15,500	$72,831	$639 $241,702	$3,793	$244,886

68647-60-9	Hydrocarbons, C>4 	$209,333	$20,000	$86,982	$639	$316,954 $3,184	$320,138

Total	$2,013,589	$226,000	$897,234	$12,141	$3,148,964	$38,281	$3,187,245

Notes:

1Total administrative cost included both reporting and non-reporting administrative costs.

2Total industry compliance cost includes testing cost, analytical methodology validation cost, administrative cost, and export notification cost.

3Total social cost includes total industry compliance cost and government cost.

Table B-1

Industry Compliance and Government Costs, Average Cost Scenario

CASRN	CHEMICAL NAME	Testing

Cost	Analytical Methodology Validation Cost	Total

Administrative

Cost1	Export Notification Cost	Total

Industry Compliance

Cost2	Government

Cost	Total

Social

Cost3

75-07-0	Acetaldehyde 	$89,960	$9,500	$31,459	$1,322	$132,242	$1,054 $133,295

78-11-5	Pentaerythritol tetranitrate	$25,877	$6,000	$13,331	$1,322 $46,531	$750	$47,280

84-65-1	9,10-Anthracenedione	$9,845	$6,000	$9,323	$1,322	$26,490	$750 $27,239

89-32-7	1H,3H-Benzo[1,2-c:4,5-c']difuran-1,3,5,7-tetrone 	$264,096 $16,500	$95,377	$1,322	$377,295	$2,880	$380,175

110-44-1	Sorbic acid	$9,845	$6,000	$9,323	$1,322	$26,490	$750	$27,239

118-82-1	Phenol, 4,4'-methylenebis[2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-	$30,799 $6,000	$14,562	$1,322	$52,683	$750	$53,433

119-61-9	Methanone, diphenyl- 	$41,538	$6,000	$20,720	$1,322	$69,580 $1,054	$70,634

144-62-7	Ethanedioic acid 	$90,186	$9,500	$48,882	$1,322	$149,890	$2,575 $152,465

149-44-0	Methanesulfinic acid, hydroxy-, monosodium salt	$7,932	$3,500 $8,845	$1,322	$21,599	$750	$22,348

2524-04-1	Phosphorochloridothioic acid, O,O-diethyl ester 	$161,724 $16,500	$78,553	$1,322	$258,099	$3,488	$261,587

4719-04-4	1,3,5-Triazine-1,3,5(2H,4H,6H)-triethanol	$9,845	$6,000	$9,323 $1,322	$26,490	$750	$27,239

6381-77-7	Sodium erythorbate	$45,983	$6,000	$23,483	$1,322	$76,788 $1,358	$78,146

31138-65-5	D-gluco-Heptonic acid, monosodium salt, (2.xi.)- 	$286,749 $20,000	$107,987	$1,322	$416,059	$3,488	$419,547

66241-11-0	C.I. Leuco Sulphur Black 1 	$296,183	$20,000	$115,641	$1,322 $433,146	$3,793	$436,939

68187-76-8	Castor oil, sulfated, sodium salt 	$264,971	$20,000	$92,578 $1,322	$378,872	$2,575	$381,447

68187-84-8	Castor oil, oxidized 	$235,767	$16,500	$81,804	$1,322 $335,393	$2,271	$337,664

68479-98-1	Benzenediamine, ar,ar-diethyl-ar-methyl- 	$273,655	$16,500 $99,589	$1,322	$391,067	$2,880	$393,946

68527-02-6	Alkenes, C12-24, chloro 	$168,262	$15,500	$76,714	$1,322 $261,798	$3,184	$264,982

68647-60-9	Hydrocarbons, C>4 	$290,724	$20,000	$107,329	$1,322	$419,376 $3,184	$422,560

Total	$2,603,941	$226,000	$1,044,823	$25,123	$3,899,886	$38,281 $3,938,167

Notes:

1Total administrative cost included both reporting and non-reporting administrative costs.

2Total industry compliance cost includes testing cost, analytical methodology validation cost, administrative cost, and export notification cost.

3Total social cost includes total industry compliance cost and government cost.

Table B-3

Annualized Social Costs1

CASRN	CHEMICAL NAME	Least Cost Scenario	Average Cost Scenario

3 years, 3%	3 years, 7%	3 years, 3%	3 years, 7%

75-07-0	Acetaldehyde 	$46,882	$50,532	$47,124	$50,792

78-11-5	Pentaerythritol tetranitrate	$16,473	$17,756	$16,715	$18,016

84-65-1	9,10-Anthracenedione	$9,388	$10,119	$9,630	$10,380

89-32-7	1H,3H-Benzo[1,2-c:4,5-c']difuran-1,3,5,7-tetrone 	$103,268 $111,307	$134,403	$144,866

110-44-1	Sorbic acid	$9,388	$10,119	$9,630	$10,380

118-82-1	Phenol, 4,4'-methylenebis[2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-	$18,649 $20,100	$18,890	$20,361

119-61-9	Methanone, diphenyl- 	$22,941	$24,726	$24,971	$26,915

144-62-7	Ethanedioic acid 	$46,797	$50,440	$53,901	$58,097

149-44-0	Methanesulfinic acid, hydroxy-, monosodium salt	$7,659	$8,256 $7,901	$8,516

2524-04-1	Phosphorochloridothioic acid, O,O-diethyl ester 	$85,375 $92,021	$92,479	$99,678

4719-04-4	1,3,5-Triazine-1,3,5(2H,4H,6H)-triethanol	$9,388	$10,119 $9,630	$10,380

6381-77-7	Sodium erythorbate	$25,596	$27,589	$27,627	$29,778

31138-65-5	D-gluco-Heptonic acid, monosodium salt, (2.xi.)- 	$112,114 $120,841	$148,323	$159,869

66241-11-0	C.I. Leuco Sulphur Black 1 	$118,262	$127,468	$154,471 $166,496

68187-76-8	Castor oil, sulfated, sodium salt 	$100,433	$108,252	$134,853 $145,351

68187-84-8	Castor oil, oxidized 	$86,367	$93,090	$119,375	$128,667

68479-98-1	Benzenediamine, ar,ar-diethyl-ar-methyl- 	$108,053	$116,465 $139,272	$150,113

68527-02-6	Alkenes, C12-24, chloro 	$86,575	$93,314	$93,679	$100,972

68647-60-9	Hydrocarbons, C>4 	$113,179	$121,989	$149,388	$161,017

Total	$1,126,788	$1,214,505	$1,392,262	$1,500,645

Note:

1Total social cost includes total industry compliance cost and government cost.  Total social costs are discounted over three years because these costs are expected to occur over the few years during which the actual testing occurs and EPA reviews studies.  Discount rates of both three and seven percent are presented following OMB Guidance contained in Circular A-4

Table B-4

Annualized Industry Compliance Costs1

CASRN	CHEMICAL NAME	Least Cost Scenario	Average Cost Scenario

15 years, 7%	7 years, 7%	15 years, 7%	7 years, 7%

75-07-0	Acetaldehyde 	$14,444	$24,411	$14,519	$24,538

78-11-5	Pentaerythritol tetranitrate	$5,034	$8,507	$5,109	$8,634

84-65-1	9,10-Anthracenedione	$2,833	$4,788	$2,908	$4,915

89-32-7	1H,3H-Benzo[1,2-c:4,5-c']difuran-1,3,5,7-tetrone 	$31,755 $53,667	$41,425	$70,008

110-44-1	Sorbic acid	$2,880	$4,788	$2,908	$4,915

118-82-1	Phenol, 4,4'-methylenebis[2,6-bis(1,1-dimethylethyl)-	$5,709 $9,649	$5,784	$9,776

119-61-9	Methanone, diphenyl- 	$7,009	$11,845	$7,639	$12,911

144-62-7	Ethanedioic acid 	$14,251	$24,084	$16,457	$27,813

149-44-0	Methanesulfinic acid, hydroxy-, monosodium salt	$2,296	$3,881 $2,371	$4,008

2524-04-1	Phosphorochloridothioic acid, O,O-diethyl ester 	$26,131 $44,162	$28,338	$47,891

4719-04-4	1,3,5-Triazine-1,3,5(2H,4H,6H)-triethanol	$2,833	$4,788	$2,908 $4,915

6381-77-7	Sodium erythorbate	$7,800	$13,183	$8,431	$14,248

31138-65-5	D-gluco-Heptonic acid, monosodium salt, (2.xi.)- 	$34,436 $58,196	$45,681	$77,201

66241-11-0	C.I. Leuco Sulphur Black 1 	$36,312	$61,367	$47,557	$80,372

68187-76-8	Castor oil, sulfated, sodium salt 	$30,908	$52,235	$41,598 $70,301

68187-84-8	Castor oil, oxidized 	$26,573	$44,909	$36,824	$62,233

68479-98-1	Benzenediamine, ar,ar-diethyl-ar-methyl- 	$33,242	$56,178 $42,937	$72,564

68527-02-6	Alkenes, C12-24, chloro 	$26,538	$44,849	$28,744	$48,577

68647-60-9	Hydrocarbons, C>4 	$34,800	$58,812	$46,045	$77,816

Total	$345,739	$584,300	$428,187	$723,636

Note:

1Total industry compliance cost includes testing cost, analytical methodology validation cost, administrative cost, and export notification cost.  Total industry compliance costs are annualized at a seven percent discount rate, which reflects the opportunity cost of capital, and over fifteen years, which represents the life of the chemical.  Results are also presented using a discounting timeline of seven years to test the sensitivity of results to a shorter chemical lifetime as some chemicals included in the final rule may have a lifetime that is less than fifteen years.

  The CAS is a division of the American Chemical Society, and assigns unique CASRNs to chemical substances.  All CASRNs are compiled in the CAS Registry, the largest and most current database of its kind.  Each CASRN designates only one chemical substance, and is a link to significant information about the chemical.  For more information, see the American Chemical Society’s Chemical Abstracts Service at   HYPERLINK "http://www.cas.org"  http://www.cas.org .

  EPA identified synonyms for each chemical by searching the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) WebBook and the National Institutes of Health ChemIDplus Lite by CAS number.

  Since 1986, reporting under the IUR has taken place at four-year intervals; the data presented in this chapter were from reporting in 2002 and 2006, and represent the most recent data available.

  According to the IUR rule, for the 2006 reporting cycle, entities that produced or imported chemicals listed in the TSCA Chemical Inventory with a site-specific production volume of 10,000 pounds or more were required to submit reports of their production or importation volumes to EPA.

 EPA could not locate the global ultimate parent company for two companies that submitted production data for the 2006 IUR rule.

  Dun and Bradstreet is a New York-based company that provides business information through a global commercial database.  It assigns DUNS numbers to identify businesses around the world.  These numbers are required for many US federal government transactions and therefore are widely used and assigned.  DUNS numbers are also frequently used in corporate research.  Database entries provide legal and trade names, physical and mailing addresses, geographical descriptions, product and industry descriptors, sales and number of employees for three years and associated growth rates, as well as up to forty vital statistics about each organization.

  The reporting year for the most current data in the Dun and Bradstreet database varied across companies.

Individual chemical prices were not available from the USITC report for the chemical prices derived using the report.

 These six endpoints are: (1) acute toxicity; (2) repeat dose toxicity; (3) developmental and reproductive toxicity; (4) genetic toxicity (gene mutations and chromosomal aberrations); (5) ecotoxicity (studies in fish, Daphnia, and algae); and (6) environmental fate (including physical/chemical properties).

  Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies, such as ASTM International, formerly the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).  Another voluntary consensus standard body is the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).

  EPA recommends, but does not require, that log KOW be quantitatively estimated prior to initiating the n-Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient (log 10 basis) or log KOW test requirement.  One method, among many similar methods, for estimating log KOW is described in the article entitled Atom/Fragment Contribution Method for Estimating Octanol-Water Partition Coefficients) by W.M. Meylan and P.H. Howard in the Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 84(1): 83-92. January 1992.  In addition, EPA recommends, but does not require, that water solubility be quantitatively estimated prior to initiating the water solubility test requirement.  One method, among many similar methods, for estimating water solubility is described in the article entitled Improved Method for Estimating Water Solubility From Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient by W.M. Meylan, P.H. Howard, and R.S. Boethling in Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 15(2): 100-106. 1996.

 While some of the chemicals may require longer term aquatic testing based on chemical characteristics, EPA could not be certain of the number.  Therefore, EPA did not include an estimate for progress reports.

 As noted above, one final report is assumed to be required for each test conducted for each chemical. Table 3-1 summarizes testing requirements for each chemical included in the final rule.

 EPA, 2007.  Administrative Costs Associated with TSCA Test Rules and Voluntary Chemical Testing; Industry Response to Interview Questions, January 2007.

  The unloaded Federal GS-13 Step 1 salary ($79,397 for 2007), from the Office of Personnel Management salary table for Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia (OPM, 2007).  The 60% fringes-and-overhead rate is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (OPPE, 1992, page 30, footnote 9).

  The use of net present value calculations to evaluate the profitability of an investment or a business is discussed in many financial management texts, including R. Brealey and S. Myers (1996), L. Schall and C. Haley (1991), and J. Van Horne and J.M. Wachowicz (1997).

   EPA uses a one percent threshold based on an EPA study entitled “Review of Economic Impact Methodology Applied to TSCA Section 4 Test Rules”.  This study found that chemical-specific cost-to-sales ratios for voluntary testing initiatives were less than one percent.  While the study did not conclude that a cost-to-sales ratio greater than one percent would lead to adverse financial impacts, EPA uses this estimate as a reasonable threshold to determine whether there is a need to further evaluate impacts on a firm.  Charles D’Ruiz and Barrett J. Riordan, “Review of Economic Impact Methodology Applied to TSCA Section 4 Test Rules” Economics & Technology Division, Office of Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 23, 1998.

 In comparison, the specialty chemicals market was worth $116 billion, the agricultural chemical market was worth $27 billion, the pharmaceuticals market was worth $160 billion, and the consumer products market was worth $56 billion. American Chemistry Council, Guide to the Business of Chemistry, 2006.

 American Chemistry Council, Guide to the Business of Chemistry, 2006.

 Information in Table 4-5 is presented at the global parent company level.

 Dun and Bradstreet is a New York-based company that provides business information through a global commercial database.  It assigns DUNS numbers to identify businesses around the world.  These numbers are required for many US federal government transactions and therefore are widely used and assigned.  DUNS numbers are also frequently used in corporate research.  Database entries provide legal and trade names, physical and mailing addresses, geographical descriptions, product and industry descriptors, sales and number of employees for three years and associated growth rates, as well as up to forty vital statistics about each organization.  While the reporting year varied by company, company sales and employment data were primarily retrieved from the database in December 2007.

 Annualized over 15 years using a 7 percent discount rate.  Note that these figures include only the industry compliance cost and not the cost to the government.

  See Section 1.1 of this report for a discussion on market failure and the rationale for government regulation in this context.

 As described in Section 4.1.1, compliance costs are annualized using a seven percent discount rate to reflect the opportunity cost of capital, and over a fifteen-year period to reflect the life of the chemical.

 The per panel cost assumes that the export notification burden is distributed evenly across all panels.

  While hourly labor rates in this analysis may be lower than hourly rates for the same labor categories in earlier economic analyses, EPA does not mean to suggest that actual hourly rates have declined.  Rather, the apparent decline is due to three changes in the methodology employed to calculate hourly costs for the same labor categories.  These three changes are: (1) the 17 percent overhead loading factor is applied only to wages where previously it was applied to wages-plus-fringe benefits, which reduces calculated overhead; (2) wage rates presented in this economic analysis are based on the most recent data available where previously analyses inflated older data to current dollars; and (3) private industry fringe benefits in the current analysis are based on actual fringe benefits as reported in the most recent BLS data where previously fringe benefits were based on an assumed percent of wages.

h

h

h

h

h

q

Ë

`

³

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

j

k

n

o

p

q

r

s

‘

’

•

–

§

¨

©

Ã

Ä

Å

È

É

Ê

Ë

Ì

Í

é

ê

ê

ë

ì

ñ

ò

<

=

>

X

Y

Z

]

^

_

`

a

b

~

€

„

…

‘

 ‘

’

“

®

¯

°

±

²

³

´

µ

Ñ

Ò

Ó

Ô

×

Ø

û

ü

ý

j¸

j;

j¬

j/

j

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

將

將

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

ü

ü

ü

ü

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

éÿÄ

	Û

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

$

@

$

@

$

@

@

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

@

@

耀ꔆ

耀ꔆ

耀ꔆ

耀ꔆ

¥

F

@

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h



h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

Ff

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

@

kd

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

kdÎ

kdR

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

kd

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

Ä

é

h

h

h

h

h

H*

h

h

h

h

è

é

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

kd

耀츄

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

耀츄

耀츄

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

耀츄

耀츄

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

耀츄

耀츄

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

耀츄

耀츄

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

耀츄

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

耀츄

耀츄







h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h













h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

锇

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

將

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

@

㠇

h

h

h

h

h

將

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

@

	W

圆

@

圆

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

圆

@

圆

圆

@

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

@

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

@

@

@

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

@

@

@

@

%

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

@

@

@

@

½

¾

ï

葠ఀï

ð

hS)

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

hS)

h

h

h

h

h

h

찀怍逜$찇

찀怍逜耤찆

찀怍逜耤찆

찀怍逜耤찆

찀怍逜耤찆

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

찀怍逜$찇

찀怍逜耤찆

찀怍逜耤찆

찀怍逜耤찆

찀怍逜耤찆

h

h

h

h

옍)

옍)

옍)

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

옍)

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

옍)

옍)

”ÿ3

	Ÿ

	Ù

”ÿ3

Ÿ

Ù

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

”ÿ3

Ÿ

Ù

”ÿ3

Ÿ

Ù

옍)

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

옍)

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

kd

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

h

,n, unpublished BLS data (BLS, 2006a).  Past economic analyses used ECEC data for “All Goods Producing” sectors (manufacturing, mining, and construction).  However, the manufacturing sector data seems more relevant because the final rule will primarily affect the chemical industry.

		 Past economic analyses have used the term “technical” labor. Here the category is called “professional/technical” labor, to make clear how it relates to BLS categories.  In 2004, BLS changed from the Occupational Classification System, OCS, to the Standard Occupational Classification system, SOC.  In the process, the “Professional specialty and technical” category became the “Professional and related” category.  However, the coverage of the old and new occupational groups is approximately the same. See the BLS article, Comparing Current and Former Industry and Occupation ECEC Series (Weinstein, 2004).

 The change was used in the 2003 PMN SNUR economic analysis (EPAB, 2003).  In some earlier reports, the 17% had been applied to 慷敧⵳汰獵昭楲杮敢敮楦獴മ഍ഃЍ഍ഃЍ഍഍഍– 䅐䕇ᐠⴲᔱ഍卅ㄭ഍卅㌭഍഍഍倓䝁⁅ᔠ䔍⁓-഍ግ倠 䝁⁅ㄔ㌭ക഍഍ግ䅐䕇†ക卅ⴠഀ഍഍഍倓䝁⁅ᔠ䔍⁓ -഍ግ䅐䕇†㈔ക഍഍഍഍–䅐䕇ᐠⴲᔸ഍഍഍഍഍– 䅐䕇ᐠⴲᔹ഍഍഍–䅐䕇ᐠⴲ〱കግ倠䝁⁅㐔ㄭᔲ഍഍ ഍倓䝁⁅ᔠ䔍⁓-

  PAGE  6-7

  PAGE  6-5

R-1

R-2

R-3

R-4

R-5

A-1

A-2

A-3

A-4

B-1

B-2

B-3

B-4

B-5