ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED SIGNIFICANT NEW USE RULE FOR CERTAIN POLYBROMINATED DIPHENYLETHERS   DOES NOT CONTAIN TSCA CBI   Prepared by:

Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Economics, Exposure and Technology Division Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 1200 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N. W. WASHINGTON, DC 20460 June 18, 2004 i CONTRIBUTORS The EPA analyst responsible for this report was Timothy Lehman. Analytical and draft preparation support was provided by Abt Associates Inc. under EPA Contract No. 68 W 02 077. ii ABSTRACT This report estimates the costs of the proposed Significant New Use Rule ( SNUR) for certain polybrominated diphenylethers that comprise the commercial pentabromodiphenyl ether ( pentaBDE) and octabromodiphenyl ether ( octaBDE) products. EPA proposes to designate as a Significant New Use " any manufacture or import for any use of pentaBDE and octaBDE on or after January 1, 2005." Therefore a firm intending to manufacture or import either of these chemicals would be required to submit a SNUN, incurring an estimated submission cost of $ 6,956 per chemical. If the firm undertakes testing to support the submission of a SNUN, costs could range from roughly $ 339,000 to over $ 1.4 million per chemical, but could be substantially lower if not all recommended tests are performed.

If the firm chooses to avoid a Significant New Use by refraining from manufacturing or importing either of these chemicals as of January 1, 2005, it can avoid submission and testing costs, but may incur " hidden" costs, not quantified here, if it foregoes profitable opportunities it would otherwise have undertaken.

Costs estimated here are for one chemical at one site, and reflect SNUR restrictions and testing specific to each chemical, although in this case there are no distinctions between the two chemicals in either restrictions or testing. EPA receives an average of ten notices per year due to SNURs. The number of firms affected but not making submissions is not known, and costs are not aggregated. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CONTRIBUTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v 1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SUBMITTING A SIGNIFICANT NEW USE NOTIFICATION ( SNUN) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2.1 Costs for Submitting a SNUN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2 Costs of Developing and Submitting Testing Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.0 EXPORT NOTIFICATION COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 4.0 AGENCY COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.0 ADDITIONAL ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.1 Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 5.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ( UMRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.3 Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.4 Executive Order 12866 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.5 Executive Order 13132 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.6 Executive Order 12898 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 5.7 Executive Order 13045 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 APPENDIX A LIST OF CHEMICAL NAMES AND CAS NUMBERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 1 APPENDIX B INFLATORS AND WAGE RATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B 1 B. 1. Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B 1 B. 2. Derivation of Inflation Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B 6 APPENDIX C COSTS OF TESTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C 1 APPENDIX D COSTS OF SUBMITTING A SNUN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D 1 APPENDIX E AGENCY COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E 1 iv APPENDIX F REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F 1 v LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Compliance Options and Associated Costs Incurred by a Firm due to SNUR . . . . . . . . 2 Table 2 Cost of Submitting a SNUN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Table 3 Ranges of Costs of Recommended Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Table 4 Cost per Chemical of Submission of SNUN With and Without Testing Costs . . . . . . . . 5 Table A 1 Chemical Names and CAS Numbers Referenced in this SNUR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 1 Table B 1 Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B 4 Table B 2 Derivation of Inflation Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B 6 Table C 1. Developmental Neurotoxicity Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C 2 Table C 2. Developmental Toxicity Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C 2 Table C 3. Reproductive Toxicity Tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C 3 Table C 4. Tests on Developmental Effects in Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C 4 Table D 1 Industry Costs for SNUN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D 1 Table E 1 Agency Costs for SNUN and Other Submission Review and Processing . . . . . . . . E 2 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics' ( OPPT's) analysis of the potential costs incurred as a result of a Significant New Use Rule ( SNUR) being promulgated for certain polybrominated diphenyl ethers that comprise 2 commercial products, pentabromodiphenyl ether and octabromodiphenyl ether ( hereafter, pentaBDE and octaBDE). EPA promulgates a SNUR for a substance when potential uses could result in increased exposure to or releases of the substance, and in turn an unreasonable risk to health or the environment. Appendix A lists the generic or specific chemical name and CAS number for each of the chemicals covered under this SNUR.

A SNUR specifies the conditions under which the manufacture, import, and/ or processing of a substance is allowed without prior notice to EPA, thus defining its permissible uses that do not constitute a " Significant New Use." Anything that exceeds what is specified as allowable in the SNUR is considered a Significant New Use and triggers a submission to EPA.

The SNUR discussed in this report specifies that any manufacture or importing of pentaBDE and/ or octaBDE for any use constitutes a Significant New Use. This effectively indicates that a firm intending to manufacture or import either of these two chemicals must submit a Significant New Use Notification ( SNUN) to do so. Alternatively, a firm can decide not to manufacture, import, or process these two chemicals. It thus has two options:

C Option 1: Submission of a SNUN. If the firm intends to manufacture or import either of the two chemicals listed in this SNUR, it must submit a Significant New Use Notification ( SNUN). A SNUN indicates to EPA that the firm would like to manufacture, import, or process the chemical for a Significant New Use, which, in this case, means any manufacture or importing of these chemicals. The SNUN must be provided to EPA at least 90 days before the firm plans to commence the manufacture, import, or processing of the substance; it provides EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs. If EPA allows the manufacture or importing of these chemicals, then the costs associated with this option are the costs of submitting the SNUN ( including user fee) plus the possible costs of following Option 2 during EPA review of the SNUN.

° Option 2: Decision not to manufacture, import, or process the substance. The firm may decide simply not to proceed to manufacture, import, or process these chemical. While this option avoids the costs of submitting a SNUN, it entails the " hidden" cost of the profit that will be foregone as a result of not engaging in the commercial activity originally planned. Similarly, if the firm would have used a given amount of the substance in the production of another product and must substitute to a more costly substance, it will incur those additional " hidden" costs of production. If the firm elects to produce for R& D purposes only, it may have costs associated with R& D recordkeeping. 2 If the firm makes a submission, there will be a period during which EPA will review the SNUN submitted. Even if EPA grants the firm's request, in addition to the submission costs, the firm would incur the costs resulting from following Option 2 for the length of the EPA review period. The options available to a firm considering the manufacture, import, and/ or processing of one of the chemicals covered under this SNUR, and the possible types of associated costs to the firm, are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1 Compliance Options and Associated Costs Incurred by a Firm due to SNUR*

Option Costs 1 Submit a Significant New Use Notice ( SNUN), indicating to EPA that the firm would like to manufacture, import, or process the chemical for a Significant New Use. In this SNUR, any manufacture or importing of these chemicals is a " significant new use." Costs of submitting a SNUN, including user fee. Testing costs are also possible, but only for a small minority of chemicals.

2 Decide not to manufacture, import, or process the substance, or manufacture only for R& D ( The R& D exemption is covered in 40 CFR § 721.47). Cost of the profit foregone as a result of not engaging in the commercial activity originally planned. R& D recordkeeping costs if manufacture for R& D.

§ numbers refer to 40 CFR 721 ( in the Code of Federal Regulations)

The remainder of this report presents estimates of the quantified portion of costs associated with the SNUR being promulgated for pentaBDE and octaBDE. Section 2 presents estimates of the quantifiable costs incurred by manufacturers, importers, and/ or processors who submit a SNUN ( Option 1). Section 3 addresses one time export notification costs. Section 4 presents estimates of the costs to EPA of administering the SNUR, while Section 5 presents an analysis of other impacts, as required by various statutes and executive orders.

2.0 COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SUBMITTING A SIGNIFICANT NEW USE NOTIFICATION ( SNUN)

As indicated in the introduction, this SNUR specifies that any manufacture or importing of pentaBDE and/ or octaBDE for any use constitutes a Significant New Use. This effectively indicates that a firm intending to manufacture or import either of these two chemicals must submit a Significant New Use Notification ( SNUN) to do so ( Option 1). Although the firm may alternatively decide simply not to proceed to manufacture, import, or process these chemicals ( Option 2), and this option also entails costs, these costs are not readily quantifiable and are not discussed further. In this section, we present estimates of the costs associated with the 3 submission of a SNUN. Unless otherwise indicated, all costs are in year 2002 dollars. Wage rates and inflators used are given in Appendix B.

2.1 Costs for Submitting a SNUN Under 40 CFR § 721.5, manufacturers, importers, or processors who would like to undertake a Significant New Use of a PMN substance listed in a SNUR are required to submit a Significant New Use Notice ( SNUN). For example, they could submit a SNUN if they wish to produce above the volume limit listed in the SNUR for a given chemical, since any production beyond that volume would be defined as a Significant New Use. Because the SNUR discussed in this report specifies that any production or importing of pentaBDE and/ or octaBDE constitutes a Significant New Use, a firm wishing to produce or import either of these two chemicals would have to submit a SNUN. The notice form used to submit a SNUN is the same as that for a PMN, and the costs of submitting a SNUN are estimated based on the costs incurred to submit a PMN. This option could have the following costs:

# Costs of preparing the SNUN.

# Cost of the $ 2500 user fee.

# Costs of complying with SNUR restrictions ( i. e., of avoiding production or importing) while the SNUN is being processed; costs of complying with any restrictions resulting from the SNUN review.

# The SNUN submitter may need to perform some of the tests listed in the batch SNUR. Testing costs are discussed in Section 2.2 below.

Another option available to sites before the SNUR is promulgated is to seek an advance compliance exemption under § 721.45( h). The submission cost for the option is the same as that for a SNUN, but by negotiating an advance compliance agreement with EPA a company can diminish the loss of profits due to delay. This option is not available after the SNUR is promulgated.

The costs for submitting a SNUN are estimated to be equivalent to the costs of completing a PMN submission. In its Regulatory Impact Analysis for the amendments to the PMN regulations, EPA relied on industry estimates of the effort needed to collect and compile all data required for a PMN submission, prepare the form, and submit the form and data to EPA ( RIB 1994). These estimates, based on a 1991 survey conducted by the Chemical Manufacturers Association, indicate that the average effort required to prepare and submit a PMN is between 95 and 114 hours. This analysis uses the average of the estimated hours for each step, resulting in a cost of $ 4,456. The costs associated with these labor time estimates are derived in Appendix D. The cost of preparing a SNUN, shown in Table 2 below, is $ 6,956, including the $ 2,500 user fee 4 ( as shown in Appendix D). In addition, as was mentioned above, there could be testing costs, delay costs, or other costs not included in Table 2.

Table 2 Cost of Submitting a SNUN Hours Total Labor Cost ( wage × hours)

Costs of preparing submission 105 $ 4,456 User fees $ 2,500 TOTAL $ 6,956 Figures are rounded to whole dollars. ( See Appendix D for derivation). Costs shown in this table do not include possible testing costs.

2.2 Costs of Developing and Submitting Testing Data Testing may be conducted to support the submission of a SNUN. The SNUR identifies the toxicological endpoints of concern for pentaBDE or octaBDE as likely to include endocrine disruption ( especially the thyroid), neurodevelopmental toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, cancer, avian reproduction, effects in the aquatic or terrestrial food chains, and cancer, and that more needs to be understood about the environmental fate and the exposure pathways that lead to PBDE presence in wildlife and people. Although testing or monitoring to address such data needs is not required in the SNUR, it may sometimes be provided by the submitter to support submission of a SNUN.

A SNUR typically lists recommended tests by guideline numbers which can be used to look up published test protocols. Testing costs for each substance are calculated by adding up costs for individual test protocols listed in the SNUR for that substance. The costs for individual test protocols have been developed by EPA over the years to support TSCA rule development.

For this SNUR, however, specific recommended tests with guideline numbers were not given. Instead, only general types of endpoints ( e. g., developmental neurotoxicity) were identified, as described above. Detailed information on tests that might be used to address these data gaps fall within each general type is given in Appendix C. Table 3 below summarizes the cost ranges for the different types of recommended tests. Costs have been inflated to 2002 dollars. Table 4 gives the cost of submission of a SNUN both with and without possible test costs. 5 Table 3 Ranges of Costs of Recommended Testing Test Type Range of Costs Developmental neurotoxicity $ 180,206  $ 336,839 Developmental toxicity $ 65,772  $ 106,716 Reproductive toxicity $ 51,875  $ 890,156* Endocrine disruption NA Developmental effects in fish $ 34,483  $ 72,512 Reproductive effects in fish NA Sum of " low end" costs:** $ 332,336 Sum of " high end" costs:** $ 1,410,679 * The cost of one of the reproductive toxicity tests was not available. The range shown here assumes that this test cost was somewhere within the bounds of those test costs for which information was available. ** Sums do not include the costs of endocrine disruption tests or tests on reproductive effects in fish, for which no information is available.. *** Source: TSCA Test Guideline Cost Estimates ( EPAB 2003) ( See Appendix C for details.)

Table 4 Cost per Chemical of Submission of SNUN With and Without Testing Costs*

Without Testing Costs a With Testing Costs b Cost Hours Cost Range Hours Range Low High Low High $ 6,956 105 $ 339,292 $ 1,417,635 3,248 14,463 * Costs are the same for both chemicals covered in this SNUR. a Costs without testing include one time costs of SNUN ($ 4,456) plus a $ 2,500 user fee. b If testing is also needed, costs could be higher, although how much higher depends on how many tests are run and how expensive each test is. The " low" end of the cost range assumes all the least costly tests are run. The " high" end assumes all the most costly tests are run. Similarly, the " low" hours estimate assumes that all the least time consuming tests are run and the " high" hours estimate assumes that all the most time consuming tests are run ( See Appendix C.) Neither the cost nor the hour ranges include the two categories of tests, endocrine disruption and reproductive effects in fish, for which estimates were not available. If full testing is not needed, costs would be lower. For individual test costs and hour burdens, see Tables C 1 through C 4.

3.0 EXPORT NOTIFICATION COSTS Under Section 12( b) of TSCA, exporters must notify EPA if they export or intend to export a chemical substance or mixture:

C For which submission of data is required under Section 4 or 5( b); 6 C For which an order has been issued under Section 5; C For which a rule has been proposed or promulgated under Section 5 or 6; or C With respect to which an action is pending or relief has been granted under Section 5 or 7.

Notifications must be submitted in writing and must include the following information: exporter's name and address, name of the regulated chemical, the date( s) of export or intended export, the importing country ( or countries), and the section of TSCA under which EPA has taken action. This is a one time notification requirement, and the exporter need only submit the notice when it is exporting a particular chemical for the first time to a country for which it has not previously submitted a notification.

In an economic analysis of an amendment to the rules implementing TSCA Section 12( b), EPA estimated that the one time cost of preparing and submitting an export notification was $ 62.60 in 1992 ( Silagi 1992), or $ 89.29 when inflated to 2002 dollars by a factor of approximately 1.43, from the Employment Cost Index for White Collar Occupations ( BLS 2003a; see Appendix B). The total costs of export notification will vary per chemical, depending on the number of required notifications ( i. e., number of countries to which the chemical is exported). EPA is unable to make any estimate of the likely number of export notifications for chemicals covered in this SNUR.

4.0 AGENCY COSTS EPA's costs to review and process industry submissions ( SNUNs, requests to modify SNUR, and requests for equivalency determination) are assumed to be the same as EPA costs to review PMNs. These costs are estimated at $ 4,034 per case. The Agency actions required, fulltime equivalent ( FTE) staff needs, and extramural costs such as for contractor support are derived in Appendix E from EPA's analysis of the Agency costs of processing PMN submissions ( RIB 1994), with updates to 2002 prices. The original EPA analysis used a range of salaries, but this analysis uses only the average salary. See Appendix E for details.

5.0 ADDITIONAL ANALYSES This section presents additional analysis of other potential impacts of this rulemaking, as required under various statutes and executive orders.

5.1 Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA)

The Regulatory Flexibility Act ( RFA) ( 5 U. S. C. 601 et. seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, requires regulators to consider the impact of regulations on small entities, in particular small businesses. EPA's experience to date is that, in 1Bona fides are submitted to EPA by manufacturers and importers to determine a chemical's TSCA Chemical Inventory and regulatory status.

2 Due to timing and resource limitations, another possible source of data  the year 2002 industry reporting under the 1986 Inventory Update Rule ( 51 FR 21438)  was not tapped for this report.

7 response to the promulgation of SNURS covering over 1000 chemicals , the Agency receives an average of only ten notices per year. Of those SNUNs submitted, none appear to be from small entities in response to any SNUR. In fact, EPA expects to receive few, if any, SNUNs from either large or small entities in response to any SNUR.

This leaves open the question of how many small businesses are affected but do not submit SNUNs. For example, businesses may change their behavior in order to use a chemical in a manner that avoids triggering the SNUR.

Data and resources were not available to estimate the number of small businesses affected by the current rule. However, a 1989 analysis suggested that few small businesses would be affected by SNURs for chemicals that have undergone PMN review. The 1989 report estimated that 9% of firms subject to SNURs would be small businesses, based on the portion of PMN submitters who were small businesses. ( Long 1989) The cutoff for " small business" was $ 40 million in sales, which is consistent with the definition used at 40 CFR 700.43 to set PMN fees.

Past bona fide submissions also suggest that few firms other than possibly some PMN submitters will be affected. 1 EPA has received few bona fides indicating interest in manufacturing or importing chemicals subject to past SNURs. EPA also has received few public comments during rulemaking on SNURs covering PMN chemicals. For example, a SNUR published in the Spring of 2003 covering 62 chemicals resulted in industry comments on only three PMNs, none from small businesses ( EPA Docket # OPPT 2002 0060). 2 It remains possible that some small businesses are affected by SNURs without EPA being aware, if the firms have made no submissions or comments to EPA. However, even if a small business were interested in supplying a SNUR chemical, the SNUR's impact on profits is generally expected to be minor. For example, the firm may have a small expense of keeping records and/ or of changing workplace practices to comply with restrictions. If modifying production practices would be overly costly, or if the firm wishes to engage in a Significant New Use but believes that expensive testing is needed to support a submission to EPA, it may instead forego production, thus sacrificing profits. The amounts of lost profits, if any, were not quantified for this report, but usually should be low. This is because SNUR chemicals are relatively new and few compared to the many thousands of chemicals on the TSCA Inventory, and so are unlikely to be central to a firm's business.

Based on these considerations and on the limited data available, EPA expects that any 8 compliance with a SNUR will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

5.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ( UMRA)

EPA has determined that this SNUR does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( P. L. 104 4).

5.3 Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA)

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act ( PRA), 44 USC 3501 et seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond, to a collection of information that requires Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 2070 0012 ( EPA ICR No. 574). This action does not impose any additional burden requiring OMB approval.

5.4 Executive Order 12866 Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, requires OMB review for rules with an impact on the economy of $ 100 million or more, or with any other potential significant impact. OMB has previously determined that this type of SNUR is not a " significant regulatory action" that would require OMB review under this E. O.

5.5 Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132, Federalism ( 64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure " meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications." This action does not have federalism implications because it will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

5.6 Executive Order 12898 This action does not involve special considerations of environmental justice related issues as required by Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 9 Minority Populations and Low Income Populations ( 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

5.7 Executive Order 13045 Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks ( 62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), requires EPA to identify and assess environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children. This type of analysis is required for rules that will have an impact of $ 100 million or more only. This impact of this SNUR will be less than $ 100 million and therefore no analysis of such impacts on children is required. APPENDIX A LIST OF CHEMICAL NAMES AND CAS NUMBERS A 1 APPENDIX A LIST OF CHEMICAL NAMES AND CAS NUMBERS Table A 1 Chemical Names and CAS Numbers Referenced in this SNUR No. CAS Name 1 32534 81 9 ( generic) Pentabromodiphenyl ether 2 32536 52 0 ( generic) Octabromodiphenyl ether APPENDIX B INFLATORS AND WAGE RATES 3 Many Labor hourly rates in this analysis are lower than hourly rates for the same labor categories in an earlier SNUR economic analysis ( EPAB 1999). EPA does not mean to suggest that actual hourly rates declined. Rather, the apparent decline is due to a changed method of calculating hourly costs for the same labor categories. There were three changes: ( 1) Previously the 17% overhead was applied to wages plus fringe benefits. Now it is applied only to wages. ( See Appendix B, footnote 3.) This change reduces calculated overhead. ( 2) Before, most wage rates were based on older data and then inflated to current dollars. Here, most wage rates are based on recent data. ( 3) Finally, fringe benefits were based on an assumed percent of wages. Here, private industry fringe benefits are based on actual fringe benefits taken from recent BLS data.

4 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Private industry workers, Goods producing industries, white collar occupations, as published by the U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. The December 2002 values for these series are listed in Table 11 of the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Summary, released March 18, 2003.

B 1 APPENDIX B INFLATORS AND WAGE RATES This appendix provides a brief discussion of the wage rates, inflators, and methods that were used to derive the final " fully loaded" wages and costs of equipment and supplies used in the calculation of the quantified costs for each of the possible options. Base hourly wages for relevant labor categories were loaded with factors for benefits and overhead to derive a loaded hourly rate. If the loaded hourly rate was not already in year 2002 dollars, it was then inflated to year 2002 dollars by multiplying by the appropriate inflation factor. The derivation of fully loaded wages in year 2002 dollars, for each of the labor categories used in the report, is discussed in Section B. 1 and is summarized in Table B. 1. The derivation of the different inflation factors used to inflate wages and/ or costs of equipment and supplies to year 2002 dollars is discussed in Section B. 2 and is summarized in Table B. 2.

B. 1. Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates3 B. 1.1 Technical, Managerial, and Clerical Labor The basic method used to derive loaded wage rates for technical, managerial, and clerical personnel is described more fully in Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program ( Rice, 2002).

December 2002 average wages for technical, managerial, and clerical labor were taken from the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation ( ECEC) report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS) for all goods producing, private industries. 4 The additional cost of benefits, such as paid leave and insurance (" fringe benefits"), specific to each labor category, are also taken from the same BLS series. Fringe benefit as a percentage of wage is then calculated separately for each labor category. For example, the average wage rate in December 2002 for technical labor was $ 27.00; the average fringe benefit was $ 11.75. So fringe benefit as a percentage of wage rate for technical labor was 11.75/ 27.00, or approximately 43.5%. 5An overhead rate of 17 percent applied to wages is used for consistency with recent EPAB economic analyses for two major rulemakings: Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program, June 10, 2002, and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report, August 200 2. In reports for an earlier SNUR ( EPAB 1999), the 17% was applied to wages plus fringe benefits. Applying it only to wages reduces calculated overhead.

B 2 An additional loading factor of 17 percent is applied to wages for overhead. 5 This overhead loading factor is added to the benefits loading factor, and the total is then applied to the base wage to derive the fully loaded wage. The fully loaded wage for technical labor, for example, is $ 27.00*( 1+ 0.435 + 0.17) = $ 27.00*( 1.605) = $ 43.34.

Fully loaded costs for managerial and clerical labor were calculated in a similar manner.

B. 1.2 Production Workers For production workers, the wages are specific to the chemical industry, but the fringe benefits factor comes from a different BLS series and is for blue collar workers in general. The December 2002 wage for production workers, taken from the National Employment, Hours, and Earnings, Average Hourly Earnings of Production Workers ( BLS, 2003c), is $ 19.44. Fringe benefits as a percentage of wage in December 2002 was calculated from the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation  December 2002: Private industry, goods producing workers by occupational group ( BLS 2003d), by dividing total benefits for blue collar occupations in December 2002 ($ 7.37) by the corresponding December 2002 average wage among blue collar occupations ($ 15.39). The result is 47.9 percent.

As with other labor categories, an additional loading factor of 17 percent of wages was applied for overhead. The loaded wage for production workers was thus calculated as $ 19.44*( 1 + 0.479 + 0.17) = $ 19.44*( 1.649) = $ 32.06.

B. 1.3 Industrial Hygienists For the wage rate for Industrial Hygienists we used the hourly mean wage for occupational health and safety specialists and technicians ( BLS SOC 29 9010) in the resin, rubber, and artificial fibers manufacturing industry ( BLS 2004), which is $ 31.72 ( in year 2002 dollars). We used this, rather than the mean or median wage for the entire SOC 29 9010 because it appears that the overall mean and median are substantially lower due to lower wages paid by state and local governments and hospitals, compared with wages paid by industry. Because state and local governments and hospitals employ substantially more people in this employment category than industry, the overall mean hourly wage ($ 22.85) and median hourly wage ($ 22.12) are substantially lower than the mean hourly wage of $ 31.72 paid by the resin, rubber, and artificial fibers manufacturing industry. The fringe benefits factor came from recent BLS data and is generic to professional occupations.

Fringe benefits as a percentage of wages in December 2002 was taken from Employee 6Calculations are based on unrounded values, so the total may not equal the product of the rounded factors.

B 3 Compensation  December 2002: Private industry, goods producing workers by occupational group( BLS 2003d), by dividing total benefits for professional specialty and technical occupations in December 2002 ($ 11.75) by the corresponding December 2002 average wage among professional specialty and technical occupations ($ 27.00). The result is 43.5 percent.

An additional loading factor of 17 percent of wages was applied for overhead. The loaded wage for industrial hygienists in 2002 dollars was thus calculated as $ 31.72*( 1 + 0.435 + 0.17) = $ 31.72*( 1.605) = $ 50.92. Because this was already in year 2002 dollars, it was not inflated any further. 6 B. 1.4 EPA Staff FTE The annual salary for EPA staff used for calculations of Agency costs is an average of the Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) year 2002 annual salaries for GS 12 Steps 1 and 10   $ 55,694 and $ 72,400, respectively, or $ 64,047. Multiplying by an assumed loading factor of 1.6 to reflect fringe benefits and overhead ( OPPE 1992), the loaded annual salary of EPA staff was calculated to be $ 102,475. B 4 Table B 1 Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates Labor Category Data Sources Uninflated wages and fringes / hour Fringe benefits as % of wage Overhead as % of wage* Fringe + Overhead factor Loaded Wage Rate before inflation Inflation factor Loaded Wage Rate ( 2002 dollars) Date Wages $ Fringe benefits $

Technical BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Table 11. Private industry, goods producing industries, Profess. specialty & technical. Dec 02. [ BLS 2003d] Dec 2002 $ 27.00 $ 11.75 43.5% 17% 1.605 $ 43.34 1 $ 43.34 Managerial BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Table 11. Private industry, goods producing industries, Exec, admin, & managerial. Dec 02. [ BLS 2003d] Dec 2002 $ 33.09 $ 14.57 44.0% 17% 1.610 $ 53.29 1 $ 53.29 Clerical BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Table 11. Private industry, goods producing industries, Admin support, incl. clerica l. Dec 02. [ BLS 2003d] Dec 2002 $ 14.89 $ 6.54 43.9% 17% 1.609 $ 23.96 1 $ 23.96 Production worker Wage: BLS Natl Em pl, Hrs, and Earnings: Aver Hourly Earnings of Production Workers, Chem & Allied Prod, ` Annual' ( EEU32280006) [ BLS 2003c]

Fringes %: BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Table 11. Private/ goods producing industries, bluecollar occupations. Dec 02. [ BLS 2003d] Dec 2002 $ 19.44  47.89% 17% 1.6489 $ 32.05 1 $ 32.05 Labor Category Data Sources Uninflated wages and fringes / hour Fringe benefits as % of wage Overhead as % of wage* Fringe + Overhead factor Loaded Wage Rate before inflation Inflation factor Loaded Wage Rate ( 2002 dollars) Date Wages $ Fringe benefits $

B 5 Industrial hygienist Wages: BLS Occupational Employment and Wages, 2002, SOC 29 9010, Resin, rubber, and artificial fibers mfg. industry [ BLS 2004]

Fringes %: BLS Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, Table 11. Private/ goods producing, Professional specialty & techn, Dec 02. [ BLS 2003d]

Inflation: BLS ECI, White Collar Occupations, Series ECS11102I, Fourth Q ( see Table B 2) [ BLS 2003a] 2002 $ 31.72  43.5% 17% 1.605 $ 50.92 1 $ 50.92 EPA staff FTE Office of Personnel Management ( OPM) pay rates for GS 12 Steps 1 and 10 for 2002. [ OPM 2003] ( Average of $ 55,694 and $ 72,400) 2002 $ 64,047 per year    1.6 $ 102,475 per year 1 $ 102,475 per year * An overhead rate of 17 percent applied to wages is used for consistency with recent EPAB economic analyses for two major rulemakings: Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program, June 10, 2002, and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report, August 2002.

Note: Calculations are based on unrounded values, so the total may not equal the product of the rounded factors. B 6 B. 2. Derivation of Inflation Factors In general, costs of equipment and supplies were inflated to year 2002 dollars using the Consumer Price Index   All Urban Consumers ( not seasonally adjusted); wages were inflated using the appropriate Employment Cost Index ( ECI), seasonally adjusted. In those cases in which both labor and equipment and supplies were involved ( e. g., test costs), we used the inflator corresponding to the dominant cost category. For example, test costs are presumably based on a mix of labor categories and include the costs of equipment and supplies. Assuming that the largest component of test costs comes from labor, we used the ECI for private industry, all workers. Complete information on the derivation of the inflation factors used is given in Table B 2 below.

Table B 2 Derivation of Inflation Factors Report section Item Inflator data source Starting year Inflator for starting year ( A) Inflator for 2002 ( B) Inflation factor ( B) / ( A)

Chapter 3 Export notification BLS Employ. Cost Index, Seas. Adj., White Collar Occupations Series ECS11102I, Fourth Q 1992 116.1 165.6 1.426 Appendix C Test cost BLS Empl. Cost Index, Seasonally Adj, Private industry, All workers ( Series ID: ECS10002I) December [ Published Jan 2003] varies varies 162.5 varies*

Ex. for test costed out in 1993 1993 119.9 162.5 1.355 Ex. for test costed out in 2000 2000 151.1 162.5 1.075 Appendix E Agency Extramural costs BLS Employ. Cost Index, Seas. Adj., White Collar Occupations Series ECS11102I, Fourth Q 1993 120.4 165.6 1.375 * Test costs were first estimated in different years, depending on the test, so that inflation factors vary depending on when the test was costed out. APPENDIX C COSTS OF TESTING C 1 APPENDIX C COSTS OF TESTING This appendix presents detailed information on the costs of tests within each of several categories of health and environmental effects endpoints identified for the two chemicals subject to the current SNUR. The SNUR identifies the toxicological endpoints of concern for pentaBDE or octaBDE as likely to include endocrine disruption ( especially the thyroid), neurodevelopmental toxicity, developmental and reproductive toxicity, cancer, avian reproduction, effects in the aquatic or terrestrial food chains, and cancer, and that more needs to be understood about the environmental fate and the exposure pathways that lead to PBDE presence in wildlife and people. Tables C 1 through C 4 contain information on those tests that fall within the categories of developmental neurotoxicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, and developmental effects in fish, respectively. No information was available for tests in the categories of endocrine disruption and reproductive effects in fish.

Testing Guidelines For some or all chemicals in a SNUR, EPA identifies tests that can be used by submitters to characterize risks of the substances. The tests are recommended in the SNUR, not mandatory, and they are usually identified by guideline numbers which can be used to look up published test protocols. The types of guidelines are described below.

° OPPTS Harmonized. Most SNUR tests are identified by their OPPTS number from the series of OPPTS Harmonized Test Guidelines and OPPTS harmonized public drafts not yet promulgated as OPPTS guidelines. For example, the OPPTS 835 series covers Fate, Transport and Transformation; the 850 series covers Ecological Effects, and the 870 series covers Health Effects. An example is OPPTS Guideline 850.1400, Fish Early Life Stage Toxicity. These guidelines may have equivalent Code of Federal Regulations ( CFR) or Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ( OECD) guidelines. They are available electronically on EPA's website.

° CFR. A few SNUR tests are identified as coming from the Code of Federal Regulations. An example is the two year bioassay test at 40 CFR 799.9420. These CFR guidelines may have equivalent OPPTS harmonized guidelines, but are listed in the SNUR by their CFR reference.

° OECD. A few SNUR tests are identified by their OECD number. The OECD guidelines may also have OPPTS equivalents. For example, OECD 407 28 Day Oral Toxicity in Rats is essentially equivalent to OPPTS 870.3050.

° PBT Category. Finally, for some chemicals, the SNUR cites tiered testing according to a testing strategy published in the Federal Register ( FR), Category for Persistant, C 2 Bioaccumulative, and Toxic New Chemical Substances, November 4, 1999 ( 64 FR 60194), which in turn refers to a number of tests by OPPTS or OECD guideline number.

Testing Costs Information on those tests that fall within each of the test categories specified in the SNUR for which we have information is given in Tables C1  C4. This information includes the test ID, a brief description of the test, the species and method ( route) used, and the cost and hour burden of testing. The costs are from the TSCA Test Guideline Cost Estimates ( EPAB 2003) and are in year 2002 dollars.

Table C 1. Developmental Neurotoxicity Tests TestID Description Species Method Cost HoursBurden 795.2500 Developmental Neurotoxicity Screen Rats dermal $ 239,490.44 2,736 795.2500 Developmental Neurotoxicity Screen Rats dietary $ 242,097.71 2,655 795.2500 Developmental Neurotoxicity Screen Rats gavage $ 188,021.08 2,195 795.2500 Developmental Neurotoxicity Screen Rats inhalation $ 336,838.85 3,098 799. XXX Developmental Neurotoxicity Study Rats dietary $ 233,076.92 2,291 799. XXX Developmental Neurotoxicity Study Rats gavage $ 234,314.90 2,312 870.6300 Developmental Neurotoxicity Study Rats gavage $ 181,263.40 1,788 870.6300 Developmental Neurotoxicity Study Rats dietary $ 180,205.78 1,771 Test equivalents: 870.6300; none; OPP 83 6; OECD none; EPA Pub 96 239 Table C 2. Developmental Toxicity Tests TestID Description Species Method Cost HoursBurden 798.4900 Developmental Toxicity { 2 species} Hamsters dermal $ 86,114.48 1,030 798.4900 Developmental Toxicity { 2 species} Hamsters dietary $ 83,984.63 993 798.4900 Developmental Toxicity { 2 species} Hamsters drinking water $ 85,141.59 1,013 798.4900 Developmental Toxicity { 2 species} Hamsters gavage $ 85,036.41 1,011 798.4900 Developmental Toxicity { 2 species} Hamsters inhalation $ 94,042.27 1,140 798.4900 Developmental Toxicity { 2 species} Mice dermal $ 82,420.11 1,030 798.4900 Developmental Toxicity { 2 species} Mice dietary $ 80,290.25 993 798.4900 Developmental Toxicity { 2 species} Mice drinking water $ 81,447.21 1,013 798.4900 Developmental Toxicity { 2 species} Mice gavage $ 81,342.03 1,011 798.4900 Developmental Toxicity { 2 species} Mice inhalation $ 90,347.90 1,140 798.4900 Developmental Toxicity { 2 species} Rabbits dermal $ 98,104.77 1,184 798.4900 Developmental Toxicity { 2 species} Rabbits dietary $ 95,948.62 1,144 798.4900 Developmental Toxicity { 2 species} Rabbits drinking water $ 97,500.00 1,174 798.4900 Developmental Toxicity { 2 species} Rabbits gavage $ 97,447.41 1,173 798.4900 Developmental Toxicity { 2 species} Rabbits inhalation $ 106,716.22 1,307 798.4900 Developmental Toxicity { 2 species} Rats dermal $ 85,536.00 1,042 798.4900 Developmental Toxicity { 2 species} Rats dietary $ 83,761.12 1,010 798.4900 Developmental Toxicity { 2 species} Rats drinking water $ 84,720.87 1,028 798.4900 Developmental Toxicity { 2 species} Rats gavage $ 84,668.28 1,027 798.4900 Developmental Toxicity { 2 species} Rats inhalation $ 93,726.74 1,157 OECD 414 Developmental Toxicity { 2 species} Rabbits gavage $ 75,084.27 760 OECD 414 Developmental Toxicity { 2 species} Rats gavage $ 65,772.47 706 Test equivalents: 870.3700; 798.4900; OPP 83 3; OECD 414; EPA Pub 96 207 C 3 Table C 3. Reproductive Toxicity Tests TestID Description Species Method Cost HoursBurden OECD 415 One Generation Reproduction Toxicity Study Rats gavage $ 261,322.12 2,951 OECD 415 One Generation Reproduction Toxicity Study Mice dietary $ 208,750.00 2,275 OECD 415 One Generation Reproduction Toxicity Study Mice gavage $ 220,685.10 2,433 OECD 415 One Generation Reproduction Toxicity Study Rats dietary $ 239,927.88 2,636 OECD 416 Two Generation Reproduction Toxicity Study Rats dietary $ 339,076.36 3,396 OECD 416 Two Generation Reproduction Toxicity Study Mice dietary $ 302,996.24 3,068 OECD 421 Reproduction/ Deveopmental Toxicity Screening Test Rats gavage $ 51,875.00 445 798.4700 Reproduction/ Fertility Effects ( 2 Generation Reproduction) Rats gavage $ 395,595.94 3,920 798.4700 Reproduction/ Fertility Effects ( 2 Generation Reproduction) Mice dermal $ 411,403.92 4,506 798.4700 Reproduction/ Fertility Effects ( 2 Generation Reproduction) Mice dietary $ 361,759.56 3,468 798.4700 Reproduction/ Fertility Effects ( 2 Generation Reproduction) Mice drinking water $ 363,245.10 3,495 798.4700 Reproduction/ Fertility Effects ( 2 Generation Reproduction) Mice gavage $ 381,117.07 3,779 798.4700 Reproduction/ Fertility Effects ( 2 Generation Reproduction) Mice inhalation $ 646,270.99 6,517 798.4700 Reproduction/ Fertility Effects ( 2 Generation Reproduction) Rats capsule $ 0.00 0 798.4700 Reproduction/ Fertility Effects ( 2 Generation Reproduction) Rats dermal $ 431,579.99 4,659 798.4700 Reproduction/ Fertility Effects ( 2 Generation Reproduction) Rats drinking water $ 383,421.18 3,648 798.4700 Reproduction/ Fertility Effects ( 2 Generation Reproduction) Rats inhalation $ 684,343.97 6,643 798.4700 Reproduction/ Fertility Effects ( 2 Generation Reproduction) Rats dietary $ 380,495.57 3,595 798.4700 ( mod) Reproduction/ Fertility Effects ( 2 Generation Reproduction) ( w/ weights of all reproductive organs of P0 and F1 male animals) Rats inhalation $ 755,153.04 7,050 C 4 799.9380 Reproduction/ Fertility Effects ( 870.3800) Rats gavage $ 462,113.73 4,666 799.9380 Reproduction and Fertility Effects Rats inhalation $ 890,156.25 9,449 870.3800 Reproduction/ Fertility Effects ( 2 Generation Reproduction) Rats aerosol $ 698,186.56 7,624 870.3800 Reproduction/ Fertility Effects ( 2 Generation Reproduction) Rats dietary $ 397,950.80 4,095 870.3800 Reproduction/ Fertility Effects ( 2 Generation Reproduction) Rats gavage $ 529,717.65 5,024 870.3800 Reproduction/ Fertility Effects ( 2 Generation Reproduction) Rats inhalation $ 715,262.95 7,600 Test equivalents: 870.3800; 798.4700; OPP 83 4; OECD 416; EPA Pub 96 208 Table C 4. Tests on Developmental Effects in Fish TestID Description Species Method Cost HoursBurden 797.1600 Fish Early Life Stage Toxicity Rainbow Trout flow through $ 60,225.05 386 797.1600 Fish Early Life Stage Toxicity Brook Trout flow through $ 60,225.05 386 797.1600 Fish Early Life Stage Toxicity Sheepshead Minnow flow through $ 45,172.57 302 797.1600 Fish Early Life Stage Toxicity Fathead Minnow flow through $ 36,426.07 221 850.1400 Fish Early Life Stage Toxicity Rainbow Trout semi static $ 72,512.02 504 850.1400 Fish Early Life Stage Toxicity Sheepshead Minnow semi static $ 46,947.12 335 850.1400 Fish Early Life Stage Toxicity Rainbow Trout flow through $ 52,560.10 432 850.1400 Fish Early Life Stage Toxicity Sheepshead Minnow flow through $ 35,024.04 298 850.1400 Fish Early Life Stage Toxicity Fathead Minnow semi static $ 46,406.25 328 850.1400 Fish Early Life Stage Toxicity Fathead Minnow flow through $ 34,483.17 291 Test equivalents: 850.1400; 797.1000; OPP 72 4; OECD 210; EPA Pub 96 121 APPENDIX D COSTS OF SUBMITTING A SNUN 7In the economic analysis for an earlier SNUR ( EPAB 1999), EPA estimated SNUN submission costs ( before user fee) at $ 6005 to $ 7240 ( 95 to 114 hours), compared with $ 4456 for 105 hours here. This is not meant to suggest that actual costs declined. Rather, the apparent decline is due to a revised method for calculating labor rates. The method was revised to use more current data and to be consistent with recent EPAB economic analyses. See Appendix B for details. APPENDIX D COSTS OF SUBMITTING A SNUN Estimates of the costs of completing a SNUN form are based on the costs of completing a PMN submission, since the data requirements and the submission form are essentially identical. EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis ( RIA) for amendments to the PMN regulations ( RIB 1994) relied on industry estimates of the effort needed to collect and compile all data required for a PMN submission, prepare the form, and submit the form and data to EPA ( RIB 1994). These estimates, based on a survey conducted by the Chemical Manufacturers Association ( CMA 1991), indicate that the average effort required to prepare and submit a PMN is 95 to 114 hours. For this analysis, the costs of a preparing a SNUN were derived using the 2002 loaded wage rates and average of the hours for clerical, technical, and managerial labor. Wage rate derivations are discussed in Appendix B. As shown in Table D 1, the resulting cost of submitting a SNUN is $ 6,956, including a $ 2500 user fee. 7 Table D 1 Industry Costs for SNUN Labor Category Hours Range* Average Hours Loaded Wage Rate** ( 2002 dollars) Total Labor Cost ( loaded wage × hours)

Clerical 12  14 13.0 $ 23.96 $ 311 Technical 67 80 73.5 $ 43.34 $ 3,185 Managerial 16  20 18.0 $ 53.29 $ 959 Subtotal 95  114 104.5 $ 4,456 User fees $ 2,500 TOTAL $ 6,956 Figures may not add due to rounding. * Hours range for each labor category are from the PMN Amendments RIA ( RIB 1994) ** Loaded wages include fringe benefits and overhead. See Appendix B for derivation. APPENDIX E AGENCY COSTS E 1 APPENDIX E AGENCY COSTS EPA's costs to review and process industry submissions ( SNUNs, requests to modify SNUR, and requests for equivalency determination) are assumed to be the same as EPA costs to review PMNs. EPA's costs associated with SNUR submissions are presented in Table F 1. The EPA staff level ( GS 12), staff year full time equivalents ( FTEs) and extramural costs such as costs for contractor support are derived from the costs estimated for processing PMN submissions ( RIB 1994). The percent of cases are from RIB 1994 and from an 1999 SNUR economic analysis ( EPAB 1999). FTE costs have been calculated using 2002 GS 12 salary data ( OPM 2002) and a loading factor of 1.6 to reflect fringe benefits and overhead ( OPPE 1992).

The original PMN cost estimates were presented as low and high estimates, based on the most junior ( Step 1) and the most senior ( Step 10) GS 12 pay rates, respectively. For simplicity, this analysis uses the average of the two pay rates.

The GS 12 costs in the table below are calculated by multiplying the number of FTEs ( in the first column) by the fully loaded average salary, $ 102,475. This shows EPA staff cost for those chemicals requiring this review step. The Extramural Cost column shows costs for contractor support and other outside purchases for those chemicals requiring this review step, inflated from 1993 prices to 2002 using the Employment Cost Index, Total Compensation for White Collar Occupations ( BLS 2003a). The Weighted Cost column is calculated by multiplying GS 12 staff cost plus extramural costs ( Unweighted Cost) by the percentage of cases requiring this review step. This calculation yields total Agency costs for submission review and processing of $ 4,034 per case. Table E 1 Agency Costs for SNUN and Other Submission Review and Processing Review Step EPA FTE EPA staff ( GS 12) ( a) Extra mural Cost Unweighted Cost Pct. of Cases Weighted Cost 1993 dollars 2002 dollars ( b)

( 1) ( 2) ( 3) ( 4) ( 5)=( 2)+( 4) ( 6) ( 7)=( 5)*( 6)

Prenotice consultation 0.0024 $ 245.94 4 $ 5.52 $ 251.46 41% $ 103.10 Administrative prescreen/ notice receipt/ user fee 0.0024 $ 245.94 92 $ 126.96 $ 372.90 100% $ 372.90 CRSS ( Chemical Review and Search Strategy) 0.0025 $ 256.19 268 $ 369.84 $ 626.03 100% $ 626.03 SAT ( Structure Activity Team) 0.0006 $ 61.49 14 $ 19.32 $ 80.81 100% $ 80.81 Engineering/ Exposure 0.0015 $ 153.71 56 $ 77.28 $ 230.99 100% $ 230.99 Exposure/ Fate 0.0008 $ 81.98 0 $ 0.00 $ 81.98 100% $ 81.98 Focus 0.0009 $ 92.23 23 $ 31.74 $ 123.97 100% $ 123.97 Standard Review Functions 0.0219 $ 2,244.21 511 $ 705.18 $ 2,949.39 29% $ 855.32 Division Directors Meeting 0.0129 $ 1,321.93 113 $ 155.94 $ 1,477.87 15% $ 221.68 Order Development/ Negotiation Review 0.0171 $ 1,752.33 22 $ 30.36 $ 1,782.69 3% $ 53.48 Post Order Data Review 0.0886 $ 9,079.30 0 $ 0.00 $ 9,079.30 3% $ 272.38 Order Modification 0.2167 $ 22,206.38 0 $ 0.00 $ 22,206.38 3% $ 666.19 New Chemical SNUR Development 0.0277 $ 2,838.56 85 $ 117.30 $ 2,955.86 7% $ 206.91 Notices of Commencement 0.0012 $ 122.97 40 $ 55.20 $ 178.17 31% $ 55.23 FOIA ( Freedom of Information Act) Requests 0.0333 $ 3,412.42 287 $ 396.06 $ 3,808.48 1% $ 38.08 CBI ( Confidential Business Information) Substantiation 0.0004 $ 40.99 3 $ 4.14 $ 45.13 100% $ 45.13 TOTAL $ 4,034 Sources: FTEs per review step and 1993 extramural costs are from RIB 1994. Percents of cases are from RIB 1994 and EPAB 1999. GS 12 salaries are from OPM 2002. ( a) The average of GS 12 Step 1 and G S 12 Step 10 salaries for 2002 was ($ 55,694 + $ 72,400) / 2 = $ 64,047. T his was multiplied by an assumed loading factor of 1.6 to reflect fringe benefits and overhead, resulting in a fully loaded cost per FTE of 1.6 X $ 64,047 = $ 102.475. ( b) Extramural costs consist of contracting support and other purchases directly attributable to the PMN review process. They were inflated from 1993 prices to 2002 prices using a factor of approximately 1.38 ( see Appendix B). APPENDIX F REFERENCES F 1 APPENDIX F REFERENCES 29 CFR 1910. Occupational Safety and Health Standards. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1910, Title 29, November 25, 1983.

Best 1997. Personal communication between Tom DeCoff of Eastern Research Group, Lexington, MA and Best Manufacturing Co. technical support services, Austin, TX, December 1997.

BLS 2003a. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index, Total Compensation: White Collar Occupations ( Series ID: ECS11102I), extracted May 28, 2003.

BLS 2003b. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index All Urban Consumers, U. S. City Average ( Series ID: CUUR0000SA0), extracted May 28, 2003.

BLS 2003c. Bureau of Labor Statistics. National Employment, Hours, and Earnings, Average Hourly Earnings of Production Workers ( Series ID: EEU32280006), extracted May 28, 2003.

BLS 2003d. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation  December 2002: Private industry, goods producing workers by occupational group ( Table 11), March 18, 2003.

BLS 2004. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Occupational Employment and Wages, 2002. 29 99010 Occupational Health and Safety Specialists and Technicians, http:// www. bls. gov/ oes/ 2002/ oes299010. htm# ind , extracted February 23, 2004.

BT Office Products 1997. BT Office Products International. Office Products Catalog, 1997.

CMA 1991. Chemical Manufacturers Association. Responses to Questions on Burden Associated with PMN Submissions. Distributed by the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC.

EPAB 1998. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 168 Chemical Substances and Background Support Document for Economic Analysis of Significant New Use Rules. Washington, DC: U. S. EPA/ OPPT/ EETD/ EPAB, January 1998.

EPAB 1999. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 41 Chemical Substances and Background Support Document for Economic Analysis of Significant New Use Rules. Washington, DC: U. S. EPA/ OPPT/ EETD/ EPAB, July 20, 1999. EPA Docket OPPTS 50635. F 2 EPAB 2002. Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report. Washington, DC: U. S. EPA/ OPPT/ EETD/ EPAB, August 2002.

EPAB 2003. TSCA Test Guideline Cost Estimates. Washington, DC: U. S. EPA/ OPPT/ EETD/ EPAB, June 2003.

Kearney, 1988. Memorandum to Bill Massouda, " Reporting and recordkeeping costs for a generic SNUR," February 3, 1988. [ Memo submitted to U. S. EPA/ Office of Toxic Substances ( now OPPT) under contract 68 02 3980 with A. T. Kearney, Inc.].

LSS 1997. Lab Safety Supply. 1997 Product Catalog.

OPM 2002. U. S. Office of Personnel Management. Salary Table 2002 DCB ( Washington Baltimore).

OPPE 1992. Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests ( ICRs). Washington, DC: U. S. EPA, June 1, 1992.

OSHA 1983. Final Regulatory Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analyses of the Hazard Communication Standard. US Dept of Labor, OSHA, Office of Regulatory Analysis, Washington DC, 8/ 9/ 83.

RIB 1989. Regulatory Impacts Branch. Economic Analysis of Final Significant New Rules: General Provisions for New Chemical Follow Up. Washington, DC: U. S. EPA/ OTS/ EETD/ RIB, July 19, 1989.

RIB 1994. Regulatory Impacts Branch. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications. Washington, DC: U. S. EPA/ OPPT/ EETD/ RIB, September 9, 1994.

Rice 2002. Cody Rice. Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program. Washington, DC: U. S. EPA/ OPPT/ EETD/ EPAB, June 10, 2002.

Silagi 1992. William Silagi. Economic Analysis in Support of the Final Rule Promulgated under TSCA Section 12( b). Washington, DC: U. S. EPA/ OPPT/ RIB, June 1992.


[Federal Register: August 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 160)]
[Notices]
[Page 48208]
[DOCID:fr18au08-46]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12492-001]

Ha-Best, Inc.; Notice of License Application Amendment

August 8, 2008.
    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application amendment
has been filed with the Commission and is available for public
inspection.
    a. Type of Application: License Application Amendment for an
Original Minor License.
    b. Project No.: P-12492-001.
    c. Date Filed: July 31, 2008.
    d. Applicant: Ha-Best Inc.
    e. Name of Project: Miner Shoal Waterpower Project.
    f. Location: The proposed project is located on the Soque River,
near the Town of Demorest, Habersham County, Georgia. The proposed
project does not occupy federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791 (a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Don Ferguson, 34 West Jarrard Street,
Cleveland, GA 30528; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Janet Hutzel, Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. The application is not ready for environmental analysis at this
time.
    k. Project Description: The proposed Minor Shoal Project would
consist of the following: (1) An existing 5-foot-high, 80-foot-long
diversion dam; (2) an existing 92-foot-long, 7-foot-diameter steel
penstock; (3) a new 160-foot-long, 7-foot-diameter steel penstock from
the diversion dam tying in to the existing penstock at elevation 1228
feet mean sea level; (4) two existing powerhouses containing a total of
three turbines with a total installed capacity of 1,320 kilowatts; and
(5) appurtenant facilities. The project would have an annual generation
of 2,175,000 kilowatt-hours.
    l. Locations of the Application Amendment: A copy of the
application amendment is available for review at the Commission in the
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
(202) 502-8659. A copy is also available for inspection and
reproduction at the address in item (h) above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/
esubscribenow.htm to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    m. Procedural Schedule: At this time we do not anticipate the need
for preparing a draft environmental assessment (EA). Recipients will
have 30 days to provide the Commission with any written comments on the
EA. All comments filed with the Commission will be considered in the
Order taking final action on the license application. However, should
substantive comments requiring re-analysis be received on the EA
document, we would consider preparing a subsequent EA document. The
application will be processed according to the following Hydro
Licensing Schedule. Revisions to the schedule will be made as
appropriate.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Milestone                           Target date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue Acceptance or Deficiency Letter...  October 2008.
Request Additional Information..........  October 2008.
Issue Scoping Document 1 for Comments...  March 2009.
Issue Scoping Document 2 (if necessary).  June 2009.
Notice that application is ready for      June 2009.
 environmental analysis.
Notice of the Availability of the EA....  December 2009.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    n. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
ready for environmental analysis.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-18994 Filed 8-15-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30212-30214]
[FR Doc No: 2012-12233]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0689; FRL-9674-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Vermont; Regional Haze

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to the Vermont State
Implementation Plan (SIP) that addresses regional haze for the first
planning period from 2008 through 2018. The revision was submitted by
the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (VT DEC) on August
26, 2009, with a supplemental submittal on January 3, 2012. This
revision addresses the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and
EPA's regulations that require States to prevent any future, and remedy
any existing, manmade impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I
Areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from numerous sources
located over a wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``regional
haze program'').

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on June 21, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0689. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Ecosystem
Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning
Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if
at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30, excluding legal holidays.
    Copies of the documents relevant to this action are also available
for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at
the Air Pollution Control Division, Agency of Natural Resources,
Building 3 South, 103 South Main Street, Waterbury, VT 05676.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne McWilliams, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code OEP05-02), Boston, MA
02109--3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number (617) 918-
0697, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. The following outline is
provided

to aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On February 28, 2012, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPR) for the State of Vermont. See 77 FR 11914. The NPR proposed
approval of the Vermont State Implementation Plan (SIP) that addresses
regional haze for the first planning period from 2008 through 2018. It
was submitted by the VT DEC on August 26, 2009, with a supplemental
submittal on January 3, 2012. Specifically, EPA proposed to approve
Vermont's August 26, 2009 SIP revision, and its supplement, as meeting
the applicable implementing regulations found in 40 CFR 51.308. EPA
also proposed to approve Vermont's revised Section 5-221, ``Prohibition
of Potentially Polluting Materials in Fuel,'' and incorporate this
regulation into the Vermont SIP.
    A detailed explanation of the requirements for regional haze SIPs,
as well as EPA's analysis of Vermont's Regional Haze SIP submittal was
provided in the NPR and is not restated here.
    EPA received one comment on the NPR. It was from the U.S. Forest
Service in support of the proposed approval of Vermont's Regional Haze
SIP submittal.

II. Final Action

    EPA is approving Vermont's August 26, 2009 SIP revision and
supplemental submittal on January 3, 2012, as meeting the applicable
implementing regulations found in 40 CFR 51.308. In addition, EPA is
approving Vermont's revised Section 5-221, ``Prohibition of Potentially
Polluting Materials in Fuel,'' and incorporating this regulation into
the Vermont SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 23, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. See Clean Air Act Sec.
307(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: May 8, 2012.
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart UU--Vermont

0
2. Section 52.2370 is amended by revising the entry for Section 5-221
in paragraph (c) and adding a new entry at the end of the table in
paragraph (e) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2370  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) EPA-approved regulations.

                                        EPA-Approved Vermont Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               State
        State citation                Title/subject          effective     EPA approval date     Explanations
                                                               date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 5-221.................  Prohibition of                10/14/2011  5/22/2012 [Insert   Approve revised
                                 potentially polluting                     Federal Register    Section 5-221(1).
                                 materials in fuel.                        page number where
                                                                           the document
                                                                           begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) Nonregulatory.

                                             Vermont Non-Regulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable        State submittal
   Name of non-regulatory SIP        geographic or      date/ effective    EPA-approved date     Explanations
            provision             nonattainment area         date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Vermont Regional Haze SIP and     Statewide.........  8/26/2009;          5/22/2012 [Insert
 its supplement.                                       supplement          Federal Register
                                                       submitted 1/3/      page number where
                                                       2012.               the document
                                                                           begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2012-12233 Filed 5-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


32505 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2003 / Notices comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once in the system, select `` search,'' and then key in docket ID number OPP   2003   0108. The system is an`` anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E mail. Comments may be sent by e mail to opp docket@ epa. gov, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0108. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system is not an `` anonymous access'' system. If you send an e mail comment directly to the docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e mail system automatically captures your e mail address. E mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I. C. 2. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption. 2. By mail. Send your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency ( 7502C), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460   0001, Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0108. 3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Office of Pesticide Programs ( OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall# # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA., Attention: Docket ID Number OPP   2003   0108. Such deliveries are only accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I. B. 1.

D. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency? Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e mail. You may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI ( if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, 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 CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes any 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 and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide copies of any technical information and/ or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at the estimate that you provide. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternative ways to improve the registration activity. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the deadline in this notice. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal Register citation.

II. Registration Applications EPA received an application as follows to register a pesticide product containing a new active ingredient not included in any previously registered product pursuant to the provision of section 3( c)( 4) of FIFRA. Notice of receipt of this application does not imply a decision by the Agency on the application.

Product Containing an Active Ingredient not Included in any Previously Registered Product File Symbol: 70231   E. Applicant: Toagosai Co., Ltd., 1 14 1 Nishi Shimbashi, Minato ku, Tokyo 105   8419, Japan. Product name: ACARITOUCH. Product type: Miticide. Active ingredient: Propyleneglycol monolaurate at 70.81%. Proposed classification/ Use: To control tetranychid mites on a variety of food crops and ornamental plants.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Pesticides and pest.

Dated: May 19, 2003. Sheryl K. Reilly, Acting Director, Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.

[ FR Doc. 03   13435 Filed 5   29   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPPT   2003   0025; FRL   7311   9]

Approval of Test Marketing Exemptions for Certain New Chemicals AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces EPA's approval of applications for test marketing exemptions ( TMEs) under section 5( h)( 1) of the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA) and 40 CFR 720.38. EPA has designated these applications as TME   03   02 and TME   03   03. The test marketing conditions are described in the TME applications and in this notice. DATES: Approval of the TMEs is effective May 22, 2003. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: Barbara Cunningham, Director, Environmental Assistance Division ( 7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 202) 554   1404; e mail address: TSCAHotline epa. gov. For technical information contact: David Schutz, Chemical Control Division, Mail Code 7405M, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 19: 12 May 29, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30MYN1. SGM 30MYN1 RECEIVED OPPT NCIC 2003 MAY30 7: 20AM OPPT 2003 0025 0001 32506 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 104 / Friday, May 30, 2003 / Notices DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 202) 564   9262; e mail address: Schutz. David@ epa. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed in particular to the chemical manufacturer and/ or importer who submitted the TMEs to EPA. This action may, however, be of interest to the public in general. 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. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for these actions under docket identification ( ID) number OPPT   2003   0025. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, Rm. B102 Reading Room, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center Reading Room telephone number is ( 202) 566   1744 and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket, which is located in EPA Docket Center, is ( 202) 566   0280. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

II. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

Section 5( h)( 1) of TSCA and 40 CFR 720.38 authorizes EPA to exempt persons from premanufacture notification ( PMN) requirements and permit them to manufacture or import new chemical substances for test marketing purposes, if the Agency finds that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of the substances for test marketing purposes will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. EPA may impose restrictions on test marketing activities and may modify or revoke a test marketing exemption upon receipt of new information which casts significant doubt on its finding that the test marketing activity will not present an unreasonable risk of injury.

III. What Action is the Agency Taking?

EPA approves TME   03   02 and TME   03   03. EPA has determined that test marketing the new chemical substances, under the conditions set out in the TME applications and in this notice, will not present any unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment.

IV. What Restrictions Apply to these TMEs?

The test market time period, production volume, number of customers, and use must not exceed specifications in the applications and this notice. All other conditions and restrictions described in the applications and in this notice must also be met.

TME   03   02 Date of Receipt: April 24, 2003. Notice of Receipt: May 20, 2003, ( 68 FR 27559) ( FRL   7309   4). Applicant: Forbo Adhesives, LLC. Chemical: ( Generic) Isocyanate functional polyester polyether urethane polymer. Use: ( Generic) Hot melt polyurethane adhesive. Production Volume: CBI. Number of Customers: CBI. Test Marketing Period: CBI TME   03   03 Date of Receipt: April 24, 2003. Notice of Receipt: May 20, 2003, ( 68 FR 27559) ( FRL   7309   4). Applicant: Forbo Adhesives, LLC. Chemical: ( Generic) Isocyanate functional polyester polyether. Use: ( Generic) Hot melt polyurethane adhesive. Production Volume: CBI. Number of Customers: CBI. Test Marketing Period: CBI The following additional restrictions apply to these TMEs. A bill of lading accompanying each shipment must state that the use of the substance is restricted to that approved in the TME. In addition, the applicant shall maintain the following records until 5 years after the date they are created, and shall make them available for inspection or copying in accordance with section 11 of TSCA: 1. Records of the quantity of the TME substance produced and the date of manufacture. 2. Records of dates of the shipments to each customer and the quantities supplied in each shipment. 3. Copies of the bill of lading that accompanies each shipment of the TME substance.

V. What was EPA's Risk Assessment for these TMEs?

EPA identified no significant health or environmental concerns for the test market substances. Therefore, the test market activities will not present any unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment.

VI. Can EPA Change Its Decision on these TMEs in the Future?

Yes. The Agency reserves the right to rescind approval or modify the conditions and restrictions of an exemption should any new information that comes to its attention cast significant doubt on its finding that the test marketing activities will not present any unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment.

List of Subjects Environmental protection, Test marketing exemptions.

Dated: May 22, 2003.

Linda Gerber,

Chief, New Chemicals Prenotice Management Branch, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. [ FR Doc. 03   13560 Filed 5   29   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S VerDate Jan< 31> 2003 19: 12 May 29, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 30MYN1. SGM 30MYN1


ADJUSTED CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS

FOR SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT MODULE

FEP1

Flow rate = 347,234 gal./day

347,234 gal./day x 365 days/year = 126,740,410 gal./year

126,740,410 gal./year x 3.785 l/gal. = 479,764,642 l/year

126,740,410 gal./year x 3.785E-03 m3/gal. = 479,765 m3/year

FEP2

Flow rate = 52,046 gal./day

52,046 gal/day x 365 day/year = 18,996,790 gal./year

18,996,790 gal./year x 3.785 l/gal. = 71,910,673 l/year

18,996,790 gal./year x 3.785E-03 m3/gal. = 71,911 m3/year

Total Flow Rate

FEP1 + FEP2 = 126,740,410 + 18,996,790 = 145,737,200 gal./year

FEP1 + FEP2 = 479,764,642 + 71,910,673 = 551,675,315 l/year

FEP1 + FEP2 = 479,765 + 71,911 = 551,676 m3/year

Sludge volume = 148 yd.3

148 yd.3 x 0.765 m3/yd.3 = 113 m3

Sludge density = 1100 kg/ m3

Sludge mass = 113 m3 x 1100 kg/ m3 = 124300 kg

Adjusted Constituent Concentrations

Total constituent concentration x sludge mass / volume wastewater = adjusted constituent concentration

Total concentration (mg/kg) x 124300 kg / 551,675,315 l = mg/l