Economic and Small Business Impact Analysis for the Proposed Secondary Aluminum NESHAP       1.  Background This report is the economic and small business impact analysis for the proposed Secondary Aluminum NESHAP, which will be signed as per a court-ordered schedule on January 31, 2012.   Implementation of the rule is required by 3 years after promulgation of the final rule, which will take place under court-order on October 30, 2012.  This proposal includes amendments to the existing NESHAP that was promulgated in 1999 to correct and clarify rule requirements and provisions. These proposed amendments would:    *    Add work practice standards for periods of startup and shutdown for some processes;    *    Add a definition of affirmative defense;    *    Add a requirement to report performance testing through the Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT);    *    Add rule provisions allowing furnaces to change designations;    *    Add operating requirements such as monitoring of lime injection rates and specifications for scrap cleaning processes; and     *    Make technical corrections and clarifications to the applicability, definitions, operating, monitoring, and performance testing requirements.       Details on the rule can be found in the preamble contained in the public docket for this rulemaking.   The EPA defined the Secondary Aluminum source category in 1992 as any establishment using clean charge, aluminum scrap, or dross from aluminum production, as the raw material and performing one or more of the following processes: scrap shredding, scrap drying/delacquering/decoating, thermal chip drying, furnace operations (i.e., melting, holding, sweating, refining, fluxing, or alloying), recovery of aluminum from dross, in-line fluxing, or dross cooling. The Secondary Aluminum Production source category includes facilities that produce aluminum from scrap aluminum material and consists of the following operations: (1) Preprocessing of scrap aluminum, including size reduction and removal of oils, coatings, and other contaminants;(2) Furnace operations including melting, in-furnace refining, fluxing, and tapping; (3) Additional refining, by means of in-line fluxing; and (4) Cooling of dross. Table 1. NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected By This Proposed Action

                                                                        Source Category                                                                             NESHAP                                                                          NAICS code[1] Secondary Aluminum Production Primary aluminum production facilities Aluminum sheet, plate, and foil manufacturing facilities Aluminum extruded product manufacturing facilities Other aluminum rolling and drawing facilities Aluminum die casting facilities Aluminum foundry facilities Secondary Aluminum Production

331314 331312 331315                                         331316                                         331319                                                                             331521 331524 [1] North American Industry Classification System [2] Maximum Achievable Control Technology              The secondary aluminum industry consists of approximately 161 secondary aluminum production facilities, of which the EPA estimates 53 to be major sources of HAP.  Several of the secondary aluminum facilities are co-located with primary aluminum, coil coating, and possibly other source category facilities.         The components of the proposal that are expected to have impacts on costs are the following:    * require uncontrolled furnaces to install testing hooding that meets American Council of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) guidelines,    * require uncontrolled furnaces to test for hydrogen fluoride (HF) in addition to hydrogen chloride (HCl), and    * allow furnaces to switch designations, such as from a controlled Group 1 furnace to uncontrolled Group 2 furnace. The costs of the rule, and the economic and small business impacts associated with the proposed rule, can be found in Section 3.  Section 2 below provides a profile for the secondary aluminum industry.       2. Industry Profile This section introduces the secondary aluminum industry and provides aggregate statistics on the amount of secondary aluminum produced and other economic data about the secondary aluminum industry. The secondary aluminum industry is based around recovery of aluminum, or production of aluminum from recycled aluminum (scraps). Recovered aluminum, along with primary aluminum, is used for: containers (such as aluminum cans) and packaging (which in 2010 accounted for 22.4 percent of end-use shipments in the United States and Canada), buildings and construction (10.2 percent), and transportation (28.2 percent) (Bray, 2011, 5.1). From 2006 to 2010 secondary recovery of aluminum, on average, accounted for 64 percent of total aluminum production in the United States. In 2010, 2,800 metric tons of aluminum were recovered in the U.S. (Table 1-1). Secondary recovery decreased by 36 percent from 2006 to 2010. The annual decreases became progressively severe until the industry, at least temporarily, stabilized from 2009 to 2010. Table 2.	Salient Aluminum Statistics (Thousands of Metric Tons)                                                                              2006                                      2007                                      2008                                      2009                                      2010 Primary Production                                      2,284                                      2,554                                      2,658                                      1,727                                      1,726 Secondary Recovery Total:                                      4,380                                      4,110                                      3,630                                      2,820                                      2,800 New Scrap                                       2,800                                      2,450                                      2,130                                      1,570                                      1,550 Old Scrap                                       1,580                                      1,660                                      1,500                                      1,260                                      1,250 Note: New Scrap is generated in the manufacturing of primary aluminum and semi-fabricated aluminum mill, finished industrial and consumer products (EPA, 1999, 6). New scrap that is recycled by the same company that generated it is generally not counted in scrap consumption and secondary production data. Old scrap comes from recycled aluminum products (products recovered after their useful lives) such as used beverage cans (UBC) (EPA, 1999, 7). Source: Bray, Lee. 2011. "Minerals Yearbook: Aluminum [Advanced Release]" USGS. Table 1. <http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/myb1-2010-alumi.pdf> Secondary Aluminum is produced by several different types of firms (Table 3). The principal manufacturers of recovered aluminum are Secondary Smelters and Independent Mill Fabricators. To simplify, this industry profile now focuses on firms whose sole purpose is to  Table 3.	U.S. Consumption and Recovery from Purchased New and Old Aluminum Scrap, by Class (Metric Tons)                                                                                Calculated Recovery[a]                                      Class                                   Consumption                                    Aluminum                                    Metallic 2009

  Secondary smelters 1,450,000 1,020,000 1,090,000   Independent mill fabricators 1,620,000 1,390,000 1,470,000   Foundries 74,800 61,200 65,400   Other Consumers  6,870 6,330 6,350   Total  3,160,000 2,470,000 2,630,000   Estimated full Industry Coverage  3,390,000 2,650,000 2,820,000 2010

  Secondary Smelters 1,610,000 1,150,000 1,230,000   Independent mill fabricators 1,450,000 1,240,000 1,320,000   Foundries 50,700 41,400 44,200   Other Consumers  6,290 6,290 6,290   Total  3,120,000 2,430,000 2,590,000   Estimated full Industry Coverage  3,370,000 2,620,000 2,800,000 [a]Metallic Recovery includes both aluminum recovery and alloying metals, Aluminum Recovery is the aluminum content of the recovered metals. Source: Bray, Lee. 2011. "Minerals Yearbook: Aluminum [Advanced Release]" USGS. Table 3. <http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum/myb1-2010-alumi.pdf> process aluminum scrap into molten aluminum or aluminum ingot. The Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum industry (NAICS 331314) "comprises establishments primarily engaged in (1) recovering aluminum and aluminum alloys from scrap and/or dross (i.e., secondary smelting) and making billet or ingot (except by rolling) and/or (2) manufacturing alloys, powder, paste, or flake from purchased aluminum" (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007).  Secondary Smelters were responsible for 44 percent of total aluminum recovery in 2010. 2.1	Key Statistics The Secondary Smelting industry's shipments (output) expanded by 35 percent from 2005 to 2007. Unfortunately, this expansion not only stalled but was overwhelmed by a 57 percent decrease in output from 2007 to 2009, likely due to the overall economic recession during that period. There was an overall decrease in output of 43 percent from 2005 to 2009 (Table 4). Other indicators (payroll and number of employees) likewise exhibit this pattern of industry expansion from 2005 to 2007 followed by drastic contraction from 2007 to 2009. Payroll increased by 10 percent and the number of employees increased by 12 percent from 2005 to 2007 but fell by 46 percent and 43 percent from 2007 to 2009.  Table 4.	Key Statistics: Secondary Aluminum Manufacturing (North American Industry Classification [NAICS] 331314) ($2009)                                                                              2005                                      2007                                      2009 Shipments ($1,000) 6,037,839 8,149,043 3,440,336 Annual payroll ($1,000) 366,891 404,999 217,198 Employees 6,727 7,524 4,224 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau: generated by RTI International; using American Factfinder; "Sector 31: Annual Survey of Manufactures: General Statistics: Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries: 2009 and 2008, 2008 and 2007, 2006 and 2005." <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (December 13, 2011). The average shipments per employee and shipments per dollar of payroll followed the same pattern as the aggregate statistics but the fluctuations were mostly less extreme. Average shipments per employee increased from 2005 to 2007 only to fall below the 2005 level by 2009. There was an overall decrease in average shipments per employee of 9 percent. Average shipments per dollar of payroll expanded by 25 percent from 2005 to 2007 only to fall back to the 2005 level by 2009. The average annual payroll per employee was unique as it did not increase before decreasing, but rather decreased slightly (1.3 percent) from 2005 to 2007 and decreased slightly more (4.5 percent) from 2007 to 2009 (Table 5). Table 5.	Industry Data: Secondary Aluminum (NAICS 331314) ($2009)                                  Industry Data                                      2005                                      2007                                      2009 Total Shipments ($1,000) 6,037,839 8,149,043 3,440,336 Average Shipments per employee  898 1,083 814 Average Shipments per $ of payroll 16 20 16 Average Annual payroll per employee 54,540 53,827 51,420 Source: U.S. Census Bureau: generated by RTI International; using American Factfinder; "Sector 31: Annual Survey of Manufactures: General Statistics: Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries: 2009 and 2008, 2008 and 2007, 2006 and 2005." <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (December 13, 2011). 2.2	Supply and Demand Characteristics: Secondary aluminum demand is determined by the industries that use secondary aluminum as an input into their manufacturing process. Historically, data on the use of aluminum in product markets has not differentiated between the demand of primary and secondary (EPA, 1999, 41). Conversely, there is more detailed data available for the supply and inputs used in secondary production. 2.2.1	Goods and Services Used in Secondary Aluminum Material cost consistently accounted for the lion's share (around 80 percent) of the value of shipments in secondary aluminum manufacturing from 2005 to 2009. This suggests that the cost of aluminum scrap has a major influence on the cost of secondary aluminum manufacturing. Total employee compensation took up a much smaller amount -- an average of 7.3 percent of the value of shipments. About half of total compensation went to production workers' wages. Purchased electricity (ranging from 3 to 4.7 percent) and purchased fuel (1.7 to 3.2 percent) accounted for small but not insignificant portions of the total value of shipments through the period (Table 6). 2.3	Firm and Market Characteristics 2.3.1	Location The concentration of the Secondary aluminum industry has been attributed to the cost of transportation which causes establishments to locate near scrap supplies and consumers of secondary aluminum. "A cursory look at the distribution of secondary smelters in the U.S. reveals a heavy concentration of smelters in the automotive and appliance manufacturing areas of the country" (EPA, 1999, 19). The secondary aluminum industry was concentrated in the central U.S. in 1997 and remained that way through 2007. In 2007, Indiana had the most secondary aluminum establishments, followed by Texas, Tennessee, Michigan, and California. Similarly, Indiana had the highest concentration of establishments, followed by Tennessee, Kentucky and New Hampshire (Table 7). Table 6.	Cost of Goods and Services Used in Secondary Aluminum Manufacturing (NAICS 331314) ($2009)                                 Industry Ratios                                      2005                                      Share                                      2007                                      Share                                      2009                                      Share Total shipments ($1,000) 6,037,839 100.0% 8,149,043 100.0% 3,440,336 100.0% Total compensation ($1,000) 487,199 8.1% 533,852 6.5% 280,485 8.6% Annual payroll ($1,000) 366,891 6.1% 404,999 5.0% 217,198 6.3% Fringe benefits ($1,000) 120,308 2.0% 128,853 1.6% 63,287 1.8% Total employees 7,390

7,785

4,224

Total production workers' wages ($1,000) -- 2007 nonleased 246,744 4.1% 267,385 3.3% 125,503 3.7% Average production workers per year 5,513

5,798

3,082

Total production hours (thousands) 12,603

14,066

6,429

Total cost of materials ($1,000) 4,793,596 79.4% 6,404,830 78.6% 2,840,494 82.6% Materials, parts, packaging etc. used ($1,000) 4,360,670 72.0% 5,697,489 70.0% 2,537,663 73.8% cost of resales ($1,000)

134,966 1.6% 62,094 1.8% Purchased electricity ($1,000) 114,150 1.9% 262,814 3.2% 59,873 1.7% Cost of purchased fuel ($1,000) 260,314 4.3% 241,124 3.0% 162,076 4.7% Source: U.S. Census Bureau: generated by RTI International; using American Factfinder; "Sector 31: Annual Survey of Manufactures: General Statistics: Statistics for Industry Groups and Industries: 2009 and 2008, 2008 and 2007, 2006 and 2005." <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (December 13, 2011).

Table 7.	Establishment and Employee Concentration in Secondary Aluminum Manufacturing (NAICS 331314) (2007)                                    Geography                            Number of Establishments                Average Number of Paid Employees per Pay Period                               Population/ Employees                  Average Number of Employees per Establishment                           Population/ Establishments United States 134 7,468 40,388 56 2,250,904 Alabama 4  --   --   --  1,156,963 Arkansas 2  --   --   --  1,417,399 California 10 473 77,280 47 3,655,322 Florida 6 228 80,049 38 3,041,874 Georgia 3  --   --   --  3,181,583 Illinois 9 369 34,831 41 1,428,061 Indiana 15 898 7,066 60 423,019 Kentucky 7 454 9,342 65 605,925 Michigan 11 515 19,557 47 915,620 Minnesota 1  --   --   --  5,197,621 Missouri 4 165 35,627 41 1,469,604 New Hampshire 2  --   --   --  657,914 New York 6 901 21,418 150 3,216,288 Ohio 9 329 34,854 37 1,274,102 Pennsylvania 4 127 97,896 32 3,108,198 Tennessee 11  --   --   --  559,702 Texas 12  --   --   --  1,992,032 Wisconsin 3  --   --   --  1,867,213 Source: U.S. Census Bureau: generated by RTI International; using American Factfinder; "Table 1: Selected Industry Statistics for the U.S. and States: 2007." <http://factfinder.census.gov>; (December 13, 2011). 2.3.2	Employment Secondary aluminum manufacturing employment and the concentration of employment by state follows that of establishments fairly closely with the exception of New York which had relatively large amount of employees per establishment (Table 7). Indiana had the highest concentration of employees, followed closely by Kentucky, and less closely by Michigan and New York. 2.3.3	Energy Use The U.S. Energy Information Administration has not typically published energy consumption data disaggregated enough to build a time trend of the secondary aluminum industry's energy use. However, energy consumption data specific to the secondary aluminum was published in 2006 (Table 8). This shows that the industry almost entirely uses natural gas to fuel aluminum production. Table 8.	Energy Use by Fuel Type, NAICS 331314                          Fuel Type (Unit: Trillion Btu)                                      2006 Total 21 Net electricity  2 Residual Fuel Oil   --  Distillate Fuel Oil   --  Natural Gas  18 LPG and NGL  --  Coal   --  Coke and Breeze  0 Other  --  Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2009. "First Use of Energy for All Purposes (Fuel and Nonfuel), 2006" <http://www.eia.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs2006/2006tables.html> 2.3.4	Size Distribution The Small Business Administration defines any Secondary Smelting and Alloying of Aluminum firm with less than 750 employees as small.  As only 13 of 110 secondary smelting firms had more than 500 employees, it is fair to say that most firms in the industry will be classified as small. In spite of the high proportion of firms being classified as small, only a slight majority (56 percent) of the employees worked for firms with less than 500 (Table 9). Table 9.	Distribution of Economic Data by Enterprise Size in Secondary Aluminum Manufacturing (NAICS 331314)                                                                                Enterprises with                                    Variable                                      Total                                1 to 20 Employees                               20 to 99 Employees                              100 to 499 Employees                                 500+ Employees Firms 110 55 32 10 13 Establishments 133 55 35 14 29 Employment  4,683 305 1,413 927 2,038 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. "Number of Firms, Number of Establishments, Employment, and Annual Payroll by Enterprise Employment Size for the United States, All Industries: 2009" <http://www.census.gov/econ/susb/> The industry's Concentration Ratios emphasize the relative dominance of large companies. While 108 companies were documented in 2007, the largest 50 companies accounted for 95.9 percent of the total value of shipments and the largest 4 companies accounted for 54.8 percent (Table 10). Also shown in Table 1-9 is the Herfindahl-Hirshman Index (HHI) for NAICS 331314, which is 930.8. This HHI is at the upper end of the unconcentrated range (HHIs over 1,000 are considered moderately concentrated).  Table 10.	Secondary Aluminum Manufacturing (NAICS 331314) Concentration Ratios                                                                             Companies                            Total Value  of Shipments                     Percent of Total Value of Shipments (5)                           Herfindahl-Hirschman Index All companies                                       108                                    7,823,492 100.0 930.8 4 largest companies                                        --                                     4,287,274 54.8

8 largest companies                                        --                                     5,132,211 65.6

20 largest companies                                         --                                     6,470,028 82.7

50 largest companies                                        --                                     7,502,729 95.9

Source: U.S. Census Bureau; generated by RTI International; using American FactFinder; "Sector 31: Manufacturing: Subject Series: Concentration Ratios: Share of Value of Shipments Accounted for by the 4, 8, 20 and 50 Largest Companies for Industries: 2007." <http://factfinder.census.gov>: (December 20, 2011). 2.3.5	Production and Capacity Utilization Capacity utilization of secondary aluminum manufacturing increased from 2004 until 2007 before starting a steep decline which left the industry well below the 2004 level by 2010 (Table 11). Table 11.	Capacity Utilization for Aluminum Manufacturing (NAICS 3313)                                                                               2005                                      2006                                      2007                                      2008                                      2009                                      2010                              Capacity Utilization                                      86.7%                                      83.7%                                      78.8%                                      74.1%                                      59.3%                                      63.8% Source: Charles Gilbert, Senior Economist, Federal Reserve Board. Capacity Utilization data for NAICS 3313. Personal Communication with Christopher Sichko, RTI International, January 5, 2012.   2.3.6	Profitability While Total and Business receipts increased slightly from 2006 to 2008, Net Income, and Profit Margins decreased slightly from 2006 to 2007 then collapsed in 2008. It should be noted that these statistics are for the Metal Manufacturing Industry not the secondary aluminum industry specifically because more disaggregated data is not available (Table 12). Table 12.	Corporate Income and Profitability for Secondary Aluminum Manufacturing (NAICS 331) ($2009)                                                                              2006                                      2007                                      2008 Total receipts                                                                     298,104,481                                                                     305,773,370                                                                     312,467,335 Business receipts                                                                     286,730,514                                                                     292,550,057                                                                     302,877,203 Net income                                                                       22,503,070                                                                      21,519,223                                                                      13,694,559 Before-tax profit margin                                                                            7.8%                                                                            7.4%                                                                            4.5% After-tax profit margin                                                                             5.6%                                                                            5.1%                                                                            2.9% Source: Internal Revenue Service, U.S. Department of Treasury, 2008 (1), 2007 (1), 2006 (1) "Corporation Source Book of Statistics of Income: Primary Metal Manufacturing" <http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/ 0,,id=168246,00.html>; (December 14, 2011) 2.3.7	International Trade The U.S. consistently (from 2005 - 2010) was a net importer of aluminum. Imports for consumption fell fairly constantly each year for an overall decrease of 23 percent. Exports increased by 38 percent from 2005 to 2008 before decreasing by 17 percent from 2008 to 2009, then increasing again in 2010 (Table 13). While imports were more than double the volume of exports in 2005, imports exceeded exports by a smaller fraction, about one-third, in 2010.  Note that the international trade data is for all aluminum production, not just secondary. Table 13.	U.S. Imports and Exports of Aluminum (Metric Tons)                                                                              2005                                      2006                                      2007                                      2008                                      2009                                      2010 Imports for consumption                                    5,330,000                                    5,180,000                                    4,490,000                                    4,200,000                                    4,110,000                                    4,120,000 Exports                                    2,370,000                                    2,820,000                                    2,840,000                                    3,280,000                                    2,710,000                                    3,040,000 Source: Bray, Lee. 2011. "Minerals Yearbook: Aluminum" USGS. 2006 Tables 8 and 11; 2008 Tables 9 and 11; 2010 Tables 10 and 12. <http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/aluminum> 2.4	2011 and Future Trends        Fueled by low-cost power contracts and recovering aluminum prices, productive capacity shut down in 2008 and 2009 was scheduled to restart in late 2010 and early 2011. Still, this is a small step and capacity use likely remained low through 2011. "World demand for aluminum in 2011 was expected to remain at levels lower than in 2008 owing to depressed levels in automobile manufacturing and home construction" (Bray, 2011, 5.7).       Low demand for aluminum in U.S. domestic industries and other developed economies is likely to persist for several more years, as these economies have not recovered from the 2008 downturn. However, the demand for aluminum in emerging economies is likely to increase more rapidly in the near future (Bray, 2011, 5.7). Table 13 shows that in 2010 aluminum exports were heading back towards their 2008 level, and this trend seems likely to continue.

      3.  Impact Results          Section 2 provides information on the entire Secondary Aluminum industry.  In this section, we provide the economic and small business impacts associated with the proposed rule.  This analysis is focused on those businesses directly impacted by this proposal.                      Based on information in the cost memo, there are 29 parent companies impacted by this proposed rule.  Ten of these companies have fewer than 750 employees, and thus are small businesses according to the Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards for the predominant NAICS code for companies affected by this rule (331314).                   The total annualized costs (TAC) of the rule for each parent owner company, which includes the annualized control, monitoring and recordkeeping costs as taken from the cost memo prepared for US EPA, are in Table 2.  Small businesses are identified in the table.  The nationwide total annualized costs of this rule are $0.6 million.  All costs are in 2010 dollars, and are based on the estimates presented in the cost memo for the proposed rule.                     Table 14.  TAC for each Parent Owner Parent Company TAC per Owner Small Business? (N= No, Y=Yes) Number of Employees in 2010 Alcoa                                                                        $354,000 N 59,000 Aleris                                                                           36,800 N 6,500 Aluminum Recovery Technologies                                                                         -12,000 Y 20 Aluminum Shapes, LLC                                                                          22,200 N

1,100 Reynolds Group Holdings Ltd.  (owner of Reynolds Foil)                                                                          55,000 N

25,500 Metal Exchange Corporation (owner of Continental Aluminum and Electro Cycle)                                                                         -24,000 Y

201 to 500 Hydro (owner of Hydro Aluminum Wells North America)                                                                          22,600 N

23,000 J.L. French Corp.                                                                          -12,000 N 2,000 Jupiter Aluminum                                                                         -35,600 Y 200 JW Aluminum                                                                         -46,600 N 772 Kaiser Aluminum                                                                          -12,000 N

2,470 Logan Aluminum                                                                          22,200 N 1,000 Metalico (owner of Metalico Aluminum Recovery)                                                                         -12,000 N

800 Toyota Tsusho (owner of Most, Inc.)                                                                          -12,000 N

31,081 Quanex (owner of Nichols Aluminum)                                                                         -35,600 N

2,340 Noranda                                                                          79,600 N 2,400 Novelis                                                                           20,400 N 11,000 Owl's Head Alloys                                                                         -12,000 Y 50-100 Recycling Services of Ind. (or Newco Metal Processing)                                                                             400 Y

50 Rio Tinto (owner of Alcan)                                                                         111,600 N

77,000 Ritchey Metals                                                                         -12,000 Y 80 Orkla ASA (owner of Sapa Extrusion)                                                                           55,000 N

30,000 Scepter                                                                         -48,000 Y 250 Smelter Service                                                                          -24,000 Y 10 Southwire                                                                          21,600 N 4,180 Superior Aluminum Alloys                                                                         -12,000 Y

5-9 Tennessee Aluminum Processors                                                                         -24,000 Y

180 Tredegar (owner of William L. Bonnell)                                                                          33,000 N

2,000 Wise Metals Group                                                                          20,000 N 1,000            [a]A negative sign denotes a cost savings to the affected owner.  	Of the ten small businesses affected by this rule, nine of them are expected to experience negative costs (or cost savings), based on estimates from the cost memo.  We do not provide impact estimates for these businesses, and the large businesses with cost savings, since these estimates are positive.  These cost savings are a result of the change in proposal to allow facilities to switch furnace designations from Group 1 to Group 2.  In the cost memo, EPA presumed that one-fourth of the 200 affected furnaces would switch.  For each of the 50 furnaces that switch, the cost savings is estimated at $12,000 annually.  This cost savings is a result of shutting off a furnace that is controlled and the following effects:    * Fan power is approximately 50 kW    * Control device shut off 4000 hours per year    * Electricity cost of 10 cents/kWh.

More information is available in the cost memo for the proposed rule.        This analysis identified the businesses that will be affected by this rule and provides an analysis at a screening level to assist in determining whether this rule is likely to impose a significant economic impact on affected businesses.  The analysis employed here is a "sales test" that computes the annualized compliance costs as a share of sales for each company. The annualized cost per sales for a company represents the maximum price increase in affected product needed for the company to completely recover the annualized costs imposed by the regulation.         The "sales test" is the impact methodology EPA employs in economic impact analysis such as this one as opposed to a "profits test", in which annualized compliance costs are calculated as a share of profits.  This is because revenues or sales data is commonly available data for entities normally impacted by EPA regulations and profits data normally made available is often not the true profits earned by firms due to accounting and tax considerations.  Firms and entities often have ways legally available in the tax code to minimize their reported profits; thus, using reported profits may lead to a less than accurate estimate of the economic impact of a regulation to an affected firm or entity and their consumers.   While screening level analyses are often employed to estimate impacts to small business or entities as part an analysis in compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), a screening level analysis can also be employed in an economic impact analysis such as this one whose focus is on the regulated companies.        Economic impact estimates are shown in Table 3 below.  The table lists the ultimate parent companies impacted by the rule that have positive costs, the costs of the rule for each company basis, the annual revenues for these companies, and then the impact to the company on a cost to sales basis.  Revenues are for the ultimate parent owners, and are for 2010 to be consistent with the year for the cost estimates.  Applying such a calculation yields the following results as shown below.  Impacts are only shown for those companies estimated to experience a positive cost as a result of the proposed rule.                     Table 15.  Impacts to Affected Parent Companies Parent Company TAC per Owner (2010 dollars) Total Revenues for Parent Owners in 2010 Small Business? (N= No, Y=Yes) Impact Estimates (Annualized Compliance Cost/Revenues in % Terms) Reference for Economic Data[a] Alcoa                                                                        $372,800

$21,013,000,000 N

0.0018 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/4281/000119312511039230/d10k.htm  http://www.elkem.com/eway/default.aspx?pid=242&trg=MainLeft_6886&Main_7127=6886:0:4,4130:1:0:0:::0:0&MainLeft_6886=6271:33029::1:7126:1:::0:0

Aleris                                                                           36,800

3,000,000,000 N

0.0013 Reference USA http://www.aleris.com/about-aleris and http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/21/private-companies-10_Aleris-International_IDN6.html

Aluminum Recovery Technologies                                                                         -12,000

10,460,000 Y

<0[b]

Reference USA Aluminum Shapes, LLC                                                                          22,200

175,000,000 N

0.013

Reference USA Reynolds Group Holdings Ltd. (owner of Reynolds Foil)                                                                          55,000

9,972,000,000 N

0.00055

http://www.reynoldsgroupholdings.com/Financials/2011/28Mar2011-RGHL-2010-Results-Presentation.pdf , p. 4. Metal Exchange Corp.                                                                          -24,000

99,400,000 Y

<0

http://www.metalexchangecorp.com/cf/metal/SNA.asp?asm=sna&tmp=C011&x=714&sid=714&t=About%20Us and http://www.insideview.com/directory/metal-exchange-corporation  Hydro                                                                           22,600

17,977,000,000 N

0.000126 http://www.hydro.com/en/Investor-relations/Reporting/2010/Key-figures/  J.L. French Corp.                                                                          -12,000

550,447,000 N

<0

Reference USA Jupiter Aluminum                                                                         -35,600

50,000,000 Y

<0

Reference USA JW Aluminum                                                                         -46,600

250,000,000 -500,000,000 N

<0 http://www.zoominfo.com/company/JW+Aluminum+Company-33687486  Kaiser Aluminum                                                                          -12,000

1,079,100,000 N

<0

Reference USA Logan                                                                          22,200 1,140,000,000 N 0.0019 Reference USA Metalico                                                                          -12,000 291,733,000 N <0 Reference USA Toyota Tsusho (owner of Most, Inc.)                                                                         -12,000

54,839,454,000 N

<0

http://www.toyota-tsusho.com/english/ir/report/annual/uploadfiles/section03_E.pdf  Quanex                                                                         -35,600 798,314,000 N <0 Reference USA Noranda                                                                          79,600 1,226,400,000 N 0.0065 Reference USA Hindalco (owner of Novelis)                                                                           20,400

12,800,000,000 N

0.00016

http://www.hindalco.com/investors/downloads/Hindalco_Annual_Report_2009-10.pdf  Owl's Head Alloys                                                                         -12,000

22,550,000 Y

<0

Reference USA

Recycling Services of Ind. (or Newco Metal Processing)                                                                                400

26,150,000

Y

0.0015

Reference USA Rio Tinto                                                                          111,600

14,324,000,000 N

0.00078 http://www.riotintoalcan.com/ENG/media/media_releases_1717.asp Ritchey Metals                                                                         -12,000

80,080,000 Y

<0

Reference USA Orkla ASA                                                                            55,000

9,822,000,000 N

0.00056 http://markets.ft.com/research/Markets/Tearsheets/Financials?s=ORK:OSL&subview=IncomeStatement&period=a  Scepter                                                                         -48,000 54,700,000 Y <0 Reference USA Smelter Service                                                                          -24,000

28,100,000 Y

<0

Reference USA Southwire                                                                          21,600 1,340,000,000 N 0.0016 Reference USA Superior Aluminum Alloys                                                                         -12,000

7,980,000 Y

<0

Reference USA Tennessee Aluminum Processors                                                                         -24,000

81,180,000 Y

<0

Reference USA Tredegar (owner of William L. Bonnell)                                                                          33,000

740,000,000 N

0.004

http://www.tredegar.com

Wise Metals Group                                                                          20,000

618,000,000 N

0.0032

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20110125/states25_st.art.htm

[a]Economic data includes revenues and employee size for each affected firm in 2010.   [b]<0 = impact of less than zero, since the costs for the firm will be less than zero (cost savings).       From this table, no affected firm will experience an annualized compliance cost of greater than 0.02 percent of its sales, according to this analysis, as a result of this proposed rule.         It should also be noted that this analysis does not presume any incidence of the costs on the consumers of secondary aluminum and other products made by these companies.  Thus, no estimate of the impact of this rule on secondary aluminum consumers, for intermediate or end-use, is included in this report.  However, it should be noted that available estimates show that the price elasticity of demand for secondary aluminum is -1.0, and the price elasticity of supply for secondary aluminum is 0.6.  Based on this information, one can conclude that demand will respond 1:1 with a change in secondary lead price, and that supply is inelastic (i.e., will respond less than 1:1) with a change in secondary lead price.  Thus, the direct impact of this rule appears quite minor, and thus it is reasonable to infer that the impact on secondary aluminum consumers from this rule should also be minor.  The TAC is taken from the cost memorandum mentioned earlier that was prepared by U.S. EPA for the proposed rule and in that memorandum can be found more information on the cost analysis.


[Federal Register: August 7, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 151)]
[Notices]
[Page 39688]
[DOCID:fr07au09-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings No. 2

August 3, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP09-371-001.
    Applicants: Crossroads Pipeline Company.
    Description: Petal Gas Storage, LLC submits Substitute Eleventh
Revised Sheet No 129 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No 1.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-0243.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-716-002.
    Applicants: Central Kentucky Transmission Company.
    Description: Central Kentucky Transmission Company submits Third
Revised Sheet 254 et al. to its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Revised
Volume 1, to be effective 8/31/09.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-0087.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP96-320-111.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits amendment to a
negotiated rates letter agreement executed by Gulf South and Atmos
Energy Corporation.
    Filed Date: 07/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090730-0244.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Tuesday, August 11, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP06-200-054.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC submits Seventh Revised
Sheet 8A et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1 to be
effective 8/1/09.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-0104.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 12, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP08-436-004.
    Applicants: Stingray Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Stingray Pipeline Company, LLC submits Sixth Revised
Sheet 103 et al. part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume 1,
to be effective 8/1/09.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-0143.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 12, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP09-786-001.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Company submits Substitute 1
Revised 30 Revised Sheet No. 54 to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised
Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-0105.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 12, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-176-203.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America, LLC submits
two amendments to existing negotiated rate arrangements under Rate
Schedule FTS Agreements with WEPCO.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-0116.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 12, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-176-204.
    Applicants: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America.
    Description: Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC submits
First Revised Sheet No 33G 06 to FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised
Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-0117.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 12, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: RP99-518-111.
    Applicants: Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation.
    Description: Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation submits certain
revised tariff sheets to part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Volume 1-A,
to be effective 8/1/09.
    Filed Date: 07/31/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090731-0102.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, August 12, 2009.

    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. Anyone filing a protest must serve a copy of that document on all
the parties to the proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons
unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18919 Filed 8-6-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 18 (Thursday, January 28, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 4914]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01686]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0438]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Early Food Safety Evaluation of New
Non-Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New Plant Varieties Intended for
Food Use

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled ``Early Food Safety Evaluation of
New Non-Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New Plant Varieties Intended
for Food Use'' has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 8, 2015, the Agency submitted a
proposed collection of information entitled ``Early Food Safety
Evaluation of New Non-Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New Plant
Varieties Intended for Food Use'' to OMB for review and clearance under
44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the
information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0583.
The approval expires on November 30, 2018. A copy of the supporting
statement for this information collection is available on the Internet
at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: January 22, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-01686 Filed 1-27-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: August 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 155)]
[Notices]
[Page 46683-46685]
[DOCID:fr11au08-125]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58297; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2008-78]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change To Waive Annual Fees for Securities
Transferring to NYSE Arca From NYSE Alternext U.S.

August 4, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on July 23, 2008, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposal from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules governing NYSE Arca, LLC
(also referred to as the ``NYSE Arca Marketplace''), which is the
equities trading facility of NYSE Arca Equities. The Exchange proposes
that securities transferring to NYSE Arca from NYSE Alternext U.S. \3\
after the closing of the purchase of the American Stock Exchange LLC by
NYSE Euronext (the ``Merger'') will not be charged any prorated Annual
Fee for the remainder of the year in which the Merger takes place. The
fee waiver in the preceding sentence will be of no further effect if
the closing of the Merger does not take place by March 31, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ After the closing of the Merger, the Amex will be renamed
NYSE Alternext U.S. LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes that securities transferring to NYSE Arca
from NYSE Alternext U.S. after the closing of the Merger will not be
charged any prorated Annual Fee for the remainder of the year in which
the Merger takes place. The fee waiver in the preceding sentence will
be of no further effect if the closing of the Merger does not take
place by March 31, 2009.
    NYSE Euronext, the ultimate parent company of the Exchange, has
agreed to

acquire the Amex pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of January 17, 2008. It is currently anticipated that the acquisition
will be consummated during the third quarter of 2008.\4\ In connection
with the acquisition, the Exchange anticipates that some issuers of
NYSE Alternext U.S.-listed securities that qualify for listing on the
Exchange may choose to transfer their listing to the Exchange.
Consequently, the Exchange proposes to grant issuers transferring the
listing of their securities to the Exchange from NYSE Alternext U.S.
during the calendar year in which the Merger is consummated a waiver of
the prorated annual listing fee that would normally be payable in
connection with the first partial calendar year of listing on the
Exchange. The Exchange believes this is appropriate as issuers
transferring to the Exchange from NYSE Alternext U.S. will already have
paid annual continued listing fees to the Amex for the calendar year in
which they transfer. The proposed fee waiver will have no further
effect if the Merger is not consummated by March 31, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The members of the Amex voted to approve the transaction on
June 17, 2008. No vote of the NYSE Euronext shareholders is
required. The sole remaining condition to the consummation of the
transaction is the approval by the Division of Trading and Markets
of certain rule filings the NYSE and Amex expect to submit in the
near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes this proposed fee waiver does not render the
allocation of its listing fees inequitable or unfairly discriminatory,
in particular because, after the Merger, NYSE Regulation, Inc. (``NYSE
Regulation'') will perform listed company regulation for both the
Exchange and NYSE Alternext U.S., including a substantial review of
companies upon original listing. Many of the regulatory staff who
currently perform initial and continued listing reviews at the Amex
will become employees of NYSE Regulation at the time of the Merger and
will continue to perform the same duties with respect to NYSE Alternext
U.S. securities after the Merger. Securities transferring from NYSE
Alternext U.S. will be subjected to the same rigorous regulatory review
as any other securities with respect to which an application for
listing is made to the Exchange. However, the Exchange expects that, on
average, the review of securities transferring from NYSE Alternext U.S.
to the Exchange will be less costly than the review of a transfer from
an unaffiliated market, as the Amex listing regulatory staff that will
have been absorbed by NYSE Regulation will already have performed a
substantial review of any NYSE Alternext U.S.-listed issuer, and NYSE
Regulation will be able to rely on that prior work as a baseline in
qualifying the issuer for listing on the Exchange and in conducting
ongoing compliance activities with respect to any such issuer.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Exchange Act for this proposed rule change is
the requirement under Section 6(b)(4) \5\ that an exchange has rules
that provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its members and other persons using its facilities.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee waiver does not render the
allocation of its listing fees inequitable or unfairly discriminatory
because it is simply a recognition of the fact that issuers
transferring the listing of securities from NYSE Alternext U.S. will
already have paid fees to another exchange which will at that time be
under the same ownership as the Exchange. The Exchange believes that
the fee waiver is appropriate because the same regulatory staff will
review securities on both markets and the Exchange will therefore
benefit from regulatory efficiencies arising out of NYSE Regulation's
prior examination of any issuers that transfer their securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    Written comments on the proposed rule change were neither solicited
nor received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-78 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities
and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-78. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours
of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2008-78 and should
be submitted on or before September 2, 2008.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-18387 Filed 8-8-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


Endangered Species Act (ESA) as part of the RED. To the extent that the
Agency has made determinations in the risks assessments that endangered
species may be affected by use of DDVP products, it must immediately
begin consultation with the appropriate federal agencies. Failure to do
so violates the ESA.

EFED Response:

Please refer to the Agency's July 24, 2006 letter to Patti Goldman,
Earthjustice, for a response to this comment.  This letter has been
added to the DDVP docket.

Comment:

Page 46: The Agency relies on its Environmental Species Protection
Program (ESPP) to justify its failure to act to protect endangered
species from the acknowledged risks of DDVP use. The ESPP provides no
legal basis for delaying compliance with the ESA.  Furthermore, the
program itself appears to have no function other than as a cover for
delaying action. It has been in place for over 16 years, yet it is still
described as “interim”: “The Endangered Species Protection Program
as described in a Federal Register notice (54 FR 27984-28008, July 3,
1989) is currently being implemented on an interim basis.” The
operative part of the program, the county bulletins, is, in every
important respect, entirely voluntary and has never been shown to be of
any value whatsoever: “As part of the interim program, the Agency has
developed County Specific Pamphlets that articulate many of the specific
measures outlined in the Biological Opinions issued to date. The
Pamphlets are available for voluntary use by pesticide applicators on
EPA’s website at www.epa.gov/espp.” The Agency has never tried to
validate the efficacy of the program as a protective measure for
endangered species. In the absence of empirical data from a study
designed to test the impact of the ESPP, it cannot be assumed to have
accomplished any degree of protection of endangered species. During the
course of the 16 years of “interim” implementation, the Agency has
had a more than adequate opportunity to determine whether the ESPP is of
any value. That it has failed to do so means that there is no basis for
concluding that the ESPP can be used to achieve compliance with the
requirements of the ESA.

EFED Response:

Please refer to the Agency's July 24, 2006 letter to Ms. Patti Goldman,
Earthjustice, for a response to this comment.  This letter has been
added to the DDVP docket.

Comment:

Page 47: The Agency failed to require proper documentation of an
important study: “Raw data is not provided in the daphnid acute EC50
study (MRID 40098001/ Mayer and Ellersieck 1986) to calculate a
slope.” Because of the inadequacy of the documentation, the Agency
used a default assumption for the slope. There is no indication in the
DDVP record that there is an empirical basis for the default assumption.
There is also no indication in the record why the Agency failed to
obtain the missing raw data or why it did not require a new, properly
documented study. The same criticism applies to the bird and mammal
assessments: “Raw data are not provided in the mallard duck acute LD50
study;” “Raw data are not provided in the rat acute LD50 study (MRID
0005467) to calculate a slope.” In the absence of reliable, properly
documented data or validated default assumptions, the Agency cannot
conclude that uses that result in aquatic and terrestrial exposures will
not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, and
accordingly all such registrations must be cancelled.

EFED Response:

The Agency risk assessment includes, as part of the risk
characterization, an evaluation of the potential probability of
individual effects for exposures that may occur at the established
endangered species level of concern.  This probability is calculated
using the established dose/response relationship and the median lethal
dose estimate for the study used to establish the toxicity endpoint for
the endangered taxa.  The Agency uses the Individual Effect Chance
spreadsheet tool to perform these calculations.

Although it is preferable to have access to the raw data for analysis by
Agency scientists, this information is not always readily available.
However, in this particular case, please recognize that the information
gained from the probability analysis is for descriptive purposes and not
for determining if there are adverse effects.

Comment:

Page 47: The probit slope analysis model used by the Agency employs what
appear to be unsubstantiated assumptions concerning dose response
slopes: “Based on an assumption of a probit dose response relationship
with a mean estimated slope of 4.5, the corresponding estimated chance
of individual mortality associated with the mammalian listed species LOC
of 0.1 is 1 in 294,000.” Extrapolations based on unsubstantiated
assumptions piled upon more unsubstantiated assumptions are inherently
unreliable. The Agency admits as much: “It is recognized that
extrapolation of very low probability events is associated with
considerable uncertainty in the resulting estimates . . . [S]ince slope
is based on a default assumption of 4.5, the 95 percent confidence
intervals for the slopes are unavailable.” Furthermore, there is no
indication in the DDVP record that this model has been validated by
means of empirical data from studies designed to test the reliability of
these models. Rather than using speculative assumptions and unvalidated
models, the Agency should have required the registrants to conduct and
submit appropriate studies sufficient to resolve all of the
uncertainties now addressed by these models. In the absence of
validation and reliable empirical data, the Agency cannot conclude that
registrants have met their burden of proving that DDVP will not cause
unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, and accordingly all
registrations of DDVP that might cause mammals to be exposed to DDVP
residues should be cancelled.

EFED Response:

The Agency risk assessment includes, as part of the risk
characterization, an evaluation of the potential probability of
individual effects for exposures that may occur at the established
endangered species level of concern.  This probability is calculated
using the established dose/response relationship and the median lethal
dose estimate for the study used to establish the toxicity endpoint for
the endangered taxa.  This approach, which is based on commonly known
and employed basic toxicology dose-response analyses, is explained on
page 64 of the Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the
Office of Pesticide Programs (2004) document and was endorsed by the
Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service.
The Agency uses the Individual Effect Chance spreadsheet tool to perform
these calculations.  The information gained from this analysis is for
descriptive purposes and not for determining if there are adverse
effects.

Comment:

Page 48: The Agency has made the equivalent of “may affect” findings
for endangered species: “The screening level risk assessment has
identified potential concerns for indirect effects on listed species for
those organisms dependent upon freshwater invertebrates, birds, and
mammals. In light of the potential for indirect effects, the next step
for EPA, FWS, and the NMFS is to identify which listed species and
critical habitat are potentially implicated.” The Agency has failed
for far too many years to require adequate data from registrants to
identify endangered species at risk from DDVP. According to EPA, “[a]t
present, the information reviewed by EPA does not permit use of either
analytical approach to make a definitive identification of species that
are potentially impacted indirectly or critical habitats that are
potentially impacted directly by the use of the pesticide.” In light
of this failure, the Agency cannot conclude that continued use of DDVP
will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment under
FIFRA, because it admittedly causes adverse effects among endangered
species. Accordingly, the Agency must cancel all uses that might lead to
exposure of any endangered species.

EFED Response:

See response to NRDC comment immediately below.

Comment:

Page 49: The Agency has made a “may affect” finding for threatened
or endangered fish species: “Indirect effects to endangered/threatened
fish that depend on freshwater invertebrates as a primary source of
food, as well as larger aquatic animals that rely on aquatic
(freshwater) invertebrate populations as a food source may be affected
by the direct or chronic effects of dichlorvos use.” (emphasis added).
Based on this finding, EPA must immediately commence consultations with
the Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service, as
appropriate. EPA’s failure to do so violates the Endangered Species
Act.

EFED Response:

The commentor mischaracterizes EPA’s assessment of potential risks in
the ecological risk assessment as a “may affect” finding.  Although
the risk assessment includes a screening level assessment for threatened
and endangered species, it does not include the species-specific
assessment that EPA uses to make effects determinations.  More
precisely, EPA assesses the potential risks to species listed as
endangered or threatened under the ESA (listed species) as part of its
overall evaluation of the environmental impacts of any given pesticide,
in this case DDVP.  In connection with such a screening level
assessment, EPA requires pesticide companies to conduct studies on a
wide variety of surrogate animals, insects, and other wildlife, and to
submit information that allows EPA to estimate the amount of pesticide
residue that will remain in the environment following its use.  EPA then
reviews and analyzes these data, along with information from the public
literature, to estimate levels of pesticide residues in the environment
that will be unlikely to cause any adverse effects on non-target
species.  These screening level assessments incorporate a number of
conservative assumptions about potential exposure and species
sensitivity so there is little chance an assessment will underestimate
the potential risks to listed species.  These conservative assumptions
may, however, lead to assessments indicating the possibility of a risk
when, in fact, no risk to listed species exists.  Accordingly, the
screening level assessment is not a “may adversely affect”
determination pursuant to the ESA.

If a screening level assessment indicates that a non-target species
could potentially be adversely affected by use of a product, EPA
considers a range of choices, including imposing restrictions on the use
of the pesticide to mitigate possible risks and conducting further
analysis to better characterize the spatial and temporal extent and
magnitude of any risk.  In the case of listed species, further
assessment, on a species-by-species basis, often involves determining
whether a particular listed species (or its protected habitat) will be
in or near areas where a pesticide is or has been used, which is a
substantial, additional effort.  Historically, EPA has conducted
screening level risk assessments for listed species and other non-target
wildlife during reregistration.  These assessments (and the actions
taken by EPA if a screening level assessment suggests there may be risks
of concern) are documented in EPA's FIFRA § 4 Reregistration
Eligibility Determinations (“REDs”).  Given the available resources
and the statutory deadlines for performing reregistration, EPA does not
believe it is feasible routinely to perform follow-on species-specific
assessments for listed species as part of a RED for an individual
pesticide.  Nor do we think it would be prudent public policy to delay
implementation of needed public health and environmental protections
identified through reregistration until we finished performing
species-specific assessments on listed species.  Therefore, as we have
acknowledged, completion of species-by-species assessments leading to
effects determinations, and any consultations necessary under ESA §
7(a)(2), will generally be a post-RED activity.

Nonetheless, it is important to note that, even in the absence of
completed species-specific effects determinations, EPA has used its
screening level assessments to put in place measures that reduce
exposure and improve the protections for non-target species, including
listed species.  Such measures for DDVP included cancellation of the
crack and crevice use and all uses on lawns, turf, and ornamentals.

Comment:

Page 50: The risk assessment for aquatic organisms fails to consider
exposure via ingestion: “The screening assessment does not consider
the ingestion pathway. This exposure may occur through ingestion of
contaminated vegetation, invertebrates, or other exposed prey items.”
No explanation is given for EPA’s failure to consider this source of
exposure. In addition, dermal exposure is also left out of the
assessment: “The screening assessment does not consider dermal
exposure. Dermal exposure may occur through one potential source:
contact with contaminated water. The available measured data related to
aquatic wildlife dermal contact with pesticides are extremely
limited.” If the reason for these gaps is inadequate data, the Agency
should have required this data during reregistration. In the absence of
data necessary to reliably characterize these exposure routes, the
Agency cannot determine that uses that might result in exposure to
aquatic organisms will not cause unreasonable adverse effects.
Accordingly, these uses should be cancelled.

EFED Response:

Currently, the Agency’s risk assessment methodologies do not account
for these routes of exposure.  For clarity and transparency, this was
identified in the assumptions and limitations section of the risk
assessment (see page 50).  Nevertheless, the conceptual model assumes
that DDVP use is widespread; on the scale of a major crop use
agrochemical.  Estimated environmental concentrations are likely very
conservative given the standard, underlying assumptions built into the
exposure models.

Comment:

Page 51: EPA acknowledges that the LD50/sq. ft. calculation is not
adequately protective:  “It does not address subacute behavioral or
physiological effects that may occur prior to mortality and yet can
still have a profound sub-lethal effects [sic] on an organisms [sic]
ability to survive and reproduce. As such, this index may underestimate
ecological hazard from sub-lethal exposures.” Based on this finding
alone, it is clear that the Agency cannot justifiably conclude that the
exposure of wildlife to DDVP will not cause unreasonable adverse
effects. Accordingly, all uses that may result in exposure to wildlife
should be cancelled. (Furthermore, the Agency must be mindful that for
endangered species, even a single LD50 exposure to an endangered specie
is unlawful, regardless of the size area it occurs in).

EFED Response:

The Agency’s Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the
Office of Pesticide Programs (2004) document, which was endorsed by the
Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service,
describes the assumptions and limitations regarding sublethal effects.
For an acute risk assessment, the screening risk assessment relies on
the acute mortality endpoint as well as a suite of sublethal responses
to the pesticide, as determined by the testing of species response to
chronic exposure conditions and subsequent chronic risk assessment.
Examples of these sublethal endpoints for birds and mammals include the
following:

	Birds:		Reproduction		Maternal weight

						Eggs laid/hen

						Eggs cracked

						Eggshell thickness

						Viable embryos

						Hatchling number

						14-day survivors

						Gross necropsy

						Observations of other clinical signs

Mammals:	Two-Generation	Total panel of reproduction parameters

		Reproduction		including:

					Histopathology, parental and offspring

					growth, weight, mating, lactation,

					gonadal development milestones,

					sexual organ performance and offspring

					production

A risk assessment team has the option of considering additional
sublethal data in the assessment.  This option is exercised on a
case-by-case basis and only after careful consideration of the nature of
the sublethal effect measured and the extent and quality of available
data to support establishing a plausible relationship between the
measure of effect (sublethal endpoint) and the assessment endpoints.
This option includes a determination of whether there are clear,
reasonable, and plausible links between the sublethal effect and
survival or reproductive capacity of organisms in the field in
accordance with the screening assessment endpoints of survival and
reproduction capacity.  The Agency documents the findings of such
evaluations of additional sublethal effects in the effects assessment
and includes a discussion of their potential effects upon the confidence
of the overall risk assessment conclusions.  The Agency anticipates
that, through the SAP and related external peer-review processes in the
scientific community, accepted risk assessment practices will continue
to advance in this area.

Comment:

Pages 52-53: The Agency provides a detailed list of limitations of its
ecological risk assessment. It is commendable that these limitations are
frankly identified. However, the Agency fails to recognize that these
uncertainties, almost all of which would tend to result in
understatement of the risks, prevent EPA from finding that any uses of
DDVP which might lead to exposure of wildlife – and endangered species
in particular – will not cause unreasonable adverse effects on the
environment. Accordingly, all such uses should be cancelled.

EFED Response:

The DDVP screening level risk assessment uses the best available
science.  As pointed out in the Overview of the Ecological Risk
Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs (2004) document,
which was endorsed by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National
Marine Fisheries Service, there will always be uncertainties in
screening level ecological risk assessments.  As was done in the DDVP
assessment, it is important to describe the assumptions and limitations
so that they may be taken into account in the risk management decision.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Aaron Colangelo

_____________________________

Aaron Colangelo

Natural Resources Defense Council

1200 New York Ave NW, Suite 400

Washington DC 20005

cc: Dayton Eckerson, SRRD

Response to Comments Received 8/8/05 from Robert Crandall, Cereal Food
Processors, Inc., 2001 Shawnee Mission Parkway, Mission Woods, KS 66205

Subject: OPP-2002-0302 (Dichlorvos (DDVP) Revised Ecological Risk
Assessment; Notice of Availability)

August 8, 2005

Comment:

Our company has flour mills located in several states across the United
States. Each location fogs regulary with DDVP during months they do not
perform a general fumigation. Some plants do one general fumigation a
year while others do two general fumigations a year. From this you can
tell we depend very heavily on the proven effectiveness of DDVP.

DDVP was reformulated a few years ago with a different carrier. As a
result one of our plants had to use a different material to fog with
while the new formulation was going through approval for their state.

The plant had to increase the amount of residual pesticides applied
inside the plant. This not only took more time and money but was no
where near as effective as fogging with DDVP. Before the plant had to
use the alternate product they had reduced the application of residual
pesticides used inside the plant to almost nothing. Nothing being once a
year as opposed to monthly.

After the new formulation was approved the monthly fogging with DDVP
allowed the plant to cut back on the use of residual pesticides to the
levels previous to the reformulation.

For this reason we are very much in favor of the re-registration of
Dichlorvos (DDVP).

Robert Crandall

Manager of Food Safety & Sanitation

Cereal Food Processors, Inc.

Cc: 	John Erker, CFP

	Royal Denning, CFP

EFED Response:

These comments appear to be concerning DDVP use inside flour mills.
Therefore, this use would not be included in the ecological risk
assessment and requires no EFED response.

 PAGE

 PAGE   1


Facility Contact with Mack Molding in Statesville, NC - Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines (NSPS Subpart TTT)
Date
October 5, 2021
Subject
Data collection
Stakeholder
Mr. Frank Bumgarner
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>EPA in attendance
-
ERG in attendance
Bryan Lange
Mission:
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to periodically review and revise its federal rules. We are asking for your help with this requirement for the NSPS Subpart TTT (Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines). Mack Molding, out of Statesville NC was identified in an EPA database as subject to Subpart TTT. We collected your NC air permit and have confirmed this.
We have prepared a short telephone survey for facilities that are subject to this rule. We hope to learn more about the impact of the 1988 rule, ways it might be improved for future facilities, and to look for innovation in the control of air pollution (e.g., new add-on control technologies, new work practices or operational procedure).  After the call we can share with you a copy of the minutes and discuss any necessary changes.
 Describe your business and surface coating process and approximately what fraction of your operation is used to coat plastic parts for business machines:
This Mack Molding Statesville location was constructed in the 1980s. As part of the original construction there were eight paint booths. Those booths pre-date the Subpart TTT regulations and are grandfathered. We had four booths subject to NSPS, but they have been completely removed because we were not using them. We kept them in the permit and left the exhaust fans/stacks and everything in the ceiling for the past 12-years and every 6-months we reported no Subpart TTT activity.
As the result of some new business opportunities, specifically a contract with Gilbarco out of Greensboro who manufacture gas pump plastic housing, we installed two new booths which use two of those four existing exhaust fans. That Gilbarco job never started and those booths are currently idle.
In the 1980 and 1990s we sprayed in those NSPS booths every day; there were restriction on photoreactive chemicals (e.g., xylene, toluene). Historically we used a RFI graphite material, but we no longer do that.
In the 1980, everything was painted. Today, we produce 150 custom-colored materials that do not require painting (e.g., fine and heavy texture).
Mr. Frank Bumgarner was willing to provide a tour and share any of his historical records.

 Can you share with us an approximate annual surface coating throughput (approximately what fraction is used to coat plastic parts for business machines)?
We use approximately 6,500 gallons of paint every 6-months. I know that number because we are an ISO 14,000 company since 2007.
Each product gets 2 or 3 mills thick of coating.
We paint for approximately 25 different customers. We use a variety of finishes (e.g., water-based material, urethane material, smooth coat with/without texture). Our customers include E-Z-GO golf carts and Sensormatic (i.e., device installed at Target to make sure customers do not walk out with product). We have manufacture Sensormatic products for 20-years.
 We found your facility in a database indicating it is subject to NSPS subpart TTT (i.e., Surface Coating of Plastic Parts for Business Machines). Have you implemented any procedures or VOC control technologies to comply with that rule?
No. We considered an afterburner, but determined it was too costly. We are comfortably below our permit limit so VOC restrictions aren't something we worry about.
Out NC air permit is the only thing that restricts operations for out grandfathered booths. We have a 100 ton per year VOC limit. We typically emit 65,000 pounds of VOC annually.
 Have you made other accommodations to comply with Subpart TTT requirements and standards (e.g., VOC reporting requirements)? Are there business reasons for using paints with more than minimum VOC (e.g., because higher solvent contents are necessary for effective paint transfer for your product, or because the solvents preventing your coating from spoiling)?
Maintaining our ISO standard requires extensive record keeping. Specifically, we maintain an inventory of our hazardous waste (e.g., clean pots, waste paint) volume to track against our 15% target. A lot of our customers, like Volvo, that ship to Europe require the certification. We have 17-proceedures in place that are a result of that process.
Customers specify the type of paint they want us to use. A customer may speck another paint and we will try to get it changed to Sherwin Williams; we have a good relationship with Sherwin Williams and know how to apply them and they can usually match the specifications.

 Do you track either spray booths' transfer efficiency or VOC concentrations in booth exhaust?
Our grandfathered and NSPS booths are dimensionally identical, everything is enclosed (with glass) and each has a make-up air system. They have the same air flow (i.e., 200 cfm) and the exhaust for both are double filtered before it exits the stack.
We do not track the transfer efficiency. We have experience painters. We track quality once the part is sprayed (e.g., gloss meters) and some companies require a certain film thickness.
 If you were building a new plant in a different location to address a growing demand applying surface coating to plastic parts for business machines, how would it be different?
We would look at an afterburner and I'm sure that technology has improved. It would give us more leniency.
We have optimized our production lines and we would duplicate what we have. We had a robot at one time, but it was removed because of our manufacturing part diversity, short runs (i.e., we may paint one part for 3 hours then another for 6 hours), and time to reset.
 Do you have plans to expand your coating operation for plastic parts for business machines?
If there was an increased need for surface coating, we could meet it. We have 24 molding presses and we run molding 24-hours a day 6-days a week (sometimes 7-days a week). Finishing shifts (which includes painting) run only 6-days, 12-hour per day. I will note that.
It is Mack Molding policy that their operations never occupy over 80% of their available facility space. We were impacted by the pandemic, specifically due to supply of resins, paint, and materials. Some manufactured products we mold are not painted.
 Do you have other industry contacts that are knowledgeable about the rule and might have useful input in our review?
Mack Molding in Inman SC does not have NSPS booths (together we make up Mack South) so there is no reason to call them.
We do about $600,000 of business with Sherwin Williams. You might speak to our sales representative: Eric Kiever.