[Federal Register: July 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 144)]
[Notices]
[Page 41357-41358]
[DOCID:fr27jy07-84]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0063]

Bloodborne Pathogens Standard; Extension of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information Collection
(Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comment concerning its proposal to extend
OMB approval of the information collection requirements specified in
the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard (29 CFR 1910.1030). The information
collection requirements specified in the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard
provides employers and employees with means to provide protection from
adverse health effects associated with occupational exposure to
bloodborne pathogens.

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
September 25, 2007.

ADDRESSES:
    Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit three copies of your comments
and attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2007-0063,
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20210. Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., EST.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the ICR (OSHA-2007-0063). All comments, including any
personal information you provide, are placed in the public docket
without change, and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov.
 For further information on submitting comments see

the ``Public Participation'' heading in the section of this notice
titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at

the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;

however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the website. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You also may contact Jamaa N. Hill
at the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamaa N. Hill or Todd Owen,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor,
Room N-3609, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The information collection requirements specified in the Bloodborne
Pathogens Standard require employers to: Develop and maintain exposure
control plans; develop a housekeeping schedule; provide employees with
hepatitis B virus (HBV) vaccinations, as well as post-exposure medical
evaluations and follow-ups; provide employees with information and
training; maintain medical and training records for specified periods;
and provide OSHA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health, employees and their authorized representatives with access to
these records; HIV and HBV research laboratories and production
facilities must also adopt or develop, and review at least once a year,
a biosafety manual; and establish and maintain a sharps injury log for
the recording of percutaneous (through the skin) injuries from
contaminated sharps.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions to
protect employees, including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Bloodborne Pathogens Standard
(29 CFR 1910.1030). The Agency will summarize the comments submitted in
response to this notice and will include this summary in the request to
OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Bloodborne Pathogens Standard (29 CFR 1910.1030).
    OMB Number: 1218-0180.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations; Not-
for-profit institutions; Federal, State, Local, or Tribal Governments.
    Number of Respondents: 630,021.
    Frequency: On occasion.

    Total Responses: 23,586,234.
    Average Time per Response: Time per response varies from 5 minutes
(.08 hour) to maintain records to 1.5 hours for employees to receive
training or medical evaluations.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 14,060,528.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $24,507,892.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on this Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal

eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile; or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0063). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or a facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and docket number so the Agency can attach them to
your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger or courier service, please contact the OSHA
Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov.
 Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about

submitting personal information such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov
 index, some information (e.g., copyrighted

material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
website. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are available
for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office. Information on
using the http://www.regulations.gov website to submit comments and

access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User Tips'' link.
Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about materials not
available through the Web site, and for assistance in using the
Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice. The
authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2002 (67 FR
65008).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on July 23, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E7-14516 Filed 7-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 240 (Thursday, December 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76619-76620]
[FR Doc No: 2022-27220]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0896; FRL-10438-01-OCSPP]

DQB Males (Wolbachia pipientis, DQB Strain, Contained in Live
Adult Culex quinquefasciatus Males); Receipt of Application for
Emergency Exemption, Solicitation of Public Comment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received a specific exemption request from the Hawaii
Department of Agriculture for use of the pesticide DQB Males (Wolbachia
pipientis, DQB strain, contained in live adult Culex quinquefasciatus
males), to treat up to 20,000 acres of State, Federal, and private
wildlife conservation areas throughout the State of Hawaii and to
control Culex quinquefasciatus mosquitoes, a vector of avian malaria.
The applicant proposes a new use of a microbial pesticide which has not
been registered by EPA. Therefore, in

accordance with Code of Federal Regulations, EPA is soliciting public
comment before making the decision whether to grant the exemption.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 30, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0896, and the specific case number for the
chemical substance related to your comment, through the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. To make
special arrangements for hand delivery or delivery of boxed
information, please follow the instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. Additional instructions on commenting or
visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets
generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Rosenblatt, Registration
Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-
0001; main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a
pesticide manufacturer, North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) (Code 32532) or involved with Hawaiian wildlife conservation
areas that have known populations of Culex quinquefasciatus. This
listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Other
types of entities not listed could also be affected.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    3. Environmental justice. EPA seeks to achieve environmental
justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of any group,
including minority and/or low- income populations, in the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the
Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population
who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other
factors, may have atypical or disproportionately high and adverse human
health impacts or environmental effects from exposure to the
pesticide(s) discussed in this document, compared to the general
population.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the EPA
Administrator, a Federal or State agency may be exempted from any
provision of FIFRA if the EPA Administrator determines that emergency
conditions exist which require the exemption. The Hawaii Department of
Agriculture has requested the EPA Administrator to issue a specific
exemption for the use of DQB males for conservation purposes to control
mosquitoes (Culex quinquefasciatus), which are a known vector to avian
malaria and threaten Hawaii's endemic forest bird population.
Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of
this request.
    As part of this request, the applicant asserts that avian malaria
was introduced into the Hawaiian Islands in the 19th century and spread
by a non-native mosquito. Hawaii is experiencing increased mosquito
populations that have significantly reduced Hawaiian bird populations.
According to the applicant, without mosquito control, the survival and
recovery of Hawaii's few remaining forest birds, including threatened
and endangered species, are at imminent risk.
    The applicant proposes to make 156 maximum applications of DQB male
mosquitoes per release site per year based on an anticipated maximum of
3 releases per week. The total number of application days is a maximum
of 156 during the year. The total amount of DQB Males to be applied per
year to treat conservation lands throughout Hawaii is up to 3,000,000
male mosquitoes per week or 156,000,000 males per year. The maximum
amount of Wolbachia pipientis, DQB strain, to be applied per year is up
to ~1.83g/week or 95g/year.
    This notice does not constitute a decision by EPA on the
application itself. The regulations governing FIFRA section 18 require
publication of a notice of receipt of an application for a specific
exemption proposing a new use of a microbial pesticide (i.e., an active
ingredient) which has not been registered by EPA. The notice provides
an opportunity for public comment on the application.
    The Agency will review and consider all comments received during
the comment period in determining whether to issue the specific
exemption requested by the Hawaii Department of Agriculture.
    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: December 8, 2022.
Daniel Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2022-27220 Filed 12-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


19 Table 2c  Nationwide Industry Burden for Existing Major Sources ( Third Year)

Proposed NESHAP for Carbon Black Production Facilities A B C D E F G H Reporting and recordkeeping requirements Person hours Annual occurrences Annual person hours Total number Technical hours Management hours Clerical hours Total Annual per occurrence per respondent per respondent of respondents per year per year per year Cost ( A X B) ( C X D) @ $ 45.04 ( E x 0.05) @ $ 66.73 ( E x 0.10) @ $ 28.14 1. Reporting requirements a. Read rule and instructions 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 $ 0 b. Process/ Review information 4 4 16 0 0 0 0 $ 0 c. Write reports i. Initial notification 2 1 2 7 14 0.7 1.4 $ 717 ii. Performance test notification 2 1 2 7 14 0.7 1.4 $ 717 iii. Compliance status notification 2 1 2 7 14 0.7 1.4 $ 717 iv. Performance test reports 2 1 2 7 14 0.7 1.4 $ 717 v. Capture hood inspection report 2 4 8 7 56 2.8 5.6 $ 2,867 vi. Startup/ shutdown/ malfunction reports 2 4 8 7 56 2.8 5.6 $ 2,867 vii. Semi annual summary report 4 2 8 7 56 2.8 5.6 $ 2,867 2. Recordkeeping requirements a. Read rule and instructions 4 1 4 0 0 0 0 $ 0 b. Plan activities 24 1 24 7 168 8.4 16.8 $ 8,600 c. Implement activities for Control Devices and Process Equipment i. Design analysis 15 1 15 3 45 2.25 4.5 $ 2,304 ii. Performance test 40 1 40 2 80 4 8 $ 4,095 iii. Equipment inspection 1 52 52 7 364 18.2 36.4 $ 18,633 iv. Monitoring activities 1 52 52 7 364 18.2 36.4 $ 18,633 v. Maintenance 2 52 104 7 728 36.4 72.8 $ 37,267 d. Develop record system i. Develop startup/ shutdown/ malfunction plan 40 1 40 7 280 14 28 $ 14,333 ii. Control equipment/ maintenance plan 12 1 12 7 84 4.2 8.4 $ 4,300 e. Time to enter information i. Control equipment testing 1 1 1 2 2 0.1 0.2 $ 102 ii. Control equipment inspection 0.5 52 26 7 182 9.1 18.2 $ 9,317 iii. Control equipment monitoring 0.5 52 26 7 182 9.1 18.2 $ 9,317 f. Time to train personnel i. Acquisition, installation, and use of technology & systems 40 1 40 7 280 14 28 $ 14,333 ii. Control equipment inspection and monitoring 40 1 40 7 280 14 28 $ 14,333 g. Store, file and maintain records 4 52 208 7 1456 72.8 145.6 $ 74,533 h. Retrive records/ Reports 4 52 208 7 1456 72.8 145.6 $ 74,533 Total 6175 309 618 $ 316,101 During the third year it was estimated that 7 facilities will come into compliance  2 facilities will install incinerators and 1 facility will install a flare.

Installation of a flare requires design analysis, no performance test is required. Total Burden Hours 7101


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66366-66367]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26525]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004; FRL-9918-29]

Access to Confidential Business Information by Several Student
Services Contractors

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is continuing to authorize Student Services Contractors
access to information which has been submitted to EPA under all
sections of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Some of the
information may be claimed or determined to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI). Original notice of this access was published in the
Federal Register on May 18, 2012.

DATES: Access to the confidential data began on April 30, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Scott Sherlock, Environmental
Assistance Division (7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to all who manufacture, process, or distribute
industrial chemicals. Since other entities may also be interested, the
Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may
be affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2003-0004, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center
(EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. What action is the agency taking?

    Under a variety of EPA contracts, Student Services Contractors are
continuing to assist the Office of Science Policy (OSP), Office of
Research and Development (ORD) in research on the impact of hydraulic
fracturing on drinking water resources. This includes analysis of data
from nine hydraulic fracturing companies and nine well owner/operators.
In time other Student Services Contractors will be involved in this
activity under different contract order numbers. Original notice of
this type access was published in the Federal Register on May 18, 2012
(77 FR 29635; FRL-9349-8). No further notice will be given for these
entities'/persons' clearances.
    In accordance with 40 CFR 2.306(j), EPA has determined that Student
Services Contractors required access to CBI submitted to EPA under all
sections of TSCA to perform successfully the duties specified under the
contract. Student Services Contractors' personnel were given access to
information submitted to EPA under all sections of TSCA. Some of the
information may have been claimed or determined to be CBI.
    EPA is issuing this notice again to inform all submitters of
information under all sections of TSCA that EPA has provided Student
Services Contractors access to these CBI materials on a need-to-know
basis only. All access to TSCA CBI under this contract is taking place
at EPA Headquarters in accordance with EPA's TSCA CBI Protection Manual
and, as required for successful performance of this contract, other
authorized locations.
    Access to TSCA data, including CBI, under these contracts will
continue until December 31, 2016.
    Student Services Contractors' personnel have signed nondisclosure
agreements and were briefed on appropriate security procedures before
they were permitted access to TSCA CBI. All Student Services
Contractors personnel will comply with TSCA CBI access requirements
before being given access to these materials.

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2601 et seq.

    Dated: October 29, 2014.
Pamela S. Myrick,
Acting Director, Information Management Division, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2014-26525 Filed 11-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


From:
David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent:
Tuesday, November 10, 2015 5:32 PM
To:
Jones, DonnaLee<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Cc:
Allen Dittenhoefer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bill Osborn<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Brian Lasko<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Bryan Kresak<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Charles Jones<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Chris Hardin<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Chung, David<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Coleen Davis<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dan Belack<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dave Hacker<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Dave Havalo<EMAIL_ADDRESS>David Ailor<EMAIL_ADDRESS>David Fanning<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Ed Dinsmore<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Eric Wiliams<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>James Hosfield<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Janis Deitch<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jay Cornelius<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Joe Hanning<EMAIL_ADDRESS>John Hill<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Jonelle Scheetz<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Julianne Kurdila<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Katie Kistler<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Katie Maser<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Keith Nagel<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Krista Armentrout<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Marian Gammon<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mark Poling<EMAIL_ADDRESS>May, Jeffrey X<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mike Dzurinko<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Monica Gesk<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Nicole Siviy<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Parker Adams<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Patrick Smith<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Peter Libell<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Randy Wiler<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Rich Zavoda<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Scott Kiechle<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Solomon Nyathi<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Tishie Woodwell<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Traci Self<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Victoria Morton<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject:
RE: NOVEMBER 12 CONFERENCE CALL OF THE COETF WITH EPA TO DISCUSS DRAFT ENCLOSURE 1 OF EPA'S REVISED DRAFT ICR FOR THE COKE PQBS RTR PROJECT (3:00 pm EST/2:00 pm CST)

Donna Lee:
Attached are two documents the COETF would like to discuss with you during our call on Thursday:
·       COETF-developed document entitled "Summary of COETF Comments/Concerns on the Draft Coke Ovens ICR: Enclosure 1" (see "COETF ICR Enclosure 1 Comments 111015.pdf"); and,
·       COETF-developed document that discusses extended coking (see "Extended Coking 111015.pdf").
Please contact me if you have any questions.  Thanks, DCA
David C. Ailor, P.E.
President
American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute
25 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20001
Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
eFax.:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>www.accci.org

<< COETF ICR Enclosure 1 Comments 111015.pdf >>
<< Extended Coking 111015.pdf >>


                        Economic Impacts Assessment for
        Revisions to the Export Provisions of Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs)
                                  Final Rule

                 Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
                 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                                   June 2013

                               EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

      With this Final Rule, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is revising the export provisions of the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) final rule published on July 28, 2006 (71 FR 42928).  The purpose of these revisions is to address certain implementation concerns with the current export provisions in the 2006 rule.  These changes will facilitate compliance with the requirements and will enable the Agency to obtain additional information on the export of this class of used electronics.  This rule affects only the export provisions of the CRT rule.  It does not affect any requirements applicable to domestic management of used CRTs.   Nor does this action affect households or conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs).  Therefore, entities potentially affected by today's action are limited to those persons or companies who export used CRTs and CRT glass for reuse or recycling.
      In the proposed rule published on March 15, 2012, EPA proposed to add a definition of "CRT exporter" to the CRT rule, in order to clarify the responsibilities of brokers and other intermediaries in fulfilling the export notice requirements.  EPA also proposed revising the notifications that must be submitted to EPA when CRTs are exported for reuse or recycling, while requiring that new annual reports now also be submitted by exporters of CRTs for recycling. Based on feedback from public comments and input from Agency workgroup members, all of the proposed rule changes were adopted for the final rule.  In addition, this final rule also adopts requirements for the translation of foreign language business documents into English so that they may be more readily reviewed if necessary.
      This document assesses the potential economic impacts of these final CRT Rule revisions.

Summary of Results
      Given the minor changes being imposed by this rule, the results of our cost assessment reveal very modest cost impacts.
      1)  All exporters of CRTs (regardless of whether they are sending CRTs for Recycling or Reuse), will face a new one-time up-front cost to familiarize themselves with the new CRT rule requirements.  This one-time cost is expected to be incurred by 140 CRT exporters.  The total one-time cost is estimated to be $42,904 in the first year following promulgation of the rule.

      2)   Exporters of CRTs sent for recycling will face a new requirement to produce and submit an Annual Report regarding their actual recycling exports.   However, because this new requirement is expected to result in only approximately 12 new reports each year, the total cost to both exporters and EPA is very low and equals a total of just $2,454 per year.

      3)  Added to these costs are additional annual costs to 140 Exporters of CRTs for reuse, which range from $2,575 to $4,782 for adhering to the additional information requirements for Reuse Notices.  These costs, in combination with the added costs for EPA's receipt and processing of these notices (estimated to be between $1,548 and $2,876), brings the total annual cost for this feature of the rule to a range of approximately $4,123 to $7,658.

      4)  Finally, costs associated with translating normal business records into English (as necessary upon request) are estimated to range from $3,200 to $7,250 per year.

      In conclusion, the total estimated cost impacts from this rule are estimated to be $42,904 in year one only, plus annual costs in the range of $9,777 to 17,362, starting in year one and continuing each year thereafter.

                               TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION
       1.1 	Background on Existing Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Rule
      1.2   	Need for Regulatory Action

 2.0	OVERVIEW OF NEW REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
       2.1	Definition of "CRT Exporter"
       2.2	Rule Changes Specific to the "Export of CRTs for Recycling"
            2.2.1	New Annual Report Required by "Exporters of CRTs Sent for Recycling"
      2.2.2	Additional Destination Data Requested as Part of the Recycling Notice
      2.3	Changes Specific to the "Export of CRTs for Reuse"
            2.3.1	Changes to Notification Requirements
            2.3.2	English Translation of Normal Business Records

 3.0	METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
       3.1   Estimated Number of Potentially Impacted CRT Exporters
       3.2   Labor Rate Estimates and Assumptions
       3.3   Burden Hour Estimates and Assumptions
       3.4   Material Cost Estimates and Assumptions
       3.5   Notification Estimates and Assumptions
       3.6   Estimated Type and Quantity of Normal Business Records Requiring Translation
       3.7   English Translation Rates and Assumptions

 4.0	ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL COSTS

       4.1   Estimated Costs for Reading the Rule
       4.2   Estimated Costs for New Annual Reporting by CRT Export Recyclers
       4.3   Estimated Costs for Additional Reuse and Recycling Notification Requirements
      4.4   Estimated Costs for English Translation of Normal Business Records
      4.5   Total Cost Impact of the Proposed CRT Rule Revisions

 5.0	QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFITS

 ATTACHMENT A:  Supporting Documentation for Cost Assessments

      Exhibit A-1:  Estimated Costs for Reading & Understanding the New Rule Requirements
      Exhibit A-2:  Estimated Costs for Annual Reporting by Exporters of CRTs for Recycling
      Exhibit A-3:  Estimated Costs for Meeting Proposed Reuse Notification Changes
      Exhibit A-4:  Estimated Costs for Translating Foreign Language Records into English

 ATTACHMENT B:  Summary of Regulatory Flexibility Analyses

   1.0 INTRODUCTION

      1.1  	Background on Existing Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Rule

      The Agency promulgated the CRT rule on July 28, 2006 (71 FR 42928).   In that rule, EPA amended its regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to streamline management requirements for used CRTs and glass removed from CRTs, with the intent of encouraging their recycling and reuse.  Under 40 CFR 261.39, these materials are excluded from the definition of solid waste if certain conditions are met. Used CRTs (intact or broken) sent for reuse and recycling are subject to the speculative accumulation requirements of 261.1(c) (8).   Facilities that send used, broken CRTs for recycling are subject to packaging and labeling requirements, as are CRT glass processors.  CRT glass processors are also subject to speculative accumulation requirements and may not use temperatures high enough to volatilize lead.
      In addition to these domestic requirements, the CRT rule also contains requirements (at 40 CFR 261.39 (a)(5)) for used CRTs exported for recycling.  Exporters of used CRTs for recycling must notify EPA of an intended shipment 60 days before the shipment. Notifications may cover exports extending over a 12-month or shorter period. The notification must include contact information about the exporter and recycler, and an alternate recycler. It must also include a description of the recycling, frequency and rate of export, means of transport, total quantity of CRTs, and information about transit countries.
      With respect to used intact CRTs that are exported for reuse, 40 CFR 261.41 requires exporters to submit a one-time notification to EPA with contact information and a statement that they are exporting the CRTs for reuse. They must keep copies of normal business records demonstrating that each shipment will be reused. Records must be retained for three years from the date of export.
      1.2	Need for Regulatory Action
      Since promulgation of the CRT rule in 2006, exports of CRTs and CRT glass have continued, whether for reuse or recycling.  As EPA implemented the rule, two principal concerns became apparent. The first was that when CRTs and CRT glass are exported for recycling or reuse, several parties may be involved in the transaction. This multi-party involvement has sometimes led to confusion about which party is responsible for fulfilling the export notice requirements.  The second concern involves CRTs that are ostensibly exported for reuse but that are actually disassembled and recycled when they reach the receiving country, sometimes under unsafe conditions.  To address these concerns, EPA is adopting minor changes to the current CRT Rule as described in Section 2.0 below.

2.0	OVERVIEW OF NEW REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
	2.1	Definition of "CRT Exporter" (applicable to both CRTs for Reuse or Recycling)
      When CRTs are exported for recycling or reuse, there are often several parties involved and this can cause considerable confusion over exactly who must file the export notices required under 40 CFR 261.39(a)(5)(for CRTs exported for recycling) and 40 CFR 261.41(for CRTs exported for reuse). To reduce this confusion, the Agency is adding a definition of "CRT exporter" to 40 CFR 260.10, which states that a CRT exporter is "any person or entity in the United States who initiates a transaction to send used CRTs outside the United States and its territories for recycling or reuse, or any intermediary in the United States arranging for such export.  The reference to "any intermediary arranging for the export" is modeled on the definition of "primary exporter" of hazardous waste in 40 CFR 260.10.  As described above, there may be multiple parties who participate in the exporting of CRTs.  To avoid duplicative submissions, the Agency expects only one party for a given export shipment to perform the exporter duties under 40 CFR 261.39(a)(5) and 40 CFR 261.41   Lastly, EPA emphasizes that this definition would clarify rather than change current liability for violations of the CRT export requirements.    [Note: EPA considers there to be no economic costs associated with this definitional change.]
      2.2	Rule Changes Specific to the "Export of CRTs for Recycling"
      Under the provisions of this rule, parties that "Export CRTs for purposes of Recycling" shall face the following additional requirements.

		2.2.1	New Annual Report Required from Exporters of CRTs Sent for Recycling
      	Per the existing CRT Rule, parties that export CRTs for recycling currently have notification requirements regarding their projected exports, but are not required to submit any retrospective documentation regarding the amount of their actual exports in a given year.  To help ensure that CRTs exported for recycling are handled as commodities and not otherwise discarded, EPA is requiring that such parties now submit Annual Reports of their exports.  [Note: This annual report requirement has been modeled after the annual report required for exporters of hazardous waste under 40 CFR 262.56 (Also see cited reference and web URL provided in Footnote 2).]
      2.2.2	Additional Destination Data Requested as Part of the Recycling Notice
      Per the current CRT Rule (40 CFR 261.39(a)(5)(F)), exporters of CRTs sent for recycling are required to state the name and address of the recycler and any alternate recycler.  Because CRTs are sometimes exported to more than one recycler in the receiving country, EPA is now requiring that the exporter state the name and address of the recycler or recyclers and the estimated quantity of CRTs to be sent to each facility, as well as the names of any alternate recyclers.  In this way EPA will be able to provide the receiving country with the most accurate information available about the ultimate fate of the CRTs entering their country.
      2.3	Changes Specific to the "Export of CRTs for Reuse"
      Under the provisions of the final rule, parties that "Export CRTs for Reuse" shall face the following additional requirements.
      2.3.1	Changes to Notification Requirements
      Per the current CRT Rule, exporters of CRTs sent for reuse are already required to submit a one-time notice to EPA with minimal information under 40 CFR 261.41.   Since original promulgation of this requirement, the Agency has become aware that some CRTs, ostensibly exported for reuse, are actually recycled in the receiving country, sometimes under unsafe conditions.  In response, EPA is expanding the current reuse notice to provide more complete information about the potential reuse of the exported CRTs.  The added items to the reuse notice are modeled on those required in the notice for CRTs exported for recycling, and will help the Agency determine whether exported CRTs are actually products which are ultimately sent for reuse.   [Note: For more detail on the additional data elements that are being proposed for the CRT Reuse Notice, please see the appropriate section of the preamble for the Final Rule.]
      [Note:  For each export shipment, the Agency expects only one party to perform the exporter duties under 40 CFR 261.39(a)(5) and 40 CFR 261.41 (notifications to EPA, and the annual reports as proposed and described above).]
      2.3.2	English Translation of Normal Business Records
      Under § 261.41(b), persons who export CRTs for reuse must keep copies of normal business records, such as contracts, demonstrating their exported CRTs will in fact be reused. The documentation must be retained for a period of at least three years from the date the CRTs were exported. In the March 2012 proposal, EPA requested comment regarding whether to require persons who export CRTs for reuse to provide a third-party translation of the documents into English if the documents are written in a language other than English and if EPA requests such a translation. EPA believes that requiring CRT exporters to provide an English translation of normal business records upon request by EPA is inherent in the demonstration that each shipment of CRTs will be reused. English translation will also assist with compliance monitoring of this provision.  Specifically, the regulatory language reads:
            [(b) CRT exporters of used CRTs for reuse must keep copies of normal business records, such as contracts, demonstrating that each shipment of exported CRTs will be reused. This documentation must be retained for a period of at least three years from the date the CRTs were exported.  If the documents are written in a language other than English, CRT exporters of used CRTs for reuse must also provide a third-party translation of the normal business records into English upon request by EPA.]
      [Note:  Normal business records are further described in the preamble of the CRT Rule to be "contracts, invoices, and bills of lading" which "would likely contain the appropriate information for meeting the various requirements of the rule."]

3.0	METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
      Described below are the key data and assumptions underlying the cost analyses that were conducted for the final rule.
	In assessing the cost impacts, we estimated the incremental annual costs of the final requirements upon U.S. exporters, as well as EPA.  In estimating these costs, EPA first reviewed the provisions under the existing regulations and  the new requirements being enacted in this rule.  We estimated the costs of these new requirements using the following inputs:
      * Number of affected entities
      * Hourly labor rates
      * Burden hours
      * Material costs
      * Number of Annual Reuse/Recycling Notifications
      * Number & type of normal business records requiring translation
      * Costs for English translation services

	Section 3.1 describes the sources used in identifying the "number of entities" involved in the exporting of CRTs who will be directly affected by this Final Rule.  Section 3.2 describes the "hourly labor rates" that are used in our calculations.  Section 3.3 describes the "burden hours" (e.g. staff hours) assumptions that EPA utilized in its analysis.  Section 3.4 outlines the "material" costs that EPA envisions may be incurred in association with the Final CRT Rule requirements.  Section 3.5 details the total "number of reuse and recycling notices" that EPA projects will be submitted per year.  Lastly, Sections 3.6 and 3.7 outline available information collected as necessary to develop cost estimates for meeting the additional rule requirement that calls for the English translation of normal business records by "Exporters of CRTs for Reuse" upon request.
      Underlying unit costs discussed in Sections 3.1 through 3.5, as well as the estimated costs explained later in Sections 4.1 through 4.3, were previously developed as part of the Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) conducted in November of 2011 for the initial proposed CRT rule.  For purposes of consistency and simplicity, the unit costs for the earlier estimated costs of these specific requirements remain unchanged.  EPA did not receive any public comments on the 2011 EIA that would have called for revising the unit cost estimates.  Also, because there was very little inflation between November, 2011 and now, the Agency decided that adjustments to certain of the 2011 estimates were unnecessary.

      Sections 3.6, 3.7, and 4.4 cover the underlying assumptions and estimated costs associated with the additional rule requirement that calls for English translation of normal business records as necessary upon request for those who "Export CRTs for Reuse".   The cost estimates associated with this new requirement are therefore newly developed and were not covered in the earlier EIA for the proposed rule.

      3.1	Estimated Number of Potentially Impacted CRT Exporters

      For the proposed rule, the Agency estimated that a total of approximately 12 entities exported CRTs for recycling during 2011 (i.e., per EPA data on the number of approved exporters and the number of export notices that were submitted during 2011).    Based on the number of CRT Reuse Notifications submitted during 2011, there existed approximately 126 CRT exporters for reuse in the U.S. (i.e., based on Sept. 14[th], 2011 CRT data published on EPA's website at [http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/international/crts/recycling.htm]).

	As of 2013, the number of entities who export CRTs for recycling appears to have dropped from a total of 12 in 2011 to 4 in 2013.  As in 2011, the number for 2013 is based on the current number of export notices and associated consents received from CRT recyclers in 2013.  While this is an excellent barometer for the current number of subject exporters, EPA has chosen to use the larger 2011 estimate of 12 for the number of "Exporters of CRTs for Recycling", as a more conservative number for the purposes of the current EIA.

	Evaluation of updated 2013 data from the same sources used in our 2011 analyses, reveals that the number of potentially impacted "CRT Exporters for Reuse" has not changed dramatically from that of 2011.  The number of "Exporters of CRTs for Reuse" has risen from 126 entities to just 140 since 2011.  However, there is no means within the Agency's tracking system for officially identifying who has exited from the business of exporting CRTs for reuse.  As a result, there is no clear way to confirm with certainty how many practicing CRT reuse exporters there are at any given point in time.  We have therefore adopted the more recent 2013 estimate of CRT reuse exporters for this EIA.  As a result, all newly added or modified estimates within this EIA are based on the larger estimates of exporters, based on either 2011 or 2013 data.  As such, we assume that there are 12 Recycling Exporters and 140 Reuse Exporters.

	3.2	Labor Rate Estimates and Assumptions

Exhibit 3-1 presents the hourly labor rates used in this analysis.  As shown in the exhibit, for U.S. exporters, EPA estimated an average hourly labor rate (including fringe and overhead) of $103.84 for managerial staff, $64.71 for technical staff, and $33.85 for clerical staff.  These labor rates were originally obtained by relying on prior EPA Cost Assessments and then updated to 2011 using Employment Cost Indices developed by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
      For EPA's involvement and review/approval responsibilities, we estimated an average hourly labor rate of $74.67 for managerial staff (GS-14, Step 1), $63.20 for technical staff (GS-13, Step 1), and $36.64 for clerical staff (GS-9, Step 1).  To derive these hourly estimates, we referred to the General Schedule (GS) Salary Table 2011.  This publication summarizes the unloaded (base) hourly rate for various labor categories in the Federal Government.  We then applied the standard government overhead factor of 1.6 to the unloaded rate to derive loaded hourly labor rates.

                                  Exhibit 3-1
    Average Hourly Labor Rates Used to Assess the Cost Impacts of the Rule
                                Labor Category
                                   Exporters
                                (2011 dollars)
                                      EPA
                                (2011 dollars)

                                  Managerial

                                    $107.06

                                    $74.67

                                   Technical

                                    $70.08

                                    $63.20

                                   Clerical

                                    $36.60

                                    $36.64

      3.3	 Burden Hour Estimates and Assumptions
      As with other components of the methodology underlying our analyses, to estimate the total number of hours ("burden hours") required to meet the annual notification and reporting requirements of this rule, EPA relied heavily upon previous cost analyses conducted for the 2009 SLAB Rule (See Footnote 1).  Since the new CRT annual reporting and notification requirements are nearly the same as those called for in the Agency's 2009 SLAB rule, we used the same burden hour estimates in our cost assumptions for this proposal.
      3.4	Material Cost Estimates and Assumptions
      Minimal material costs were assumed to be associated with the production and submission of new Annual Reports and Notification requirements for this revision of the CRT Rule.  These costs are described below:
      * Mailing costs: The Agency estimated that affected entities would incur a cost of approximately $5.20 to mail a five ounce package by certified mail ($2.20 for postage, $2.85 for the certified mail fee, and $0.15 for a 9 x 12 manila envelope).

         Affected entities are expected to incur a cost of $0.49 for each standard letter mailed ($0.44 for first class postage and $0.05 for a standard envelope).

      * Copying Costs:  The agency estimated that affected entities would incur a cost of $0.11 per page for copying.

      * Faxing costs: The Agency estimated that affected entities would incur a cost of $0.15 for each international fax they send.  This cost was derived from the average revenues per minute for a telephone call from the U.S. to an OECD Country (excluding Canada and Mexico).  Revenue figures were obtained from the 2005 International Telecommunications Data Report issued by the Federal Communications Commission on April 24, 2007.  The cost estimate assumes that the fax transmission will take one-minute.

      * Domestic telephone call costs: The Agency estimates that affected entities will incur a cost of $0.90 for each domestic telephone call they make.  This cost was derived by averaging the advertised rates of a 15-minute State-to-State telephone call from four large U.S. long distance carriers.

      3.5	Notification Estimates and Assumptions
      The number of export notifications used in our cost assessment was based on EPA's professional experience, in combination with historical records associated with the submission of reuse/recycling notices by CRT exporters.
      In EPA's experience, most CRT recyclers seldom have cause to submit more than 1 notice per year.   The number of Recycling Notices has never exceeded 60% of the number of Recycling Exporters themselves.  This means that the ratio of Recycling Notices to CRT Recycling Exporters is less than 2 to 1.  So, while the number of notices may increase subsequent to the proposed rule, EPA assumed for the purposes of this analyses that each CRT recycler would submit only 1 to 2 notices annually.  Accordingly, this results in approximately 12 to 24 Notices being submitted per year for this category of exporters.
      Exporters that send CRTs abroad for purposes of reuse tend to have a broader list of potential destinations for their CRTs.  For instance, one reuse exporter may ship their CRTs to schools, charitable organizations, and resale facilities, or any combination thereof.  Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, EPA assumed:
      * 75% of reuse exporters (105) would submit 2-4 reuse notifications per year; and
      * 25% of reuse exporters (35) would submit 1 reuse notification per year.

      When added together with the projected recycling notices, the total estimated number of notices ranges from 245 to 455.
        3.6   Estimated Type and Quantity of Normal Business Records in Need of Translation

      As discussed above, 40 CFR 261.41 requires exporters of used intact CRTs to submit a one-time notification to EPA with contact information and a statement that they are exporting the CRTs for reuse. They must also keep copies of normal business records demonstrating that each shipment will be reused.  These records must be retained for three years from the date of export.   The only change to these requirements in this Final Rule, calls for English translation of any business records written in a foreign language that help document their shipments are being reused.
      Such translations would only be required upon request.  However, in reality there may be relatively few such foreign records that require English translation.   All of the U.S. source documents as well as much of the return documentation from abroad are presumed to already be written in English.  All one-time notifications by U.S. exporters should already be in English, as well as any of their own U.S. based business records.  This only leaves business records that may originate from receiving countries that are then retained by the U.S. exporters as evidence that their shipped CRTs are in fact being reused.  But, it is also reasonable to assume that many of these records from foreign countries would already be written in English.
       Unfortunately, there are no records available on the actual number of CRT exports for reuse that occur annually.  In fact, the collection of such data is a primary objective of the requirements being called for under this final rule.  In the absence of this data, EPA uses the estimated number of reuse notifications (discussed in Section 3.5 above) as a direct proxy for the number of shipments that also occur each year.  Based on information from regional experts on the Agency's Workgroup for this rule, EPA conservatively assumes that approximately 25 percent of exporters and their export shipments would be subject to review in any given year.  Moreover, we also assume that as many as 50% of these export shipments may be subject to review and might ultimately require some limited translation of their business records into English.  EPA further assumes that either 1 return invoice, 1 return bill of lading or similar would be provided to the exporter for each shipment sent abroad (as evidence of the shipped CRTs going for reuse).

       With these as our underlying assumptions, the number of such invoices and billing documents that would require translation annually is approximately 32 to 58, which represents a combined total of the calculations as shown below:

      *       75% of the 140 current reuse exporters (105) are assumed to conduct 2-4 reuse shipments per year, 25% of which are audited, with 50% of those requiring translation of just 1 document,
             [(105)(2 to 4 shipments per yr)(.25 audits)(.50 foreign)(1 document/shipment)               = 27 to 53 potential documents needing translation];
      *       25% of the 140 current reuse exporters (35) conduct only 1 reuse shipment per year, 25% of which are audited, with 50% of those requiring translation of just 1 document,
             [(35)(1 shipment per yr)(.25 audits)(.50 foreign texts)(1 document/shipment)
             = 5 potential documents needing translation].

       3.7   English Translation Rates and Assumptions

	Pricing for translation projects and services can vary widely and depend on several factors including for example;  the number of source words, the complexity of the subject matter,  the combination of languages, the amount of turnaround time for completion, and the need for special formating and processing requirements, etc.
	To gauge the ultimate rates that might be charged in the case of CRT export records, on-line resources and rate quotes were relied upon.  Costs were generally based on an hourly rate or by the number of source words in the document to be translated.  Rates were highly dependent upon the type of languages that were being translated.  One vendor supplied a quote (specifically tailored to the translation of shipping receipts and contractual types of documents from Spanish into English) of 18 cents, 22 cents, and 38 cents per word depending upon the necessary turnaround time.  Since the final rule allows for up to 30 days for CRT exporters to provide English translation upon request, this RIA does not assume costs associated with rushed turnaround. Therefore, we used a baseline cost of 20 cents per word for basic translations of foreign languages such as Spanish.
      For the purpose of our analyses, Spanish was assumed to be the predominant text requiring translation, since many exports of CRTs for reuse and recycling go to Mexico and South America.  However, the cost may be higher for translation of more complex Asian and African texts.  To account for this, we conservatively assume that these costs could double to as high as 40 cents per word.  To arrive at a range of ultimate costs, the low range assumes that there are no high cost translations necessary, while the upper bound estimate assumes that as many as (1/2) of the documents may require translations at the higher rate.  As such, at the low end our cost remains at 20 cents per word and goes to 25 cents per word on average under the high end of our cost range.

 4.0	ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL COSTS

      Discussed below is the Agency's best projection of the costs associated with this final rule. Since the subject provisions currently being proposed apply only to the export of CRTs , U.S. importers will not experience any costs from these revisions.
      4.1	Estimated Costs for Reading the Rule

      As noted above, the Agency estimates that a total of approximately 12 entities exported CRTs for recycling and 140 entities exported CRTs for reuse.  Therefore, we estimated that 152 U.S. exporters will need to read the rule in order to understand and comply with the new requirements.  For purposes of this analysis, we assumed that the hours required for reading/reviewing this new rule would be similar to the hours used in EPA's assessment of the impacts associated with reading/reviewing the 2009 SLAB rule.  The one-time cost for of reading/reviewing this new rule was then estimated to be $282.26.  (See Exhibit A-1in Attachment A).   Thus, U.S. exporters may experience a one-time cost of approximately $42,904 (i.e., 152 entities x $282.26/entity) for this activity.
      4.2	Estimated Costs for New Annual Reporting by CRT Export Recyclers

      Under this rule, U.S. entities who export CRTs for the purpose of recycling must now submit detailed annual reports on their CRT exports to EPA. This annual reporting is in addition to the current notice requirements and represents a new requirement for CRT Recycling Exporters not called for in the current CRT Rule.  The following paragraphs discuss the estimated costs associated with this newly required annual report.
U.S. Exporters of CRTs for Recycling
      As noted above, EPA estimates that approximately 12 U.S. exporters of CRTs sent for recycling will be required to prepare and submit an annual report in accordance with this provision of the proposed rule.  Furthermore, this new annual report for CRT Export Recyclers has been fashioned after other existing annual reporting requirements recently codified in the 2009 Final Rule governing the Exporting of Spent Lead-Acid Batteries (SLAB) from the U.S.  Therefore, EPA used the cost estimates for annual reporting already available in the May 2009 Cost Assessment prepared for the "SLAB Rule", as the best and most relevant reference (See Footnote 2).  Based on these figures, EPA estimates that the cost for a CRT Exporter to prepare and submit an annual report ranges from $156.07 to $203.36, depending upon whether the size of the exporter is large vs. small.  For purposes of analysis, EPA assumed a 50/50 distribution of these exporters (e.g. with half considered large and half considered small).  Thus, EPA estimated that the total cost of the annual reporting requirement for exporting  CRTs for recycling is  $2,158 (i.e.,$203.36/ annual report x 6 Large Recycling Exporters, plus $156.07 / annual report x 6 Small Recycling Exporters)  (See Exhibit A-2 in Attachment A).
EPA
      EPA estimates that it will receive 12 annual reports per year.  EPA estimates that it will incur $24.64 to receive and record each annual report (See Exhibit A-2 in Attachment A). Thus, EPA estimates that the Agency will experience an annual cost of $296 (i.e., 12 annual reports/year x $24.64/report) to meet this requirement of the proposed rule.
      In total, the estimated cost to CRT Exporters and the EPA for the new annual reporting requirement for recyclers totals $2,454 per year (See Exhibit A-2 in Attachment A).
      4.3	Estimated Costs for Additional Reuse and Recycling Notification Requirements

      Under the current CRT Rule, exporters already must submit notifications to EPA indicating their intent to export CRTs.   As noted above, the final CRT Rule revisions call for very minor additional reporting elements to the current CRT rule requirements.  The following paragraphs discuss the estimated costs associated specifically with the added notification elements for reuse notices.  [Note: In the case of Recycling Notices, only one additional data element has been added.  As such, the subject cost attributable to this change is considered DeMinimus and does not appear in any of the following impact analyses.]

U.S. Exporters of CRTs for Reuse
      To calculate the notification-related cost impacts, EPA started by relying on the original burden hour estimates associated with the current notification requirements.  EPA then adjusted these burden hour estimates to reflect our best estimate of the potential burden associated with the proposed changes in the notification requirements.  Our best estimate is that these burden estimates would not exceed 10% of the burden attributable to the current notification requirements.  Then EPA utilized the adjusted burden estimates and labor rates in combination with the projected quantity of CRT Notices to derive costs associated with the relevant proposed changes to the CRT notification process.
      Based on the assumptions and calculations above, EPA estimated that CRT reuse exporters submit between 245 and 455 notices each year.  We estimated that each notice will cost an additional $10.51 (See Exhibit A-3 in Attachment A).  In total, EPA estimates that the additional costs to Exporters will be in the range of $2,575 to $4,782 (i.e., 245 to 455 notices per year x $10.51 per notice) under the final rule.
EPA
      We estimate that EPA will incur an additional cost of $6.32 per notice to receive and process these notices (See Exhibit A-3 in Attachment A). Thus, we estimate that the Agency will experience a total incremental annual cost in the range of $1,548 to $2,876 (i.e., 245 to 455 notices per year x $6.32 per notice) under the final rule.
      In total, the estimated costs to CRT Exporters and the EPA for meeting the proposed reuse and recycling notification changes are $4,123 to $7,658 per year (See Exhibit A-3 in Attachment A).
      4.4	Estimated Costs for English Translation of Normal Business Records (by "Exporters of CRTs for Reuse")
       In accordance with the rule's definition of "normal business records," several types of documents may need to be translated into English, such as contractual agreements.  However, since the rule only requires translation of documents sufficient to demonstrate that the CRTs are ultimately shipped for purposes of reuse, exporters in most cases will choose not to conduct more costly and unnecessary translations of voluminous contract documents.  EPA assumes rather, that any translations will be restricted to smaller-sized documents with an average word count of approximately 500 words, such as shipping receipts or pertinent excerpts only, from relevant contracts.
      As noted above, the Agency estimates that during 2013a total of approximately 140 entities exported CRTs for reuse.  For purposes of this analysis, we established that as many as approximately 32 to 58 business records would need to be translated into English for review.  The costs for such translations can be expected to vary widely depending upon the size of the exporter, the number of shipments and alternative destinations, and the quantity and complexity of the normal business records associated with their reuse shipments abroad.  Therefore as might be expected, the range of annual translation costs for these exporters are estimated to range from $3,200 to $7,250.  (See Exhibit A4 in Attachment A).

       4.5	Total Cost Impact of the Proposed CRT Rule Revisions

 In total, EPA estimates that the costs of the proposed CRT Rule revisions include approximately $42,904 in year one of the Rule, as well as annual costs in the range of $9,777 to 17,362 per year (starting in year one and continuing each year thereafter).  Many of the assumptions used in the analysis may be characterized as "conservative."  Therefore these cost estimates are  likely to be higher than in actuality.

 5.0	QUALITATIVE DISCUSSION OF BENEFITS

      Promulgation of this rule will engender benefits, both internal and external to the U.S., including: (1) increased regulatory efficiency; (2) reduction of risks associated with treatment and disposal of hazardous wastes; (3) improved ability to acquire information regarding the quantities of CRTs exported from the U.S. and the destination facilities to which the CRTs are exported; and (4) better tracking of compliance with the terms of CRT export notices.
      More specifically, these CRT Rule revisions will help determine whether CRTs exported for recycling and reuse are handled as commodities and not inappropriately discarded.  Such annual reports and notification enhancements improve the accuracy of our records and allow for proper documentation of the total amount of CRTs being exported for recycling and reuse.  The improved data that shall be collected will also enable EPA to compare actual vs. proposed shipments to ensure that these shipments are occurring under the terms approved by the receiving country.  Finally, such data will enable EPA to provide summary information, if requested by a receiving country, which would assist the receiving country in better management of their CRT imports.
      In conclusion, while these benefits have not been expressly quantified as part of this Economic Assessment, the resultant improvements in information provision/transparency and CRT management practices from this Rule are believed to have benefits that significantly outweigh its costs.

                                 ATTACHMENT A

                           SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
                             FOR COST ASSESSMENTS

                                  Exhibit A-1
   Estimated Costs for Reading & Understanding the New Rule Requirements

                                Cost per Entity
                             Cost of All Entities
                                   Activity
                          Managerial Staff Hours [a]
                           Technical Staff Hours [a]
                           Clerical Staff Hours [a]
                                     Hours
                               Labor   Cost [b]
                              Materials Cost [c]
                             Total Cost per Entity
                            Number of Entities [d]
                                  Total Cost
Reading the Regulations

U.S. Exporters
                                     1.00
                                     2.50
                                     0.00
                                     3.50
                                    $282.26
                                     $0.00
                                    $282.26
                                      152

                                    $42,904

[NOTES:]
[a]   Based on hourly burden estimates discussed in Section 3.3 above.

[b]   Based on hourly labor rates discussed in Section 3.2 above.

[c]   Based on materials costs discussed in Section 3.4 above.

[d]   Based on universe assumptions discussed in Section 3.1 above.

                                  Exhibit A-2
  Estimated Costs for New Annual Reporting by Exporters of CRTs for Recycling

                                Cost per Entity
                             Cost for all Entities
                                   Activity
                          Managerial Staff Hours [a]
                           Technical Staff Hours [a]
                           Clerical Staff Hours [a]
                                 Total Hours
                             Total Labor Cost [b]
                               Material Cost [c]
                                Total      Cost
                             Number of Entities d
                                  Total Cost
Annual Report

Large U.S. Exporters

Research specific export information
                                     0.00
                                     1.00
                                     1.00
                                     2.00
                                    $106.68
                                     $0.00
                                    $106.68
                                       6
                                    $640.08
Prepare and submit report
                                     0.10
                                     1.00
                                     0.30
                                     1.40
                                    $91.77
                                     $5.20
                                    $96.97
                                       6
                                    $581.82
                                                                      Subtotal:

                                    $198.45
                                     $5.20
                                    $203.65

6
                                   $1,221.90
Small U.S. Exporters

Research specific export information
                                     0.00
                                     0.50
                                     0.50
                                     1.00
                                    $70.08
                                     $0.00
                                    $70.08
                                       6
                                    $420.48
Prepare and submit report
                                     0.10
                                     0.50
                                     0.50
                                     1.10
                                    $80.79
                                     $5.20
                                    $85.99
                                       6
                                    $515.94
                                                                      Subtotal:

                                    $150.87
                                     $5.20
                                    $156.07
                                       6
                                    $936.42
                                                           Total for Exporters:

                                   $2,158.32
EPA

Receive and record report
                                     0.00
                                     0.10
                                     0.50
                                     0.60
                                    $24.64
                                     $0.00
                                    $24.64
                                      12
                                    $295.68
                                                                 Total for EPA:
                                     0.00
                                     0.10
                                     0.50
                                     0.60
                                    $24.64
                                     $0.00
                                    $24.64
                                      12
                                    $295.68
                                    TOTAL:
                        (for both Exporters & EPA)

                                    $2,454
[NOTES:]
[a]   Based on hourly burden estimates discussed in Section 3.3 above.

[b]   Based on hourly labor rates discussed in Section 3.2 above.

[c]   Based on material costs discussed in Section 3.4 above.

[d]   Based on universe assumptions discussed in Section 3.1 above, which reveal a total of approximately 12 CRT Recycling Exporters in the U.S.  And, we assume there is a 50/50 Percent Ratio regarding the total number of Large vs. Small U.S. CRT Exporters, such that there are 6 of each type in the above calculations.

                                  Exhibit A-3
        Estimated Costs for Meeting Proposed Reuse Notification Changes
                  (calling for minor additional information)

                                Cost per Notice

                              Cost of All Notices
                                   Activity
                           Manager Staff  Hours [a]
                           Technical Staff Hours [a]
                          Clerical    Staff Hours [a]
                     Total Hours [b] (10% of Orig. Hours)
                      Total         Labor       Cost [c]
                           Total Material Costs [d]
                          Total       Cost per Notice
                         Number       of Entities [e]
                        Estimated Number of Notices [f]
                                  Total Cost

U.S. Exporters of CRTs for Reuse

Prepare & submit notification  Subtotal for Exporters:
                                     0.00
                                     1.50
                                     0.00
                                     0.15
                                    $10.51
                                     $0.00
                                    $10.51
                                      140
                                 245  to  455
                              $2,575  to  $4,782

EPA

Receive and process notifications
                                     0.00
                                     1.00
                                     0.00
                                     0.10
                                     $6.32
                                     $0.00
                                     $6.32
                                      140
                                 245  to  455
                              $1,548  to  $2,876

                                            Total for both Exporters & EPA
                                     0.00
                                     2.50
                                     0.00
                                     0.25
                                    $16.83
                                     $0.00
                                    $16.83
                                      140
                                 245  to  455
                              $4,123  to  $7,658
Notes:
[a]   Staff level hourly burden estimates are discussed in Section 3.3 above.

[b]   Total final hourly burden estimates are conservatively assumed to only involve an additional burden equal to 10% of the overall  burden from
the notification requirements under the current CRT Rule.
[c]   Based on hourly labor rates discussed in Section 3.2 above.

d    Since entities are already required to submit Recycling and Reuse Notices, the effected entities face no additional costs associated with mailings,
copies, facsimiles, etc. due to the newly proposed modifications to the existing notices.
[e]  The projections for the total number of entities potentially impacted by the rule are discussed in Section 3.1 above.

[f]   The projections for the total number of notifications that may be submitted annually is discussed in Section 3.5 above.

.
                                  Exhibit A-4
     Estimated Costs for Translating Foreign Language Records into English
Breakout of Entities that Conduct More vs. Less Annual Shipments of CRTs for Reuse [a]
Assumed Number of Shipments          per Year                 (Equals Assumed Number of Business Records that Must be Retained                    per Year [b]
Assumed Percentage of Shipment Records  Potentially Subject to an Audit and Review c
Assumed Proportion of Audited Records that are in Foreign Text and Require English           Translation c
      Estimated Number of Business Records that will Need Translation [c]
           Average Word Count per             Record Translated [c]
Total Estimated Unit Cost               per Word Count            & Level of Complexity [d]
(Low Estimate)                of Total Cost     per                Record Translated
(High Estimate)             of Total Cost      per             Record Translated

   Total Estimated                        Range of Costs          Per Year
105                                 (or 75% of 140) Entities Make 2 to 4 Shipments per Year
                                    2 to 4

                                     25 %
                                     50 %
                                   27 to 53
                                      500
                               $ 0.20 to $ 0.25
                                     $100
                                     $125
                               $2,700 to $6,625
35                                 (or 25% of 140) Entities Make Only 1 Shipment
                                       1
                                     25 %
                                     50 %
                                       5
                                      500
                               $ 0.20 to $ 0.25
                                     $100
                                     $125
                                 $500 to $625
                                    Totals
                                    1 to 4

                                                                Overall Totals:
                                    1 to 4
                                      NA
                                      NA
                                   32 to 58
                                      NA
                                      NA
                                      NA
                                      NA
                               $3,200 to $7,250
[NOTES:]

a    Based on using the assumed number of reuse notifications (presented in Section 3.5) as a direct proxy for the number of annual shipments potentially subject to review.
[b]   Based on assumption that every shipment will only need 1 English language business record as documentation/proof that their CRTs were shipped for purposes of reuse.
[C]   See Section 3.6 for further explanation of underlying assumptions and the estimated quantity of Normal Business Records that will Need Translation.

[d]   Based on range of potential costs for attaining third party translation of foreign language documents into English, as discussed in Section 3.7 above.

                                 Attachment B

                  Summary of Regulatory Flexibility Analyses
                      Conducted in Coordination with the
               Economic Impacts Assessment for Revisions to the
          Export Provisions of the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Final Rule

1.0	Regulatory Flexibility Act Requirements

      The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), requires EPA to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities (i.e., small businesses, small governments, and small non-profit organizations).  However, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required if the Administrator certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.  SBREFA further requires EPA to provide a statement of the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

2.0	Summary Discussion of Analyses and Results

      In the Nov. 2011 Economic Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposed CRT rule, the Agency examined the rule's potential effects on small entities as required by the RFA/SBREFA.  At that time, we determined that the rule would not result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.  This determination was made by comparing annual compliance costs under the rule to the relative average annual sales of small businesses in the industrial sectors most likely to be affected by the rule.  Summarized below is a description of our earlier analyses, as well as a discussion of the minimal change in the overall economic impacts associated with this final rule.

      According to the U.S. Small Business Administration's small business size standards, firms in most of these industry sectors are classified as a "small business" if they have fewer than 750 employees.  However, for purposes of this analysis, we determined that this threshold may be too high and could mask the potential effects on the smallest, most vulnerable firms.  Therefore, the Agency relied upon a far more conservative approach and selected a threshold for firms with fewer than 20 employees instead of the official standard of 750.

      As summarized in the Executive Summary of the Economic Impact Assessment conducted in Nov. 2011 for the proposed revisions to the Export Provisions of the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Rule, the estimated costs of the rule were shown to be very low.  Our analyses found that only approximately 138 CRT Exporters would be affected by the proposed revisions (including roughly 12 whom export CRTs for recycling with the remaining 126 exporting CRTs for purposes of reuse).

      The subject rule revisions vary for those exporters that recycle vs. those that reuse CRTs.  The baseline annual compliance costs for all CRTs exporters (including both those that export for purposes of recycling and/or reuse) ranged from $2,286 to $4,453 in the baseline.  Then, an additional total annual cost of approximately $2,500 is incurred by just those 12 firms that export CRTs for recycling. Lastly, the one-time cost expected to be incurred by all exporters to familiarize themselves with the rule totaled $39,000.  When annualized and considered on a per facility basis, the costs for "CRT Reusers" ranges from $57.54 to $72.51 per facility, while that for "CRT Recyclers" ranges from $265.87 to $280.84.  As reflected in Exhibit 1, when considered together, this results in costs as low as $57.54 and as high as $280.84 (depending on the type of exports that are occurring).

      Further displayed in Exhibit 1 are typical numbers of facilities in 4 specific industrial sectors viewed to be most representative of CRT Exporters.  The numbers shown reflect estimates of the numbers of facilities with less than 20 employees, as well as their Annual Sales.  As shown in Exhibit 1, for firms with fewer than 20 employees, the annual compliance cost as a percentage of annual sales is less than 0.1 percent.  It was therefore determined that rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

                                  Exhibit B-1
             Evaluation of the Economic Impacts on Small Businesses
         (as Conducted in the Nov. 2011 EIA for the Proposed CRT Rule)

                                Industry Sector
                                  NAICS Code
                 Number of Firms with Fewer than 20 Employees
                     Annual Sales Per Facility (2007$) [a]
     Range of Annual Compliance Costs for both CRT Recyclers & Reusers
                                    ($) [b]
                Annual Compliance Cost as a Percentage of Sales
CRT Rule

                                      Low
                                     High

                        Recyclable Material Wholesaler
                                    423930
                                     5133
                                  2,636,310
                                     57.54
                                    280.84
                              0.002%  to  0.01%

                        Materials Recovery Facilities
                                    562920
                                     621
                                   971,543
                                     57.54
                                    280.84
                              0.006%  to  0.03%

       Recyclable Material Collection Services, Solid Waste Collection
                                    562111
                                     5620
                                  1,014,036
                                     57.54
                                    280.84
                              0.006%  to  0.03%

                            Other Waste Collection
                                    562119
                                     457
                                   423,059
                                     57.54
                                    280.84
                              0.015%  to  0.07%

[a]  Based on 2002 U.S. Census Bureau data, updated to 2007 dollars using the GDP Implicit Price Deflator (1.15).
[b]   Based on an annual compliance cost calculated as the aggregate annual costs incurred by all CRT exporters, importers and transporters, divided by the total number of affected entities.  First year costs were annualized over 10 years using a discount factor of seven percent.

	Additional analyses were conducted to evaluate the incremental increase in the costs of the rule as a means of validating our earlier determination.  As already revealed in the results of our EIA analyses, the total estimate costs of the final rule are very similar to those that were

projected by our earlier analyses for the proposed rule in November of 2011.  Based on the updated analyses, annual compliance costs for exporters or CRTs for purposes of reuse ranged from $5,775 to $12,032 in the baseline.  Then, an additional total annual cost of approximately $2,450 is incurred by just those firms that export CRTs for recycling.  Lastly, the one-time cost expected to be incurred by all exporters to familiarize themselves with the rule totaled $42,900.  When annualized and considered on a per facility basis, the costs for "CRT Reusers" ranges from $84.88 to $129.57 per facility, while that for "CRT Recyclers" totals approximately $713.50 per facility.  Therefore, under the final rule, the estimated annual costs are typically going to be as low as $56.88 for the 140 reuse exporters, as compared to $713.50 per facility for recycling exporters.
      The costs results from our updated analyses are very similar to those observed in our earlier analyses.  The assumptions and methodology underlying these analyses were furthermore highly conservative.  As such, the results help reaffirm that, for firms with fewer than 20 employees, annual compliance cost as a percentage of annual sales should be less than 0.1 percent.  Based on the above, EPA projects that rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.