83 FR 17782 - User Fees for the Administration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 79 (April 24, 2018)

EPA is extending the comment period for 30 days and is providing notice that EPA has added a supplemental analysis, titled ``Supplemental Analysis of Alternative Small Business Size Standard Definitions and their Effect on TSCA User Fee Collection'', to the rulemaking docket for the proposed rule that published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2018. The supplemental analysis provides additional estimates for the impact of setting the small business definition based on an employee-based threshold.

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 79 (Tuesday, April 24, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17782-17783]
From the Federal Register Online  [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08427]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 700, 720, 723, 725, 790, and 791

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0401; FRL-9976-74]
RIN 2070-AK27


User Fees for the Administration of the Toxic Substances Control 
Act (TSCA)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of supplemental information and 
extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is extending the comment period for 30 days and is 
providing notice that EPA has added a supplemental analysis, titled 
``Supplemental Analysis of Alternative Small Business Size Standard 
Definitions and their Effect on TSCA User Fee Collection'', to the 
rulemaking docket for the proposed rule that published in the Federal 
Register on February 26, 2018. The supplemental analysis provides 
additional estimates for the impact of setting the small business 
definition based on an employee-based threshold.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 24, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by docket identification 
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0401, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit 
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute.
     Mail: Document Control Office (7407M), Office of Pollution 
Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand 
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the 
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along 
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    For technical information contact: Mark Hartman, Immediate Office, 
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection 
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone 
number: (202) 564-3810; email address: [email protected].
    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202) 
554-1404; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Executive Summary

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may 
be of particular interest to anyone who manufactures (including 
imports), distributes in commerce, or processes a chemical substance 
(or any combination of such activities) or submits or is required to 
submit information to the EPA under TSCA sections 4 or 5 or anyone who 
manufactures a chemical substance that is the subject of a risk 
evaluation under TSCA section 6(b). The following list of North 
American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended 
to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine 
whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities 
may include, but are not limited to, companies found in major NAICS 
groups:
     Chemical Manufacturers (NAICS code 325),
     Petroleum and Coal Products (NAICS code 324), and
     Chemical, Petroleum and Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS code 
424).

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to the EPA 
through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as 
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as 
CBI, information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance 
with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that 
does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for 
inclusion in the public docket.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing, and submitting 
your comments, see the commenting tips at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

II. What action is the Agency taking?

    In the Federal Register of February 26, 2018 (83 FR 8212) (FRL-
9974-31), EPA proposed to establish and collect fees from certain 
manufacturers (including importers) and processors to defray some of 
the Agency costs related to activities under TSCA sections 4, 5, 6 and 
14. EPA also proposed to revise the size standard used to identify 
businesses that can qualify as a ``small business concern'' under TSCA 
for the purposes of fee collection. A regulatory definition for a small 
business for a submission under TSCA section 5 was promulgated in 1988 
and is based on the annual sales value of the business's parent 
company. 40 CFR 700.43 currently states: ``Small business concern means 
any person whose total annual sales in the person's fiscal year 
preceding the date of the submission of the applicable section 5 
notice, when combined with those of the parent company (if any), are 
less than $40 million.'' EPA proposed several changes to this 
definition. Consistent with the definition of small manufacturer or 
importer at 40 CFR 704.3,
    EPA proposed to increase the current revenue threshold of $40 
million using the Producer Price Index (PPI) for Chemicals and Allied 
Products, as compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (Data 
series WPU06 at http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgatet.). Using a base 
year of 1988 and inflating to 2015 dollars resulted in a value of 
approximately $91 million.
    EPA also proposed to change the time frame over which annual sales 
values are used when accounting for a business's revenue. Instead of 
using just one year preceding the date of submission, the Agency is 
proposing to average annual sales values over the three years preceding 
the submission. EPA proposed to apply this updated definition--adjusted 
for inflation and averaging sales revenue over three years--to not only 
TSCA section 5 submissions, but also to TSCA sections 4 and 6 
submissions as well.
    Pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) an economic analysis of the potential costs 
and benefits associated with the proposed rulemaking. The Agency has 
since completed supplemental analysis that estimates the impact of 
setting the

[[Page 17783]]

small business definition based on an employee-based threshold. 
Specifically, EPA estimated the impact when the small business 
definition is set using the following: (a) A fixed employee-based 
threshold that defines small businesses as those firms with 500 or 
fewer employees, and (b) the thresholds set by the Small Business 
Administration, which vary by industry sector. A copy of the analysis, 
titled ``Supplemental Analysis of Alternative Small Business Size 
Standard Definitions and their Effect on TSCA User Fee Collection'', is 
now available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0401).
    EPA requests comment on this analysis and whether an employee-based 
size standard would be more appropriate than a receipts-based size 
standard and what that employee level should be; whether the size 
standard, be it receipts-based or employee-based, should vary from 
industry to industry to reflect differences among the impacted 
industries; and what other factors and data sources the Agency should 
consider, besides inflation, when developing the size standard to 
qualify for reduced fee amounts. The supplemental analysis estimates 
the impact on fee amounts should an employee-based size standard be 
used to determine eligibility for reduced fees. In order to ensure that 
EPA meets the statutory requirement that fees are sufficient to defray 
25% of the estimated Agency costs, EPA would need to recoup the revenue 
loss resulting from moving to one of the two employee-based small 
business definitions presented in the analysis by increasing the TSCA 
section 5 proposed general industry fees. The revenue losses would 
likely arise from TSCA section 5 submissions, given that EPA estimates 
more businesses would qualify for the lower fee levels under the 
employee-based definitions. Impacts to TSCA section 4 and 6 fee 
collections are unlikely as EPA expects that consortia will ensure that 
the full fee amount is remitted regardless of the proportion of small 
businesses participating in the consortia. In the supplemental analysis 
EPA estimated the impact on fees if the revenue loss is recouped by 
allocating it proportionally among the proposed TSCA section 5 general 
fees. In this case, in order to recoup the entire amount, the general 
fee for PMN/MCAN/SNUN would increase by $413, from $16,000 to a new fee 
of $16,413, and the general fee for Exemptions would increase by $122, 
from $4,700 to a new fee of $4,822. If rounding to the nearest $100, 
this results in new fees of $16,400 and $4,800, respectively, with 93% 
($196,000) of the $211,000 fee revenue deficit recovered. EPA requests 
comments on this approach of ensuring that EPA continues to collect 25% 
of applicable Agency costs.
    Comments on this supplemental analysis document should be submitted 
to the docket for the proposed rule. In addition, in order to give 
interested parties the opportunity to consider this additional analysis 
and prepare meaningful comments, EPA is hereby extending the comment 
period, which is set to end on April 27, 2018, until May 24, 2018.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 700

    Chemicals, Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, User fees.

40 CFR Part 720

    Chemicals, Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, Imports, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 723

    Chemicals, Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, 
Phosphate, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 725

    Administrative practice and procedure, Chemicals, Environmental 
protection, Hazardous substances, Imports, Labeling, Occupational 
safety and health, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 790

    Administrative practice and procedure, Chemicals, Confidential 
business information, Environmental protection, Hazardous substances, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 791

    Administrative practice and procedure, Chemicals, Environmental 
protection, Hazardous substances, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: April 10, 2018.
Charlotte Bertrand,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical 
Safety and Pollution Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2018-08427 Filed 4-23-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P