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

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

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Analysis of the Final Significant New Use Rule for Mercury-Containing Barometers, Manometers, Hygrometers, and Psychrometers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      (EPA Docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2010-0630)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                             Final -  March 26, 2012
                         -- Does not contain TSCA CBI --

                                  RIN 2070-AJ71

                                   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

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

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

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

                    This Page was Intentionally Left Blank.

                                 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. EP-W-08-010.
                                   ABSTRACT
This report estimates the costs of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s final Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) that applies to the significant new use of elemental mercury (CAS 7439-97-6) in three mercury-containing products: 1) barometers; 2) hygrometers/psychrometers, except battery-powered, motor-aspirated psychrometers containing less than 7 grams of elemental mercury; and 3) manometers.
The final SNUR applies to all manufacturing, import, and processing of elemental mercury for use in these three mercury-containing products (excluding the specified psychrometers). The three mercury-containing products subject to the SNUR are believed to no longer be manufactured in or imported into the United States and are considered "legacy products" by the Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC), with the exception of battery-powered, motor-aspirated psychrometers containing less than 7 grams of elemental mercury, which are still manufactured in the United States. Legacy products are defined by IMERC as products that are not sold as new, but may still be in use, resold as used or antique, or stored in homes or businesses. All three products currently have viable and cost-effective mercury-free substitutes. Because the three mercury-containing products subject to the SNUR are not manufactured, and feasible mercury-free alternatives are widely available, the final SNUR is not expected to have any economic impact.
The three mercury-containing products subject to the final SNUR are all applications of barometers, manometers and hygrometers/psychrometers (excluding the specified psychrometers). All three products subject to the SNUR currently have effective and economically feasible mercury-free substitutes, and are no longer manufactured in United States. Manometers are used to measure air, gas, and liquid pressure, in the automotive, dairy, and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) industries. There are viable mercury-free alternatives for almost all uses of manometers, including digital manometers, bourdon tube manometers, aneroid manometers, and hydrostatic gauges. Barometers are instruments used to measure atmospheric pressure. Current mercury-free alternatives for barometers include aneroid barometers, electronic barometers, and other liquid-based barometers. Hygrometers/psychrometers are used to measure the moisture content, or humidity, of air or gas. There are two available and widely used alternatives to mercury-filled hygrometers/psychrometers: spirit-filled products and digital products.
The final SNUR requires persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture, import, or processing of elemental mercury for any significant new use as described in the SNUR. A firm intending to engage in these activities is required to submit a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN). EPA is promulgating the SNUR because of health and environmental concerns about mercury use. Because the three specified mercury-containing products subject to the SNUR are not currently manufactured in the United States, it is important that EPA is notified if a company chooses to produce, import, or process elemental mercury for use in any of these products. The SNUN provides EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs.
To submit this SNUN, a firm incurs a modest submission cost of $8,334 and potentially other minor costs. However, because no firms are currently importing, manufacturing, or processing elemental mercury for any significant new uses, it is highly unlikely that any firm will incur this cost. EPA does not require the development of test data for submission of a SNUN, although a firm may submit test data already in its possession or describe any other available data. Because EPA does not require the development of test data, EPA assumes that no firms will incur testing costs as a result of the SNUR.
In addition to the firms that make a SNUN submission, the final SNUR may also impact firms that do not make a submission. By avoiding a significant new use, a firm can avoid submission costs but may incur other compliance costs. However, this may not be a concern given that there are no current manufacturers of these three products.

Costs are estimated at the firm level and reflect the burden of a SNUR on the firms that make a submission.
                               TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTRIBUTORS	i
ABSTRACT	ii
LIST OF TABLES	v
1.	INTRODUCTION	1
1.1	Statutory Authority	1
1.2	Summary of Methodology	1
1.3	Organization of this Report	1
2.	POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ENTITIES	2
2.1	Historic Uses of and Alternatives to Mercury-Containing Barometers, Hygrometers/Psychrometers, and Manometers	2
Barometers	2
Hygrometers/Psychrometers	2
Manometers	3
2.2	Potentially Affected Entities	3
Barometers	3
Hygrometers/Psychrometers	4
Manometers	4
3.	INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE COSTS	5
3.1	Wage Rates	6
3.2	Unit Industry Compliance Costs	6
3.2.1	Rule Familiarization	6
3.2.2	CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup	7
3.2.3	Form Completion and Submission Fee	8
3.2.4	Import Certification	9
3.2.5	Export Notification	10
3.3	Industry Costs of SNUR, by Option (per Submission)	12
3.4	Likelihood of a SNUN Submission	13
3.5	Potential for Subsequent Regulatory Action	13
4.	AGENCY COSTS	14
4.1	Labor Rates for EPA Staff	14
4.2	SNUN Processing Costs	15
4.3	Export Notification Cost	18
5.	ADDITIONAL ANALYSES	19
5.1	Small Entity Impacts	19
5.2	Unfunded Mandates	19
5.3	Paperwork Reduction Act	19
5.4	Technical Standards	20
5.5	Regulatory Planning and Review	20
5.6	Environmental Justice	20
5.7	Protection of Children	20
5.8	Federalism	20
5.9	Tribal Governments	20
5.10	Effect on Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use	20
6.	REFERENCES	21

                                LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Loaded Industry Wage Rates, December 2010	6
Table 2: Rule Familiarization Burden and Cost for SNUR Submitters	7
Table 3: CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup Burden and Cost for First-Time Submitters	8
Table 4: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete the SNUN Form	9
Table 5: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete and Submit the SNUN Form	9
Table 6: Derivation of Total Mailing Cost for 12 Notices	11
Table 7: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost per Notification	12
Table 8: Compliance Options and Associated Costs Incurred by a Firm Due to the Final SNUR	13
Table 9: Derivation of Loaded Agency Wage Rates	15
Table 10: Derivation of Inflation Factors for Agency Extramural Costs	16
Table 11: Agency Costs for SNUN and Other Submission Review and Processing	17
Table 12: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost: Agency Burden per Activity (2009$)	18

                                1. 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 a final Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) that addresses the use of elemental mercury (CAS 7439-97-6) in three products: 1) barometers, 2) hygrometers/psychrometers, and 3) manometers. Portable, battery-powered, motor-aspirated psychrometers containing less than 7 grams of elemental mercury continue to be manufactured in the United States, and are not subject to the final SNUR. SNURs are promulgated by EPA under the authority granted by Section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The final SNUR requires persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture, import, or processing of elemental mercury for manometers, barometers and hygrometers/psychrometers (excluding the specified psychrometers). EPA promulgates a SNUR for a substance when potential uses could result in increased exposure to or releases of the substance and in turn, could present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment.
    1.1 Statutory Authority
Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a "significant new use." EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including those listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2). Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before manufacturing, importing, or processing the chemical substance for that use (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)).

The general SNUR provisions are found at 40 CFR Part 721, Subpart A.

    1.2 Summary of Methodology

This analysis quantifies, to the extent possible, the costs to society of the final rule by identifying the costs to industry associated with performing the required reporting and recordkeeping, and the costs to EPA of administering the rule. Industry costs consist of rule familiarization; registration with the Central Data Exchange (CDX) electronic reporting tool; collection, compilation, and submission of required information for significant new uses of the subject chemicals; export notification; and recordkeeping. Agency costs include reviewing and processing the data received as a result of the rule. Data sources for this analysis include burden estimates derived from previous information collection requests and economic analyses for related rules, compensation data acquired from government publications, and supplementary market research.

    1.3 Organization of this Report
The remainder of this report provides EPA's economic analysis in support of the final rule. The chemical substances and industry sectors potentially affected are characterized in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 contains estimates of the industry cost of complying with the final rule, and Chapter 4 shows estimates of the government costs associated with the administration of the final rule. Chapter 5 presents additional impact analyses.

Note that dollar amounts in this analysis are reported in 2010 dollars for industry costs and for agency costs.
                       2. POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ENTITIES
The final SNUR applies to all manufacturing, import, and processing of elemental mercury for use in mercury-containing barometers, manometers, and hygrometers/psychrometers (excluding portable, battery-powered, motor-aspirated psychrometers containing less than 7 grams of elemental mercury). None of the three mercury-containing products subject to the SNUR are believed to be manufactured, imported, or process in the United States, and are considered "legacy products" by the Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC). Legacy products are defined by IMERC as products that are not sold as new, but may still be in use, resold as used or antique, or stored in homes or businesses.

The following sections describe the specific historic uses of each of the three specified mercury-containing products, the substitutes for each product, and the potentially affected industry sectors. Because the manufacture of the three mercury-containing products subject to the SNUR has ceased in the United States, we assume that there is no import of elemental mercury for these uses.
    2.1 Historic Uses of and Alternatives to Mercury-Containing Barometers, Hygrometers/Psychrometers, and Manometers
Barometers
Barometers are instruments used to measure atmospheric pressure, and consist of a long cylindrical tube, typically closed at one end, with a mercury-filled reservoir at the base. The weight of mercury creates a vacuum at the top of the tube, and the mercury adjusts until the pressure inside the reservoir equals atmospheric pressure. Rising mercury indicates increasing air pressure while dropping mercury indicates decreasing air pressure (IMERC, 2010b, 2009b and Maine DEP, 2003). Historically, barometers have primarily been used in weather forecasting applications (IMERC 2008c).  Additional uses include scientific demonstration in schools and non-mercury device calibration (IMERC, 2007, DEPA, 2006). A mercury barometer contains between 400 and 620 grams of mercury (IMERC, 2010b).

Alternatives to mercury-containing barometers include aneroid barometers, electronic barometers (which use vibrating cylinder air pressure transducers, electronic resistance or capacitance), and other liquid-based (water or eco-celli) barometers.
Hygrometers/Psychrometers
Hygrometers are used to measure the moisture content, or humidity, of air or gas. A psychrometer, the most common type of hygrometer, uses two mercury-added thermometers, one with a wetted base, and one with a dry base. Hygrometers and psychrometers function similarly but have historically been used in different applications: hygrometers are used for cigar and tobacco humidors, or in residential settings where humidity is monitored to prevent the growth of mildew or dust mites; psychrometers are used by atmospheric scientists and weather enthusiasts (IMERC, 2010a). Mercury-added hygrometers/psychrometers contain between 3 and 7 grams of mercury (Environment Canada, 2004).
There are two types of alternatives to mercury-added hygrometers/psychrometers that are readily available and widely used: spirit-filled products, which use methyl alcohol or citrus oil thermometers and provide results with comparable accuracy to mercury-added thermometers; and digital products, which use electronic sensors to measure humidity changes and, when calibrated properly, provide as accurate results as mercury products (Maine DEP, 2003, IMERC, 2010b).
EPA found sufficient information to conclude that only one type of mercury-containing hygrometer/psychrometer is manufactured in or imported into the United States. Portable, battery-powered, motor-aspirated psychrometers containing less than 7 grams of elemental mercury continue to be manufactured in the United States. EPA is considering whether risk management or other actions would be appropriate for the one type of psychrometer that is still in use.
Manometers
Manometers are used to measure air, gas, and liquid pressure. While these instruments come in a variety of shapes and sizes, the most common mercury manometer design is a U-shaped tube. One end is left open to the atmosphere; the other is exposed or connected to the source being measured. If the pressure measured is higher than atmospheric pressure, the liquid moves toward the open end of the tube. If the pressure measured is lower, it moves away from the open end. The difference between the levels of mercury provides a reading relative to atmospheric pressure. Historical manometer uses include vacuum pressure measurement in natural gas pipelines, dairy cow milking systems ("dairy manometers"), the automotive industry, and the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) industry. Depending on the application, the amount of mercury in a manometer may range from 30 to 525 grams (IMERC, 2010b, VT Agricultural Agency, 2001; WI DNR, 2007).
There are viable mercury-free alternatives for almost all uses of manometers. There are several mercury-free technologies in the dairy industry (digital manometers, bourdon tube manometers, and aneroid manometers), automobile industry (hydrostatic gauges) and the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) industry (hydrostatic gauges and bourdon tube manometers).
    2.2 Potentially Affected Entities
Because the three mercury-containing products subject to the SNUR are believed to no longer be manufactured in or imported into the United States, there are likely to be no entities affected by the final SNUR. The following summarizes the research undertaken as part of this decision-making process.
Barometers
Princo Instruments, the sole barometer manufacturer reporting use of mercury to IMERC in 2001 and 2004, phased-out manufacturing mercury-added measuring products in January, 2007 (IMERC, 2010b). Internet queries did not identify any current manufacturer of mercury-added barometers. This research suggests that the manufacture of mercury-containing barometers has been phased out.
Hygrometers/Psychrometers
IMERC reports that the quantity of mercury sold in hygrometers/psychrometers decreased from 0.0018 metric tons in 2001 to 0.0009 metric tons in 2007; however, the 2007 value actually equals zero because IMERC categorizes "other measuring equipment" with hygrometers/psychrometers, and both manufacturers who reported sales of mercury-containing hygrometers/psychrometers to IMERC in either 2001 or 2004 (Princo Instruments, Inc. and Taylor Precision Products L.P.) have reported that they have phased out the use of mercury (IMERC, 2010b).
Manometers
All manufacturers who had reported historical manufacture of mercury-containing manometers to IMERC in either 2001 or 2004 have since phased out use of mercury in their products (IMERC, 2010b). Phone conversations with five additional companies (Ashcroft Inc., Dwyer Instruments, Dynisco Instruments, S J Electro Systems, Inc., and McMaster-Carr) identified through 1) online queries for pressure measurement devices, and 2) a search of Dun & Bradstreet database under the relevant NAICS code indicated that none made or sold mercury-containing manometers (Ashcroft Inc., 2010; Dwyer Instruments, 2010; Dynisco Instruments, 2010; S J Electro Systems, Inc.; and McMaster-Carr, 2010). As a result, EPA believes that manufacturing of mercury-containing manometers have been phased-out.

                         3. INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE COSTS
The final SNUR discussed in this report specifies that significant new uses of mercury that require reporting under section 5(a)(2)(A) of TSCA include the manufacture, import, or processing of elemental mercury for use in: 1) barometers, 2) manometers, and 3) hygrometers/psychrometers. Not included in this SNUR is mercury use in portable, battery-powered, motor-aspirated psychrometers containing less than 7 grams of elemental mercury because they are currently manufactured. Therefore, a firm intending to manufacture, import, and/or process elemental mercury for the previously specified products, must submit a SNUN. Alternatively, a firm can decide not to manufacture, import, and/or process the chemical for a significant new use. The firm, therefore, has two options:
Option 1: Submit a SNUN. A SNUN indicates to EPA that the firm would like to manufacture, import, and/or process the chemical for a significant new use, which, in this case, means any manufacture, importing, and/or processing of this chemical or articles containing the chemicals. The firm must submit the SNUN to EPA at least 90 days before it plans to commence the manufacture, import, and/or processing of the substance; the SNUN 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, import, or processing of mercury for use in the three products subject to the SNUR, then the costs associated with this option are the costs of submitting the SNUN (including a user fee) plus, if there is any export of these products, the export notification costs that result from TSCA Section 12(b) requirements that are automatically triggered for chemicals regulated under TSCA Section 5 (see Section 3.2.5 for details). Because the three products subject to the SNUR are not currently manufactured or imported into the United States, EPA expects that no firms will choose this option.

Option 2: Decide not to manufacture, import, and/or process the chemical. The firm may simply decide to not manufacture, import, or process mercury for use in the three products subject to the final SNUR. While this option avoids the costs of submitting a SNUN, it entails the "hidden" cost of the foregone profit as a result of not engaging in the commercial activity originally planned. Similarly, if the firm would have used a given amount of mercury for use in the production of one of the three products subject to the SNUR, it may substitute mercury with a more costly substance and will incur those additional "hidden" costs of production. However, these hidden costs are expected to be minimal, if not zero, because the manufacture of the mercury-containing products subject to the SNUR has phased out, and firms have begun to produce substitutes for the products prior to the SNUR. If the firm elects to produce mercury for use in the three products subject to the SNUR for research and development (R&D) purposes only (an exemption for R&D purposes is provided in 40 CFR §721.47), it may have costs associated with R&D recordkeeping. In addition, if the firm exports any existing stockpiles of the specified mercury-containing products, it will incur the export notification costs (see Section 3.2.5 for details).

Since the products subject to the SNUR are not currently manufactured in the United States, EPA does not expect there to be compliance costs associated with either of the options. The remainder of this chapter estimates the quantified portion of costs associated with the final SNUR for these uses of the elemental mercury. Section 3.1 summarizes the wage rates used in this chapter. Section 3.2 provides the unit industry compliance costs, including the costs of rule familiarization, registration with the Central Data Exchange (CDX) electronic reporting tool, completing the SNUN form, submission fee, import certification, and export notification. Total costs under each option are presented in Section 3.3.

    .1 Wage Rates

The final rule involves activities that may require efforts by employees in three labor classifications: managerial, technical, and clerical. Costs for each activity are calculated by estimating the labor hours required in each labor category and multiplying those burdens by the wage rate for each labor category. This section presents the estimated wage rate in each labor category.
Loaded wage rates for managerial, technical, and clerical personnel are derived by combining data on wages and fringe benefits with estimates of overhead rates, following the methodology described in "Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program" (EPA, 2002b). Wage data for each labor category in December 2010 are provided by the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) Supplemental Tables available on the BLS website (BLS, 2011a). The loaded wage rate for managerial labor is $69.74; for technical labor, $61.71; and for clerical labor, $28.98. Table 1 presents the basic data used to calculate the loaded wage rates for all three categories of labor.

              Table 1: Loaded Industry Wage Rates, December 2010
                                Labor Category
                                 Data Sources
                                     Date
                                     Wage
                                    (2010$)
                                Fringe Benefit
                                    (2010$)
                               Fringes as % wage
                              Over-head % wage[2]
                           Fringe + overhead factor
                                Loaded Wages[1]
                                    (2010$)

                                      (a)
                                      (b)
                                 (c) =(b)/(a)
                                      (d)
                                   (e)=(c)+
                                     (d)+1
                                 (f)=(a) x (e)
                                  Managerial
BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing industries, "Mgt, Business, and Financial"[3]
                                     12/10
                                    $42.82
                                    $19.64
                                    45.87%
                                      17%
                                     1.63
                                    $69.74
                            Professional/
Technical
BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing industries, "Professional and related"[3]
                                     12/10
                                    $36.93
                                    $18.50
                                    50.09%
                                      17%
                                     1.67
                                    $61.71
                                   Clerical
BLS ECEC, Private Manufacturing industries, "Office and Administrative Support" 3
                                     12/10
                                    $17.36
                                    $8.67
                                    49.94%
                                      17%
                                     1.67
                                    $28.98

[1] Wage data are rounded to the closest pennies in this table.
[2] An overhead rate of 17% was used based on assumptions in Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (EPA, 2002b), and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report (EPA, 2002a).
[3] Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 2010, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 9, 2011 (BLS, 2011a).

    .2 Unit Industry Compliance Costs

Rule Familiarization

The final rule requires submitters and their staff to become familiar with the SNUR and its various requirements. The per company burden associated with rule familiarization is approximately 0.55 hours of technical labor and 0.27 hours of managerial labor, as described in the Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009b). As shown in Table 2 the total labor cost associated with rule familiarization by a first-time reporter is $52.54.

       Table 2: Rule Familiarization Burden and Cost for SNUR Submitters
                              Reporting Activity
                        Clerical Labor (at $28.98/hour)
                       Technical Labor (at $61.71/hour)
                       Managerial Labor (at $69.74/hour)
                               Total Labor Cost

                                 Burden(hours)
                                     Cost
                                    (2010$)
                                 Burden(hours)
                                     Cost
                                    (2010$)
                                 Burden(hours)
                                     Cost
                                    (2010$)
                                 Burden(hours)
                                     Cost
                                    (2010$)
Rule Familiarization
                                     0.00
                                     $0.00
                                     0.55
                                    $33.94
                                     0.27
                                    $18.60
                                     0.82
                                    $52.54
Total
                                     0.00
                                     $0.00
                                     0.55
                                    $33.94
                                     0.27
                                    $18.60
                                     0.82
                                    $52.54
Source: BLS, 2011a (labor rates); EPA, 2009b (burden hours)

CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup

The final SNUR requires first-time submitters (that is, those companies who have not submitted information to EPA through CDX before) to register their company and key users with the CDX reporting tool, deliver a CDX electronic signature to EPA, and establish and use a Pay.gov E-payment account.. These activities are only required of first-time submitters (companies already registered with CDX do not need to re-register for the purposes of complying with the final SNUR). The burdens associated with these activities were estimated in the Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009b) and are described in more detail below:
               *       CDX registration: EPA estimates that companies will spend approximately 0.18 hours per employee to register with CDX, and that an average of four technical staff members and one manager will need to register for each company, totaling approximately 0.92 hours of burden per company.

               *       CDX electronic signature: EPA estimates that companies will spend 0.25 hours preparing, submitting, and filing an electronic signature agreement (Authentication of Identity) form to EPA per employee. This burden will apply to four technical staff members and one manager per company, totaling to 1.25 hours of burden per company. In addition, EPA estimates that a manager will spend an additional 0.50 hours accessing, preparing, and submitting verification forms (Verification of Authorization) for all authorized submitters to EPA. The total burden incurred by companies submitting and then verifying electronic signature agreements is 1.75 hours. Note that this burden does not include any additional time required to contact EPA's CDX help desk to notify a change of submitter status, should one occur.

      Filing the electronic signature agreement requires an additional mailing cost of $2.30 per company (including five $0.44 stamps and five $0.02 business envelopes) (USPS, 2010).

               *       Payment via Pay.gov account: EPA estimates that one manager per company will spend approximately 0.13 hours setting up a Pay.gov ID account, logging into the system, finding the appropriate form, and filling it out. This burden does not include the time required to click `submit' on the form and wait for payment processing.

As shown in Table 3, the cost associated with CDX registration, CDX electronic signature, and Pay.gov account setup is $184, and this cost is only incurred by a first-time submitter.

Table 3: CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup Burden and Cost for First-Time Submitters
                              Reporting Activity
                        Clerical Labor (at $29.98/hour)
                       Technical Labor (at $61.71/hour)
                       Managerial Labor (at $69.74/hour)
                                  Total Cost

                                 Burden(hours)
                                     Cost
                                    (2010$)
                                 Burden(hours)
                                     Cost
                                    (2010$)
                                 Burden(hours)
                                     Cost
                                    (2010$)
                                 Burden(hours)
                                     Cost
                                    (2010$)
CDX Registration
                                     0.00
                                    $0.00
                                     0.73
                                    $45.25
                                     0.18
                                    $12.78
                                     0.92
                                    $58.03
CDX Electronic Signature
                                     0.00
                                    $0.00
                                     1.00
                                    $61.71
                                     0.75
                                    $52.30
                                     1.75
                                     $114
Mailing Cost

                                     $2.30
E-Payment (Pay.gov ID)
                                     0.00
                                    $0.00
                                     0.00
                                    $0.00
                                     0.13
                                    $9.30
                                     0.13
                                    $9.30
Total
                                     0.00
                                     $0.00
                                     1.73
                                     $107
                                     1.07
                                    $74.38
                                     2.80
                                     $184
Source: BLS, 2011a (labor rates); EPA, 2009b (burden hours); USPS, 2010 (mailing cost)

Form Completion and Submission Fee

Respondents are required to gather and submit information regarding the data elements identified in the applicable SNUN reporting form. The methodology and calculations used in this analysis assume that the employee responsible for collecting, filling out, and submitting the requested information has a reasonable level of familiarity with the company and knowledge of operations at the site. It is assumed that for most entities these tasks are similar to other employee duties that require familiarity with EPA, State, and other Federal agency requests for chemical information and do not require additional familiarization or training beyond the basic rule familiarization described above. In addition, this analysis focuses on the marginal costs of submitting information for the final rule and not the total costs for the company to comply with a range of other Federal and State environmental, health, and safety regulations or accounting requirements that rely on this type of information.
Estimates of the costs of completing a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) form are based on the costs of completing a Premanufacture Notification (PMN) submission, since the data requirements are the same and the same form is used for both. The PMN submission costs are based on EPA's 1994 Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications and the updates to these estimates in 2009 (EPA, 2009b). The original 1994 estimates relied on industry estimates of the effort needed to collect and compile all data required for a PMN submission, prepare the form, submit the form and data to EPA, and maintain a file of the submission (EPA, 1994, Table III-2 and pages III-11, -12, and -13). The 1994 estimates were based on a survey conducted by the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA, 1991), which became the American Chemistry Council. These burdens "include the time spent reading and becoming familiar with the form, gathering the required information and preparing the report, producing sanitized responses for items claimed as confidential business information, and maintaining a file of the submission" (EPA, 1994. p. III 11-13). The burden associated with SNUN submission and preparation has been adjusted to reflect burden reductions resulting from the 2009 final PMN Electronic Reporting (ePMN) Rule that requires the electronic submission of all TSCA section 5 notices. Electronic submission of SNUN forms is expected to remove all clerical burden associated with preparing a SNUN and reduce the recordkeeping burden associated with SNUN submissions (EPA, 2009b, p.7). Because, the recordkeeping burden for PMNs was not estimated separately, for the purposes of this report we assume this burden reduction is captured in the removal of all clerical burden.

The 1994 RIA estimates that the burden to prepare, keep and maintain records, and submit a PMN is between 95 and 114 hours. Once the clerical burden is removed as a result of the ePMN rule, the total burden associated with preparing and submitting a PMN is reduced to 83 to 100 hours (EPA, 2009b). For this analysis, the midpoint burden is used. An additional 0.18 hours of technical time is added for the completion of the User Fee Payment Identification Number and email address data elements on the electronic SNUN form (EPA, 2009b), therefore the total burden of completing an electronic SNUN form is approximately 92.2 hours. Table 4 combines the estimated reporting burden and loaded wage rates for all three labor categories to estimate the per-SNUN cost of form completion. The labor cost incurred by a SNUN submission for both large and small business submitters is $5,834.

           Table 4: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete the SNUN Form
                              Reporting Activity
                        Clerical Labor (at $28.98/hour)
                       Technical Labor (at $61.71/hour)
                       Managerial Labor (at $69.74/hour)
                               Total Labor Cost

                                 Burden(hours)
                                     Cost
                                    (2010$)
                                 Burden(hours)
                                     Cost
                                    (2010$)
                                 Burden(hours)
                                     Cost
                                    (2010$)
                                 Burden(hours)
                                     Cost
                                    (2010$)
                                Form Completion
                                     0.00
                                     $0.00
                                     74.2
                                    $4,579
                                     18.00
                                    $1,255
                                     92.2
                                    $5,834
Source: BLS, 2011a (labor rates); EPA, 2009b (burden hours)

In addition, each submitting large business must pay a $2,500 per-SNUN submission fee, and each submitting small business must pay a $100 per-SNUN submission fee. Table 5 adds the labor cost and submission fee to estimate the total cost of a SNUN submission. The total cost of a SNUN submission is $8,334 for large business submitters and $5,934 for small business submitters.

     Table 5: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete and Submit the SNUN Form
                             Reporting Population
                                  Labor Cost
                                Submission Fee
                                  Total Cost
                                    (2010$)
Large Business Submitters
                                    $5,834
                                    $2,500
                                    $8,334
Small Business Submitters
                                    $5,834
                                     $100
                                    $5,934
Source: EPA, 2009b.

Import Certification

In general, promulgation of a final SNUR triggers a TSCA Section 13 import certification requirement and the corresponding regulations at 19 CFR 12.118 to 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28 for all imports of the relevant chemical substances. Thus, any U.S. manufacturer, importer, or processor receiving an imported shipment of chemicals subject to the final SNUR will have to certify that all chemical substances in the shipment either comply with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA or that all chemical substances in the shipment are not subject to TSCA. The statement must be on or attached to a commercial invoice or entry document belonging to the imported shipment.
In practice, import certification is fulfilled by checking a box on an invoice or entry document and generally imposes no additional burden or cost on the importer (EPA, 2009c). Any potential burden associated with a submitter's familiarization with this requirement is assumed to be included in the more general SNUR familiarization burden discussed above.

Export Notification

Under Section 12(b) of TSCA, exporters must notify EPA if they export or intend to export a chemical or an article subject to various TSCA sections (40 CFR §707.60 through 75). For TSCA 5(a)(2) (the section under which EPA promulgates significant new use rules) and certain other TSCA sections, this is a one-time notification requirement per destination country for each exporter of a chemical substance. After receiving a notification from a firm, EPA notifies the importing country and the United States State Department (40 CFR §707.70). To calculate the burden associated with making export notifications, EPA first estimated the average annual number of export notifications made by an exporter. EPA then derived the annual and per notification burden associated with preparing and submitting an export notification.
EPA estimated the average burden associated with making a single notification, but did not estimate the total number of exporters of elemental mercury for the uses subject to the SNUR, or the number of notifications per specified mercury-containing product. It is also important to note that the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 will forbid export of elemental mercury from the United States beginning in 2013. Therefore, beyond 2013, there will be no export notification costs related to export of elemental mercury for these uses; the only cost will be if there is import of mercury-containing barometers, manometers and/or hygrometers/psychrometers.

Most underlying data in this section come from the 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR, ICR No.: 0795.13 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (EPA, 2009c), with updating for inflation.

Exporter Costs

The 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR (EPA, 2009c, page 11, Table 3), estimated the annual export notification cost for an exporter under the one-time export notification requirement. These costs include the cost to the exporter of compiling a list of their products that are subject to TSCA Section 12(b) requirements, writing or revising an export notification letter to EPA, checking the outgoing shipments, and sending the notification letters with the associated shipping costs.
The per-notification cost was calculated based on the assumption that the average exporter makes 12 notifications per year.  Exporters making more notifications per year may benefit from economies of scale and have lower costs per notification; those making fewer notifications may have higher costs per notification.
Estimated Submission (Mailing) Costs. Regulated companies will incur mailing costs for export notifications delivered to EPA. Notifications are assumed shipped via the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) as first-class registered mail with a return receipt (USPS, 2010). The estimated per-shipment and annual mailing costs incurred by individual submitters are detailed in Table 6.

           Table 6: Derivation of Total Mailing Cost for 12 Notices
Dates that the rates were verified on United States Postal Service web site:
                                  April 2010
Postal services costs

Registered mail, regular, with $0 declared value
                                    $10.60
Return receipt, requested at time of mailing (receive by mail)
                                     $2.30
Postage, regular First Class, up to 1 ounce
                                     $0.44
                      Cost per export notice  -  Subtotal
                                    $13.34
Source:  Mailing rates are from the US Postal Service web site as of April 2010 (http://www.usps.com/prices/). The mailing method comes from the Economic Analysis of the Proposed Change to TSCA Section 12(b) Export Notification Requirements, November 2005 (EPA, 2005), as clarified in a later SNUR economic analysis (EPA, 2007a, Table 8).

Compile and Maintain the List of Products. Since TSCA §12(b) information collection activity has been in place for twenty years, most respondents will have already developed a list of their products subject to TSCA §12(b) export notification. Respondents need only check for new regulations promulgated and any new products exported by the company. Updating the list is estimated to take an average of one hour of technical time, which may also include some proportion of legal time (EPA, 2009c). The total burden can vary from two hours per year up to two hours per month, depending on the number of products exported by the company and the number of their products subject to TSCA §12(b) (EPA, 2009c).
Write or Revise Export Notification. Companies that export chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) reporting must prepare an export notification to send to EPA when export shipments are made. Time for initial preparation of the export notice may vary depending on whether the company has prior experience with this requirement. This step is estimated to take an average of one hour of technical time (which may also include some proportion of legal time) per firm per year for 12 notifications per year, or 0.08 hours per notification (EPA, 2009c).
Check Orders and Send Notifications. Companies that export chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) reporting must check outgoing shipments against the list of their products described above. A form letter notifying EPA and providing the required data must be printed and mailed within the required time period. This process is estimated to take an average one half hour of clerical time per export notification (EPA, 2009c).
The burdens and associated costs for each notification activity are provided in Table 7 below.

        Table 7: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost per Notification

Technical
Clerical
Total

$/Hr
Hours
2010$
$/Hr
Hours
2010$
2010$
Hours
Compile list
                                    $61.71
                                     0.78
                                    $47.82
                                      --
                                      --
                                      --
                                    $47.82
                                     0.78
Write letter
                                    $61.71
                                     0.08
                                     $5.14
                                      --
                                      --
                                      --
                                     $5.14
                                     0.08
Check order and send notice
                                      --
                                      --
                                      --
                                    $28.98
                                     0.50
                                    $14.49
                                    $14.49
                                     0.50
Mailing cost[1]

                                      --
                                      --
                                      --
                                    $13.34
                                       -
Total per notification

                                    $0.86
                                    $52.97

                                     0.50
                                    $14.49
                                     1.36
                                    $80.80
Notes:
[1] Mailing costs reflect April 2010 USPS rates and can be found in Table 6.
[2] Per notification costs are based on an average facility submitting notifications that is assumed to submit 12 export notifications per year.
Source: ICR No.: 0795.13 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (EPA, 2009c, p.10), and are updated to 2010 dollars.

    5.1 Industry Costs of SNUR, by Option (per Submission)

The number of firms affected by not making submissions to EPA is not known; therefore, costs are not aggregated across the affected entities. Table 8 summarizes the costs to comply with the final rule, as described in more detail in section 3.2 above.
Table 8: Compliance Options and Associated Costs Incurred by a Firm Due to the Final SNUR
                                   Option[1]
                                     Costs
                   Quantified Costs per Chemical (2008$)[2]
1.
Submit a SNUN.
Costs of submitting a SNUN, including rule familiarization, CDX registration (for companies that are first-time submitters), form completion, user fee, export notification, and any test costs,
$52.54 rule familiarization cost; $8,334 submission cost (including SNUN recordkeeping and $2,500 fee). EPA usually receives well under ten SNUNs per year. Based on review of recent SNUNs, it appears that firms rarely conduct toxicity or fate testing to support a SNUN (such testing would be voluntary).[3] Export notifications costs are estimated at $80.80 per notification; total cost per company will vary. First time submitters will incur $184 for CDX registration and associated activities.
2.
Decide not to manufacture, import, or process the chemical.
Cost of the profit foregone as a result of not engaging in the commercial activity originally planned, and recordkeeping costs only if manufacturing for research and development.
Costs not quantified. Rule familiarization and export notification costs may apply.
Notes:
[1] Firms may be subject to both options at once since submission of a SNUN results in profits foregone as a result of not manufacturing, importing, or processing the chemical.
2 Quantified costs are attributable to the SNUR only if a firm does not otherwise follow the specified practices. Costs are detailed in Section 3.2.
3 EPA does not require the development of test data for submission of a SNUN, although a firm may submit test data already in its possession and/or describe any other available data. Because EPA does not require the development of test data, EPA assumes that no firms will incur testing costs as a result of the SNUR.

    5.2 Likelihood of a SNUN Submission

EPA believes that the use of elemental mercury for manufacturing the specified mercury-containing products has been phased out in the United States (see section 2.2). Therefore, very few, if any, entities are expected to submit a SNUN.

    5.3 Potential for Subsequent Regulatory Action
EPA recognizes that if submission of a SNUN does result from the final SNUR, the Agency may take additional regulatory actions under TSCA. These additional regulatory actions might be necessary to further evaluate an intended new use and associated activities, or to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs to prevent unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment. It is not known what specific subsequent regulatory actions, if any, the Agency may determine are necessary after reviewing a SNUN. Any such actions are highly dependent on the circumstances surrounding the individual SNUN (e.g., available information and scientific understanding of the chemical and its risks at the time the SNUN is being reviewed).
Should EPA's review of the SNUN result in further regulatory actions, the Agency will initiate and follow the appropriate procedures for taking those actions. Included in those procedures would be an assessment of the costs and benefits of those actions.
                               1. AGENCY COSTS
As described in the following sections, EPA's costs to review and process SNUN submissions are assumed to be the same as EPA costs to review PMNs.
    1.1 Labor Rates for EPA Staff

Agency labor costs are calculated based on annual Federal salaries for the Washington-Baltimore area published by the Office of Personnel Management effective January 2010 (OPM, 2010). EPA assumes that, on average, a federal GS-13, Step 5 full-time equivalent (FTE) will conduct its collection and administrative activities under the final rule.  The average salary for a GS-13 Step 5 employee was $100,904 in 2010 without fringe benefits and overhead costs. In order to derive the fully loaded salary, EPA multiplied the annual salary by an assumed loading factor of 1.6 to reflect federal fringe benefits and overhead, which results in a fully loaded annual salary of $161,446 (see Table 9). Dividing the fully loaded annual salary by 2,080 hours (i.e., the number of hours in a work year) yields an hourly FTE compensation wage rate of $77.62.
The Agency loading factor of 1.6 is from an EPA guide entitled Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (EPA, 1992, page 30, footnote 9). The 60 percent assumption was labeled "the benefits multiplication factor" in the EPA guide, but has been used in many EPA OPPT ICRs to reflect both fringe benefits and overhead for federal staff. For example, it was used in a document supporting EPA ICR No. 1139.06 (EPA, 2000), with the following explanation:
      The annual costs per FTE are derived by multiplying the annual pay rate by 1.6 (the benefits multiplication factor). The multiplication factor used is recommended in EPA's Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation's Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (June 1, 1992). An EPA internal phone call between Carol Rawie (OPPT/EETD/RIB) and Carl Koch (OPPE/RMD/IMB) on May 3, 1994, indicated that the 1.6 factor included not only benefits but also overhead.

Fully loaded costs for Agency labor are shown in Table 9.
                Table 9: Derivation of Loaded Agency Wage Rates
                                Labor Category
                       Data Source for Wage Information
                                     Date
                                     Wage
                                Fringe Benefit
                               Fringes as % wage
                              Overhead as % wage
                           Fringe + overhead factor
                                 Loaded Wages

                                      (a)
                                      (b)
                                  (c)=(b)/(a)
                                      (d)
                                 (e)=(c)+(d)+1
                                  (f)=(a)*(e)
EPA staff FTE
Annual federal staff cost: OPM Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-PA-VA-WV, area, GS-13 Step 1 pay rates [a]
                                   Jan-2010
                               $100,904 (annual)
                                      --
                          [Included in 60% overhead]
                                    60% [b]
                                     1.60
                               $161,446 (annual)

                                $48.51 (hourly)

                                $77.62 (hourly)
Notes:
[a] The Agency salary is the unloaded federal GS-13 Step 5 salary ($100,904 for 2009), from the OPM salary table for the Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia Locality Pay Area (OPM, 2010). Hourly rates are based on annual salary divided by 2,080 hours.
[b] The 60% fringes-and-overhead rate is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (EPA, 1992, page 30, footnote 9).

    1.2 SNUN Processing Costs

The list of review steps, estimates of extramural costs, and the percent of chemicals requiring a particular review step are derived from the costs for processing PMN submissions in Table VII-1 of a 1994 EPA report, Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications (EPA, 1994). The Agency burden associated with processing a PMN has been adjusted to reflect burden reductions resulting from the 2009 final PMN Electronic Reporting (ePMN) Rule that requires the electronic submission of all TSCA section 5 notices. Electronic submission of SNUN forms is expected reduce Agency burden by 16.5 percent (EPA, 2009b, p.28).
For each review step, the "EPA staff" cost is calculated by multiplying the number of FTEs (in the first column) by the fully loaded hourly salary. This shows EPA staff cost for chemicals requiring the selected review step.
The Extramural Cost column shows costs for contractor support and other outside purchases for chemicals requiring the selected review step is inflated from 1993 prices using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index (ECI) data (BLS, 2011b). The not seasonally adjusted ECI for total compensation of private industry professional and related workers (Series ID CIU2010000120000I) is used because it is the only series with continuous data since 1985, and that includes professional and technical labor, which perform the majority of Agency extramural activities. Table 10, below contains the derivation of inflation factors for Agency extramural costs.
     Table 10: Derivation of Inflation Factors for Agency Extramural Costs
                                     Item
                           Inflation index source[1]
                                 Starting year
                            Index for starting year
                                      (a)
                              Index for 2010
(b)
                          Inflation factor
(b)/(a) 2
Agency Extramural costs White collar labor; equipment; supplies
BLS ECI, Total comp, Private industry, Professional and related, 4[th] Q [BLS 2011b] [3]
                                     1993
                                     67.0
                                      113
                                     1.69
Notes:
[1] In 2006, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index (ECI) series "were rebased to December 2005 = 100 from June 1989 = 100."  The change is reflected in the indices in this table and explained on the BLS website, Employment Cost Index News Release Text: Employment Cost Index, March 2006 (BLS, 2006).  The Consumer Price Index (CPI) was not rebased.
2 Inflation factors are rounded; unrounded values were used in calculations.
3 Beginning with the report Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 25 Chemical Substances: EPA Docket OPPT-2009-0922 (EPA 2011b), we began to use the not-seasonally adjusted CIU2010000120000I for private industry Professional, and Related workers, instead of SA CIS2010000W00000I for private industry white collar workers because BLS retired the "white-collar" series.
Source:
(BLS 2011b) Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index  -  Total Compensation: Professional and Related Private Industry, Not Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: CIU2010000120000I (B)), extracted June 16, 2011.

The Percent of Cases column in Table 11 is a weighting factor applied to reflect the fact that not all chemicals require each review step. For example, in the PMN process, all chemicals require Administrative Prescreening, but not all chemicals require the intensive scrutiny of "Standard Review."  The three types of submissions resulting from a SNUR may have weighting factors that differ from each other and from the weighting factors for PMNs. Changes in weighting factors could cause actual review costs to be higher or lower than calculated here. For example, some SNUNs require little review because they are determined to be "invalid"  -  i.e. not required in the first place. However, often a SNUN may take more Agency time than a typical PMN because of factors such as the need to retrieve old PMN records from archives, and the likelihood that more data requiring EPA review is submitted with a SNUN than would be submitted on average with a PMN. Resources were not available to update the review hours to reflect the current review process or to tailor the cost estimates to SNUNs. Therefore, for this analysis, the review steps and weighting factors are assumed to be the same as those derived in 1994 for PMNs.
The Weighted Cost column is calculated by multiplying the un-weighted Costs (EPA staff cost plus extramural costs) by the percentage of cases requiring this review step. Weighted costs are then multiplied by the burden reduction of 16.5 percent to account for burden savings generated electronic submission. This calculation yields total Agency costs of $5,049, per SNUN, for submission review and processing, as shown in Table 11.
  Table 11: Agency Costs for SNUN and Other Submission Review and Processing
Review Steps
EPA staff (FTE) Cost
Extramural Cost [2]
Unweighted Cost
Pct. of Cases
Weighted Cost[3]
ePMN Burden Reduction[4]
Weighted Cost with ePMN Burden Reduction

FTE fraction
Cost per FTE [1]
FTE Total ($2010)
1993 dollars
2010 dollars

(a)
(b)
(c)=(a)*(b)
(d)
(e)
(f)=(c)+(e)
(g)
(h)=(f)*(g)
(i)
(j)=(h)*(1-(i))
Pre-notice consultation
                                    0.0024
                                   $161,446
                                     $387
                                     $4.00
                                    $6.78
                                     $394
                                      41%
                                     $162
                                     0.165
                                     $135
Administrative prescreen/ notice receipt/user fee
                                    0.0024
                                   $161,446
                                     $387
                                    $92.00
                                     $156
                                     $543
                                     100%
                                     $543
                                     0.165
                                     $454
CRSS (Chemical Review and Search Strategy)
                                    0.0025
                                   $161,446
                                     $404
                                     $268
                                     $454
                                     $858
                                     100%
                                     $858
                                     0.165
                                     $716
SAT (Structure Activity Team)
                                    0.0006
                                   $161,446
                                    $96.87
                                    $14.00
                                    $23.72
                                     $121
                                     100%
                                     $121
                                     0.165
                                     $101
Engineering/Exposure
                                    0.0015
                                   $161,446
                                     $242
                                    $56.00
                                    $94.87
                                     $337
                                     100%
                                     $337
                                     0.165
                                     $281
Exposure/Fate
                                    0.0008
                                   $161,446
                                     $129
                                     $0.00
                                    $0.00
                                     $129
                                     100%
                                     $129
                                     0.165
                                     $108
Focus
                                    0.0009
                                   $161,446
                                     $145
                                    $23.00
                                    $38.96
                                     $184
                                     100%
                                     $184
                                     0.165
                                     $154
Standard Review Functions
                                    0.0219
                                   $161,446
                                    $3,536
                                     $511
                                     $866
                                    $4,401
                                      29%
                                    $1,276
                                     0.165
                                    $1,066
Division Directors Meeting
                                    0.0129
                                   $161,446
                                    $2,083
                                     $113
                                     $191
                                    $2,274
                                      15%
                                     $341
                                     0.165
                                     $285
Order Development/Negotiation Review
                                    0.0171
                                   $161,446
                                    $2,761
                                    $22.00
                                    $37.27
                                    $2,798
                                      3%
                                    $83.94
                                     0.165
                                     $70
Post Order Data Review
                                    0.0886
                                   $161,446
                                   $14,304
                                     $0.00
                                    $0.00
                                   $14,304
                                      3%
                                     $429
                                     0.165
                                     $358
Order Modification
                                    0.2167
                                   $161,446
                                   $34,985
                                     $0.00
                                    $0.00
                                   $34,985
                                      3%
                                    $1,049
                                     0.165
                                     $876
New Chemical SNUR Development
                                    0.0277
                                   $161,446
                                    $4,472
                                    $85.00
                                     $144
                                    $4,616
                                      7%
                                     $323
                                     0.165
                                     $270
Notices of Commencement
                                    0.0012
                                   $161,446
                                     $193
                                    $40.00
                                    $67.76
                                     $261
                                      31%
                                    $81.06
                                     0.165
                                     $68
FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) Requests
                                    0.0333
                                   $161,446
                                    $5,376
                                     $287
                                     $486
                                    $5,862
                                      1%
                                    $58.62
                                     0.165
                                     $49
CBI (Confidential Business Information) Substantiation
                                    0.0004
                                   $161,446
                                    $64.58
                                     $3.00
                                    $5.08
                                     $70
                                     100%
                                    $69.66
                                     0.165
                                     $58
TOTAL
                                    $6,046
                                     0.165
                                    $5,049
Notes:
[1] GS-13 Step 5 salaries loaded with benefits and overhead.  See Table 9 for derivation.
[2] Extramural costs consist of contracting support and other purchases directly attributable to the PMN review process inflated from 1993 prices using {insert reference].
3 Weighted costs were calculated using unrounded unit cost estimates, so results may differ from calculations using the rounded values shown in this table.
[4] Electronic submission is expected to generate a cost savings of 16.5% to the Agency (EPA 2009b, p. 28).
Sources: FTEs per review step, 1993 extramural costs, and percentages of cases are from EPA, 1994 Table VII-1, GS-13 salaries are from OPM, 2010.

    1.3 Export Notification Cost
The Agency burden and cost due to TSCA §12(b) export notification result from three tasks. In the first task, EPA receives export notifications from companies that intend to export one of the chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) (EPA, 2009c). In the second task, EPA staff prepares separate notification letters that are subsequently reviewed and delivered to importing countries, their embassies, or representatives, and to the importing country's US embassies (EPA, 2009c). (See Table 6 for the cost of mailing one notification). The third task is comprised of EPA staff responses to public inquiries and other TSCA 12(b) activities. The work of responding to non-routine requests for information and clarification from industry and importing countries, and of handling other tasks associated with the TSCA §12(b) program, was estimated to require roughly 400 hours per year (EPA, 2009c). Since the current rulemaking covers only one chemical subject to TSCA 12(b) reporting for a minimal number of uses, a very small percent of such activity will be attributable to the current rulemaking.
Because the manufacture of mercury-containing products subject to the final SNUR is phased out, EPA does not expect to receive or send any export notifications. Nevertheless, should there be any notifications as a result of the current rulemaking, the costs to the Agency are presented per activity. The burden for the first two Agency activities is provided in Table 12 below. To estimate the Agency cost, hourly burdens are multiplied by the loaded wage rate of a GS-13, Step 5, which is derived in Table 9.

Table 12: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost: Agency Burden per Activity (2010$)
Agency Activity
Hours per Activity
FTE per Activity[1]
Loaded
Mailing Cost
Total Agency Cost per Activity

GS-13, Step 5 FTE Wage Rate

(a)
(b) = (a)/2,080
(c)
(d)
(e) = ((b)*(c))+(d)
          Process an incoming notification from an exporting company
                                      0.1
                                   0.000048
                                   $161,446
                                    $0.00
                                    $7.76
            Prepare and mail a notification to an importing country
                                      0.5
                                   0.000240
                                   $161,446
                                    $13.34
                                    $52.15
Notes:
[1] The burden associated with an Agency activity is the burden for the Agency to process one incoming notification, or to prepare and mail an outgoing notification
Source: Table 9 of this report derives Agency labor costs. Mailing costs are from Table 6 of this report. Other burdens are from ICR No.: 0795.13 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (EPA 2009c), updated for inflation.

                            2. ADDITIONAL ANALYSES
This section presents additional analysis of other potential impacts of this rulemaking, as required under various statutes and executive orders.
    2.1 Small Entity Impacts

 Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Agency hereby certifies that promulgation of this SNUR will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The rationale supporting this conclusion is as follows. A SNUR applies to any person (including small or large entities) who intends to engage in any activity described in the rule as a "significant new use." By definition of the word "new," and based on all information currently available to EPA, it appears that no small or large entities presently engage in such activity. Since this final SNUR requires a person who intends to engage in such activity in the future to first notify EPA by submitting a SNUN, no economic impact will occur unless someone files a SNUN to pursue a significant new use in the future or forgoes profits by avoiding or delaying the significant new use. Although some small entities may decide to conduct such activities in the future, EPA cannot presently determine how many, if any, there may be. However, EPA's experience to date is that, in response to the promulgation of over 1,000 SNURs, the Agency receives on average only 5 notices per year. Of those SNUNs submitted, only one appears to be from a small entity in response to any SNUR. Therefore, EPA believes that the potential economic impact of complying with a SNUR is not expected to be significant or adversely impact a substantial number of small entities. In a SNUR that published as a final rule on August 8, 1997 (62 FR 42690)(FRL-5735-4), the Agency presented its general determination that proposed and final SNURs are not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, which was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

    1.1 Unfunded Mandates

 Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reason to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this rulemaking. As such, EPA has determined that this regulatory action will not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small governments subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538).

    3.1 Paperwork Reduction Act

 According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 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 OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for certain EPA regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related collection instrument, or form, if applicable.

 The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 2070-0038 (EPA ICR No. 1188). This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval. If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average 97 hours per response. This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.

    7.1 Technical Standards

Because this action does not involve any technical standards; section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action.
    7.2 Regulatory Planning and Review

 Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this action is a "significant regulatory action," because it may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action as required by section 6(a)(3)(E) of the Executive Order.

    9.1 Environmental Justice

This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    9.2 Protection of Children

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children.

    9.3 Federalism

This action will not have federalism implications because it is not expected to have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
    9.4 Tribal Governments

 This action will not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes, will not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, and does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

    11.1 Effect on Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not a "significant energy action" as defined in Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.
                                1. REFERENCES

15 U.S.C. 272, National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104 - 113, Section 12(d).

19 CFR 12, Customs Duties: Special Classes of Merchandise, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 12, Title 19, August 1, 1983.

40 CFR 707, Chemical Imports and Exports, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 707, Title 40, July 1, 2003.

40 CFR 720, Premanufacture Notification, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 720, Title 40, July 1, 2003.

40 CFR 721, Significant New Use of Chemical Substances, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 721, Title 40, July 1, 2003.

59 FR 7629, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, Federal Register, Volume 59, February 16, 1994.

59 FR 22951, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, Federal Register, Volume 59, November 6, 2000.

62 FR 19885, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, Federal Register, Volume 62, April 23, 1997.

64 FR 43255, Federalism, Federal Register, Volume 65, August 10, 1999.

66 FR 28355, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use, Federal Register, Volume 66, May 22, 2001.

71 FR 66234, Export Notification; Change to Reporting Requirements, Final Rule, Federal Register, Volume 71, November 14, 2006. Available in docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-0058 at http://www.regulations.gov.

Ashcroft Inc. 2010. Phone conversation between Jacob Grindal (Abt Associates) and Customer Service Representative (Ashcroft Inc.). June 23, 2010.

Belfort, 2010. Phone conversation between Jacob Grindal (Abt Associates) and Customer Service Representative (Belfort Instrument Company). April 27, 2010.

BLS, 2006. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index News Release Text: Employment Cost Index, March 2006 (April 28, 2006), at http://www.bls.gov.

BLS, 2011a. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 2010." Accessed March 9, 2011. http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsuptc17.pdf . (Note: The BLS report title and content is updated periodically to include more recent data, on the same website.)

BLS, 2011b. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index  -  Total Compensation: Professional and  Related Private Industry, Not Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: CIU2010000120000I (B)), extracted June 16, 2011. Available at: http:/data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate.
CMA, 1991. Chemical Manufacturers Association. Responses to Questions on Burden Associated with PMN Submissions. Distributed by the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC.

Columbia Encyclopedia. 2010. "Barometer." Available at: http://www.answers.com/topic/barometer

DEPA, 2006. Danish Environmental Protection Agency "Alternatives to Mercury-Containing Measuring Devices." 2006 Available at: http://www2.mst.dk/common/Udgivramme/Frame.asp?http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/2006/87-7052-133-6/html/helepubl_eng.htm
Dwyer Instruments. 2010. Phone conversation between Tulika Narayan (Abt Associates) and two Technical Representatives. May 24, 2010.
Dynisco Instruments. 2010. Phone conversation between Jacob Grindal (Abt Associates) and Brady Davison (Regional Manager, Dynisco Instruments). June 23, 2010.
EPA, 1992. U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs). Washington, DC, June 1, 1992.

EPA, 1994. US EPA, Office of Toxic Substances, 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. (OTS/RIB later became OPPTS/EPAB.)

EPA, 2000. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, ICR No. 1139.06. [Information Collection Request for] TSCA Existing Chemical Test Rules, Consent Orders, Test Rule Exemptions, and Voluntary Test Data Submissions: Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Attachment 5, Wage Rates Estimation, August 29, 2000.

EPA, 2002a U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report. Washington, DC. August 2002.

EPA, 2002b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program. Washington, DC, June 10, 2002.

EPA, 2003. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 65 Chemical Substances. Washington, DC, 2003. Available in docket EPA-HQ-OPPTS-2002-0078 at http://www.regulations.gov.
     EPA, 2005. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Change to TSCA Section 12(b) Export Notification Requirements, November 2005, available from the Federal Docket Management System as EPA-HQ-OPPT-2005-005 8-0017 at http://www.regulations.gov.
     EPA, 2007a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 38 Chemical Substances (EPA Docket OPPT-2006-0898), August 17, 2007.
      EPA, 2007b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, ICR No. 0574.14. [Information Collection Request for] Pre-Manufacture Review Reporting and Exemption Requirements for New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Reporting Requirements for Chemical Substances: Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under The Paperwork Reduction Act, December 6, 2007.

EPA 2009a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs) Action Plan. December 30, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/pbdes_ap_2009_1230_final.pdf.

EPA, 2009b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule. (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0296). July 13, 2009.

EPA, 2009c. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. ICR No.: 0795.13 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. March 6, 2009 at http://www.regulations.gov.

EPA, 2010. U.S. EPA, U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 25 Chemical Substances. (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0922).

EPA, 2011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 25 Chemical Substances, (EPA Docket OPPT-2009-0922) August 2011.
Environment Canada, 2004. "Mercury and the Environment: Sources of Mercury: Mercury-containing Products." Available at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/MERCURY/SM/EN/sm-mcp.cfm#HD.
IMERC, 2007. Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse. "Mercury Use in School Classrooms: Summary and Assessment of Non-Mercury Alternatives." 2007 Available at: http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/schools/MercuryAlternativesReport.pdf
IMERC, 2008a Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse  "Trends in Mercury Use in Products: Summary of the Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC) Mercury-Added Products Database." 2008. Available at: http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/pubs/reports.cfm
IMERC, 2010a Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC). 2010a. "Mercury Legacy Products: Commercial Products: Measuring Devices." Available at: http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/projects/legacy/measdev.cfm.
IMERC, 2010b Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC). . "IMERC Fact Sheet: Mercury Use in Measuring Devices." 2010. Available at: http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/factsheets/measuring_devices.cfm.
Maine DEP, 2003. Maine Department of Environmental Protection. "An Investigation of Alternatives to Mercury-Containing Products." Lowell Center for Sustainable Production. Prepared by Galligan, Catherine; Morose, Gregory; and Jim Giordani. 2003. Available at: http://www.sustainableproduction.org/downloads/An%20Investigation%20Hg.pdf.
McMaster-Carr. Phone conversation between Jacob Grindal (Abt Associates) and Customer Service Representative (S J Electro Systems, Inc.). June 23, 2010.
OPM, 2010. Office of Personnel Management, Salary Table 2010-DCB, Washington BaltimoreNorthern Virginia, DC-MD-PA-VA-WV. Accessed from http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/pdf/DCB.pdf.
Rawie, Carol. 2009. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Personal communication with Tulika Narayan and Kimberly Wilson of Abt Associates via e-mail. February 5, 2009.

S J Electro Systems, Inc. Phone conversation between Jacob Grindal (Abt Associates) and Customer Service Representative (S J Electro Systems, Inc.). June 23, 2010.
U.S. SBA. 2010. Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes. Available at: http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf
USPS, 2010. U.S. Postal Service Mailing and postage rates. <http://www.usps.com/prices>. (Accessed 23 April 2010).
Vermont Agriculture Agency. 2001. Mercury Manometer Replacement Program Update. Available at: http://www.vermontagriculture.com/2001report.htm.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WI DNR). 2007. Mercury Reduction Program: Dairy Farms. Available at: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cea/mercury/program.htm.


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35343-35344]
[FR Doc No: 2015-15105]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP15-505-000]

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC; Notice of
Application

    Take notice that on June 1, 2015, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of
America LLC (Natural) 3250 Lacey Road, Suite 700, Downers Grove,
Illinois 60515-7918, filed an application pursuant to section 7(c) of
the Natural Gas Act (NGA) and the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission's (Commission) regulations seeking authorization to
construct and operate a new greenfield compressor station and related
facilities located in Livingston County, Illinois (Chicago Market
Expansion Project). The Chicago Market Expansion Project will add
30,000 horsepower of new compression to Natural's system. The proposed
project is in response to market demand and will support an

additional 238,000 dekatherms per day of firm transportation service to
the Chicago market area, all as more fully described in the application
which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection. The
filing may also be viewed on the web 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 at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-
free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any questions regarding this application should be directed to
Bruce H. Newsome, Vice President, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of
America LLC, 3250 Lacey Road, Suite 700, Downers Grove, IL 60515 or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Pursuant to section 157.9 of the Commission's rules, 18 CFR 157.9,
within 90 days of this Notice the Commission staff will either:
Complete its environmental assessment (EA) and place it into the
Commission's public record (eLibrary) for this proceeding; or issue a
Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review. If a Notice of Schedule
for Environmental Review is issued, it will indicate, among other
milestones, the anticipated date for the Commission staff's issuance of
the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) or EA for this
proposal. The filing of the EA in the Commission's public record for
this proceeding or the issuance of a Notice of Schedule for
Environmental Review will serve to notify federal and state agencies of
the timing for the completion of all necessary reviews, and the
subsequent need to complete all federal authorizations within 90 days
of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's FEIS or EA.
    There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of
this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or
before the comment date stated below file with the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, a
motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or
385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person
obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by
the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all
documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must
submit 7 copies of filings made in the proceeding with the Commission
and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party. Only
parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders
in the proceeding.
    However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have
comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with
the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and
two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project.
The Commission will consider these comments in determining the
appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will
not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's
rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly
involved in the protest.
    Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of
this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments
to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commentors will be
placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive
copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings
associated with the Commission's environmental review process.
Environmental commentors will not be required to serve copies of filed
documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commentors will
not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by
the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents
issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court
review of the Commission's final order.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the
Federal Energy regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on July 6, 2015.

    Dated: June 12, 2015.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-15105 Filed 6-18-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P