TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Standards for Small Manufacturers and Processors; Final Determination, 56824-56826 [2017-25822]
Download as PDF
56824
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Notices
2017, effective July 13, 2017 to July 13,
2018.
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
Public health exemptions: EPA
authorized use of pyriproxyfen (a
larvicide) and Beauveria bassiana (a
fungus pathogenic to adult insects) to
help control Aedes species of
mosquitoes, vectors of the zika virus, in
Puerto Rico. Effective May 12, 2017 to
May 12, 2018.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.
Dated: October 18, 2017.
Michael Goodis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2017–25831 Filed 11–29–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2016–0675; FRL–9968–41]
TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements; Standards for Small
Manufacturers and Processors; Final
Determination
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Notice.
On December 15, 2016, EPA
issued a notice in the Federal Register
requesting public comment on whether
revision to the current size standards for
small manufacturers and processors,
which are used in connection with
reporting regulations under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA) section
8(a), is warranted. This document
describes EPA’s final determination that
revision to the current size standards is
warranted.
SUMMARY:
For
technical information contact: Lynne
Blake-Hedges, Chemistry, Economics,
and Sustainable Strategies Division
(7406M), Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics, Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone
number: (202) 564–8807; email address:
blake-hedges.lynne@epa.gov.
For general information contact: The
TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422
South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY
14620; telephone number: (202) 554–
1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@
epa.gov.
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Nov 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
review the adequacy of the standards for
determining which manufacturers and
A. Does this action apply to me?
processors qualify as small
You may be potentially affected by
manufacturers and processors for
this action if you manufacture or
purposes of TSCA sections 8(a)(1) and
process chemical substances or
8(a)(3). (Note that under TSCA section
mixtures. The following list of North
3(9), manufacture includes import.)
American Industrial Classification
TSCA furthermore requires that (after
System (NAICS) codes is not intended
consulting with the Small Business
to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
Administration and providing public
guide to help readers determine whether notice and an opportunity for comment)
this document applies to them.
EPA determine whether revision of the
Potentially affected entities may
standards is warranted. For the reasons
include:
described below, EPA determines that
• Basic Chemical Manufacturers
revision of the standards is warranted.
In the 1980s, EPA issued standards
(NAICS code 3251);
• Resin, Synthetic Rubber, and
that are used in identifying which
Artificial Synthetic Fibers and Filament businesses qualify as small
Manufacturers (NAICS code 3252);
manufacturers and processors for
• Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other
purposes of the reporting and
Agricultural Chemical Manufacturers
recordkeeping rules issued under TSCA
(NAICS code 3253);
section 8(a). Under TSCA section
• Paint, Coating, and Adhesive
8(a)(1), small manufacturers and
Manufacturers (NAICS code 3255);
processors are generally exempt from
• Other Chemical Product and
section 8(a) reporting requirements,
Preparation Manufacturers (NAICS code except in limited cases set forth in
3259); and
TSCA section 8(a)(3).
• Petroleum Refineries (NAICS code
In 1982, EPA finalized standards for
32411).
determining which manufacturers of a
B. How can I get copies of this document reportable chemical substance qualify as
small manufacturers for purposes of the
and other related information?
section 8(a) Preliminary Assessment
The docket for this action, identified
Information Reporting (PAIR) rules,
by docket identification (ID) number
codified in 40 CFR part 712, subpart B.
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2016–0675, is available The small manufacturer standard for
at https://www.regulations.gov or at the
PAIR rules is found at 40 CFR 712.25(c).
Office of Pollution Prevention and
In 1988, EPA established general
Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket),
small manufacturer standards for use in
Environmental Protection Agency
other rules issued under TSCA section
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William
8(a) (40 CFR 704.3). For example, these
Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
are the standards that now apply to the
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule (40
DC. The Public Reading Room is open
CFR part 711). The general standards are
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
somewhat different from the earlier
through Friday, excluding legal
standards that are codified for use in the
holidays. The telephone number for the PAIR rules. The general small
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, manufacturer standards are as follows:
and the telephone number for the OPPT
Small manufacturer or importer
Docket is (202) 566–0280. Please review means a manufacturer or importer that
the visitor instructions and additional
meets either of the following standards:
1. First standard. A manufacturer or
information about the docket available
importer of a substance is small if its
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
total annual sales, when combined with
II. What action is the agency taking?
those of its parent company (if any), are
On June 22, 2016, President Obama
less than $40 million. However, if the
signed into law the Frank R. Lautenberg annual production or importation
Chemical Safety for the 21st Century
volume of a particular substance at any
Act which amends the Toxic Substance
individual site owned or controlled by
Control Act (TSCA), the nation’s
the manufacturer or importer is greater
primary chemicals management law. A
than 45,400 kilograms (100,000
summary of the new law is available at
pounds), the manufacturer or importer
https://www.epa.gov/assessing-andshall not qualify as small for purposes
managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r- of reporting on the production or
lautenberg-chemical-safety-21stimportation of that substance at that
century-act. This particular action
site, unless the manufacturer or
involves revised TSCA section
importer qualifies as small under
8(a)(3)(C), which requires EPA, after
standard (2) of this definition.
2. Second standard. A manufacturer
consultation with the Administrator of
or importer of a substance is small if its
the Small Business Administration, to
I. General Information
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\30NON1.SGM
30NON1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Notices
total annual sales, when combined with
those of its parent company (if any), are
less than $4 million, regardless of the
quantity of substances produced or
imported by that manufacturer or
importer.
3. Inflation index. EPA shall make use
of the Producer Price Index for
Chemicals and Allied Products, as
compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, for purposes of determining
the need to adjust the total annual sales
values and for determining new sales
values when adjustments are made. EPA
may adjust the total annual sales values
whenever the Agency deems it
necessary to do so, provided that the
Producer Price Index for Chemicals and
Allied Products has changed more than
20 percent since either the most recent
previous change in sales values or the
date of promulgation of this rule,
whichever is later. EPA shall provide
Federal Register notification when
changing the total annual sales values.
Pursuant to authority under section
8(a)(3)(B), certain section 8(a) rules
codify slight variations of the general
small manufacturer standards at 40 CFR
704.3. (See, e.g., 40 CFR 704.45). Other
rules issued under TSCA section 8(a)
establish (for use in a particular rule)
analogous standards for small
processors (See, e.g., 40 CFR 704.33).
As an initial step in evaluating
whether a change in these current size
standards are warranted, EPA reviewed
the change in the Producer Price Index
(PPI) for Chemicals and Allied Products
between 1988 (the year the general size
standards at 40 CFR 704.3 were last
revised) and 2015 (the most recent year
of PPI data available) (Ref. 1). EPA
found that the PPI has changed by 129
percent, far exceeding the 20 percent
inflation index specified as a level
above which EPA may adjust annual
sales levels in the current standard if
deemed necessary. This change to the
PPI is pertinent for both the $4 million
annual sales standard and the $40
million threshold used in the combined
sales and production standard.
Furthermore, among the more than 500
revenue-based size standards set by the
Small Business Administration (SBA),
the lowest is $5.5 million, and more
than 75% of those standards are in
excess of $7.5 million. Some revenuebased standards are as high as $38.5
million. Thus, EPA’s existing $4 million
annual sales standard is an outlier at the
low end of this range. Along the same
lines, the sales-only size standard EPA
recently adopted for the TSCA section
8(a) nanoscale reporting rule is $11
million, significantly larger than $4
million. Because of the magnitude of the
increase in the PPI since the last
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Nov 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
revision of the size standards and
because the current annual sales
standard is comparatively low given
current revenue-based size standards
developed by SBA, EPA preliminarily
determined that a revision to currently
codified size standards is warranted.
On December 15, 2016, EPA
published its preliminary determination
and requested public comment on the
adequacy of the current standards and
whether revision of the standards is
warranted. In addition, EPA consulted
with the SBA and received feedback on
the consultation from SBA on April 5,
2017. SBA’s consultation feedback
recommended that EPA ‘‘apply a
comprehensive approach that not only
evaluates inflation but also examines
other important factors, such as the
characteristics of firms and industries
associated with manufacturing or
importation of chemical substances and
percentage of firms impacted by the
rules, to determine whether or not a
revision to the current size standards is
warranted.’’
EPA reopened the public comment
period on May 9, 2017 to give the public
an opportunity to review SBA’s
consultation feedback to inform their
comments on EPA’s preliminary
determination. On May 9, 2017, EPA’s
preliminary finding and its basis
remained the same as in the December
15, 2016 publication in the Federal
Register.
EPA’s decision not to consider a more
comprehensive range of factors as
recommended in SBA’s consultation
feedback before taking the current
action is appropriate because the
current action is limited to determining
whether ‘‘revision of the standards’’ is
warranted or not. See TSCA section
8(a)(3)(C)(ii). (The set of size standards
covered by this determination are those
that EPA has issued under TSCA section
8(a)(3)(B), pertinent to information
collection under TSCA section 8(a).)
EPA found that the PPI index changed
by a percentage far exceeding the 20
percent inflation index. EPA had
previously specified 20 percent as a
level above which EPA may adjust
annual sales levels in the current
standard if deemed necessary. This
change in the PPI index (along with the
observation that the current annual sales
standard is comparatively low given
current revenue-based size standards
developed by SBA) is a sufficient basis
to determine that some revision of the
standards is warranted, even if there are
other factors that could have supported
the same conclusion. EPA notes that the
SBA’s Office of Advocacy substantively
agreed with EPA’s preliminary
determination (that a revision to the
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
56825
current size standards is warranted)
even though it requested EPA to
consider additional factors in reaching
that conclusion.
EPA received a number of comments
on its preliminary determination. Most
commenters agreed with EPA’s
preliminary determination that an
update is warranted. SBA submitted
comments that argued that EPA should
have considered more than the second
(i.e., the sales-only) standard when
making a final determination, such as
whether the standard is structured
appropriately. This comment is similar
to the SBA’s recommendation in its
consultation feedback that EPA evaluate
a broader set of factors related to firm
and industry characteristics and
percentage of firms impacted by section
8 rules to determine whether or not a
revision to the standards is necessary.
However, as previously noted, the
change in the PPI index (along with the
comparative analysis of the current
annual sales standard) is a sufficient
basis to determine (even if other factors
could have supported the same
conclusion) that some revision of the
standards for small manufacturers and
processors is warranted, for both the
sales-only and the sales plus production
standards.
Two commenters questioned whether
a revision to the standards is warranted.
One of these commenters argued that
the standards should not be changed,
based on the serious nature of
unspecified chemicals of concern. The
second commenter argued that a
revision to the standards that would
result in classifying more manufacturers
or processors as small is not warranted
because states need to have complete
information about chemical use,
including volume, location, and
toxicity, in order to effectively respond
to emergencies and to prioritize
resources to address concerns among
various chemicals.
EPA does not agree that either
argument justifies a determination that
revision of the standards is not
warranted. The first commenter did not
explain how chemical risks would be
exacerbated by updating the status quo
of small manufacturer standards. With
regard to the second comment, the
outcome of the rulemaking (i.e., whether
it would result in exempting more firms
from reporting than under the current
standards) cannot be known until the
rulemaking is complete. Although
revising the size standards for inflation
could be presumed to increase the
number of exempt firms, the second
commenter did not explain how such
increase would necessarily translate
into a loss of information necessary for
E:\FR\FM\30NON1.SGM
30NON1
daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
56826
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 229 / Thursday, November 30, 2017 / Notices
states to effectively respond to
emergencies and prioritize resources.
With respect to the need of states to
have complete information about the
toxicity of particular chemical
substances, EPA notes that the size
standards at issue in this action only
relate to the collection of information
under TSCA section 8(a). The primary
information collection under TSCA
section 8(a) is the Chemical Data
Reporting rule, 40 CFR part 711, which
collects exposure-related data rather
than hazard data. In any event, although
the exemption of small businesses from
reporting necessarily reduces the
amount of chemical information EPA
collects, Congress nonetheless decided
to provide for an exemption and
directed EPA to determine the need for
revision. As explained above, EPA
believes the currently promulgated
standards are clearly outdated with
respect to the current understanding of
what qualifies a business as small. EPA
has not yet proposed any revisions to
the size standards; any changes would
be established through future notice and
comment rulemaking. At that time,
public comments regarding the merits of
any proposed revisions would be sought
by EPA and subsequently addressed.
Several commenters also provided
their opinions on how the standards
should be specifically revised or
explained why specific parts of the
standards ought to be maintained. For
example, SBA commented that, when
developing standards, EPA should
consider a broad range of factors that
may potentially be relevant in the
context of TSCA reporting. These factors
include barriers to entry, start-up and
expansion costs, capital versus labor
intensiveness of industries, average firm
size (employment and revenue), growth
trends, and technological factors.
Multiple commenters agreed with SBA’s
recommendations. Additionally, one
commenter argued that the combined
sales and production standard should be
revised by lowering its production
threshold and not changing its $40
million sales threshold. However, the
scope of this action is limited to a
general determination as to whether
some revision to the TSCA small
manufacturer and processor standards is
warranted. More particular issues (i.e.,
relating to how the standards ought to
be revised) will be addressed in a
subsequent rulemaking and are beyond
the scope of this action. Although EPA
has no obligation to respond to the
suggestions for specific revisions
submitted as comments on this action,
EPA intends to consider these
comments as it develops its rulemaking
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:35 Nov 29, 2017
Jkt 244001
proposal. Members of the public who
wish to maintain previously submitted
comments or who wish to submit new
comments may do so following the
publication of EPA’s proposal in the
Federal Register. EPA will address such
comments prior to finalizing any
changes to the TSCA size standards.
EPA’s preliminary determination that
a revision to size standards was
warranted did not include the size
standard for nanoscale materials found
at 40 CFR 704.20. See 81 FR 90842
(determination was only with respect to
currently codified size standards as of
December 15, 2016). EPA promulgated
the size standards at 40 CFR 704.20 on
January 12, 2017, along with the other
provisions of EPA’s reporting and
recordkeeping rule for nanoscale
materials. Concurrent with
promulgating the size standards at 40
CFR 704.20, EPA indicated that it would
consider the adequacy of the size
standards at 40 CFR 704.20 in the
course of finalizing this determination
under TSCA section 8(a)(3)(C). 82 FR
3650. At this point, EPA has not made
a determination as to whether the size
standards in the nanotechnology rule
warrant revision. EPA will further
evaluate the need for any revision as
part of the rulemaking to revise the
standards identified in this final
determination.
Based on EPA’s preliminary
determination, a review of the
comments on the preliminary
determination, and the feedback from
consultation from SBA, EPA is now
making a final determination under
TSCA section 8(a)(3)(C)(ii) that revision
to the TSCA section 8(a) size standards
for manufacturers and processors is
warranted.
III. References
The following is a listing of the
documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket
includes these documents and other
information considered by EPA,
including documents that are referenced
within the documents that are included
in the docket, even if the referenced
document is not physically located in
the docket. For assistance in locating
these other documents, please consult
the technical person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
‘‘Producer Price Index, Series WPU06,
Chemicals and Allied Products, 1933–
2015’’. Retrieved November 14, 2016
from https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgatet.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2607(a).
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
Dated: November 21, 2017.
Charlotte Bertrand,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant
Administrator, Office of Chemical Safety and
Pollution Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2017–25822 Filed 11–29–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS
ADVISORY BOARD
Notice of Request for Comment on the
Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2017 and
Three-Year Plan
Federal Accounting Standards
Advisory Board.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Notice.
Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub.
L. 92–463), as amended, and the FASAB
Rules of Procedure, as amended in
October 2010, notice is hereby given
that the Federal Accounting Standards
Advisory Board (FASAB) has issued its
Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2017 and
Three-Year Plan.
The Annual Report for Fiscal Year
2017 and Three-Year Plan is available
on the FASAB Web site at https://
www.fasab.gov/our-annual-reports/.
Copies can be obtained by contacting
FASAB at (202) 512–7350.
Respondents are encouraged to
comment on the content of the annual
report and FASAB’s project priorities
for the next three years. Written
comments are requested by January 29,
2018, and should be sent to fasab@
fasab.gov or Wendy M. Payne, Executive
Director, Federal Accounting Standards
Advisory Board, 441 G Street NW., Suite
6814, Mailstop 6H19, Washington, DC
20548.
The Board is also conducting an
online survey to help in assessing the
most important priorities for the future.
The annual planning survey is available
at https://tell.gao.gov/fasabplanning
2017/. The survey closes on November
30, 2017.
Ms.
Wendy M. Payne, Executive Director,
441 G Street NW., Mailstop 6H19,
Washington, DC 20548, or call (202)
512–7350.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Authority: Federal Advisory Committee
Act, Pub. L. 92–463.
Dated: November 15, 2017.
Wendy M. Payne,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2017–25819 Filed 11–29–17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1610–02–P
E:\FR\FM\30NON1.SGM
30NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 229 (Thursday, November 30, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56824-56826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25822]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0675; FRL-9968-41]
TSCA Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Standards for
Small Manufacturers and Processors; Final Determination
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On December 15, 2016, EPA issued a notice in the Federal
Register requesting public comment on whether revision to the current
size standards for small manufacturers and processors, which are used
in connection with reporting regulations under the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) section 8(a), is warranted. This document describes
EPA's final determination that revision to the current size standards
is warranted.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information contact:
Lynne Blake-Hedges, Chemistry, Economics, and Sustainable Strategies
Division (7406M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 564-8807; email
address: blake-hedges.lynne@epa.gov.
For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address: TSCA-Hotline@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture
or process chemical substances or mixtures. The following list of North
American Industrial 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:
Basic Chemical Manufacturers (NAICS code 3251);
Resin, Synthetic Rubber, and Artificial Synthetic Fibers
and Filament Manufacturers (NAICS code 3252);
Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical
Manufacturers (NAICS code 3253);
Paint, Coating, and Adhesive Manufacturers (NAICS code
3255);
Other Chemical Product and Preparation Manufacturers
(NAICS code 3259); and
Petroleum Refineries (NAICS code 32411).
B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2016-0675, is available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
Docket (OPPT Docket), Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center
(EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 566-
0280. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
II. What action is the agency taking?
On June 22, 2016, President Obama signed into law the Frank R.
Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act which amends the
Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), the nation's primary chemicals
management law. A summary of the new law is available at https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/frank-r-lautenberg-chemical-safety-21st-century-act. This particular action
involves revised TSCA section 8(a)(3)(C), which requires EPA, after
consultation with the Administrator of the Small Business
Administration, to review the adequacy of the standards for determining
which manufacturers and processors qualify as small manufacturers and
processors for purposes of TSCA sections 8(a)(1) and 8(a)(3). (Note
that under TSCA section 3(9), manufacture includes import.) TSCA
furthermore requires that (after consulting with the Small Business
Administration and providing public notice and an opportunity for
comment) EPA determine whether revision of the standards is warranted.
For the reasons described below, EPA determines that revision of the
standards is warranted.
In the 1980s, EPA issued standards that are used in identifying
which businesses qualify as small manufacturers and processors for
purposes of the reporting and recordkeeping rules issued under TSCA
section 8(a). Under TSCA section 8(a)(1), small manufacturers and
processors are generally exempt from section 8(a) reporting
requirements, except in limited cases set forth in TSCA section
8(a)(3).
In 1982, EPA finalized standards for determining which
manufacturers of a reportable chemical substance qualify as small
manufacturers for purposes of the section 8(a) Preliminary Assessment
Information Reporting (PAIR) rules, codified in 40 CFR part 712,
subpart B. The small manufacturer standard for PAIR rules is found at
40 CFR 712.25(c).
In 1988, EPA established general small manufacturer standards for
use in other rules issued under TSCA section 8(a) (40 CFR 704.3). For
example, these are the standards that now apply to the Chemical Data
Reporting (CDR) rule (40 CFR part 711). The general standards are
somewhat different from the earlier standards that are codified for use
in the PAIR rules. The general small manufacturer standards are as
follows:
Small manufacturer or importer means a manufacturer or importer
that meets either of the following standards:
1. First standard. A manufacturer or importer of a substance is
small if its total annual sales, when combined with those of its parent
company (if any), are less than $40 million. However, if the annual
production or importation volume of a particular substance at any
individual site owned or controlled by the manufacturer or importer is
greater than 45,400 kilograms (100,000 pounds), the manufacturer or
importer shall not qualify as small for purposes of reporting on the
production or importation of that substance at that site, unless the
manufacturer or importer qualifies as small under standard (2) of this
definition.
2. Second standard. A manufacturer or importer of a substance is
small if its
[[Page 56825]]
total annual sales, when combined with those of its parent company (if
any), are less than $4 million, regardless of the quantity of
substances produced or imported by that manufacturer or importer.
3. Inflation index. EPA shall make use of the Producer Price Index
for Chemicals and Allied Products, as compiled by the U.S. Bureau of
Labor Statistics, for purposes of determining the need to adjust the
total annual sales values and for determining new sales values when
adjustments are made. EPA may adjust the total annual sales values
whenever the Agency deems it necessary to do so, provided that the
Producer Price Index for Chemicals and Allied Products has changed more
than 20 percent since either the most recent previous change in sales
values or the date of promulgation of this rule, whichever is later.
EPA shall provide Federal Register notification when changing the total
annual sales values.
Pursuant to authority under section 8(a)(3)(B), certain section
8(a) rules codify slight variations of the general small manufacturer
standards at 40 CFR 704.3. (See, e.g., 40 CFR 704.45). Other rules
issued under TSCA section 8(a) establish (for use in a particular rule)
analogous standards for small processors (See, e.g., 40 CFR 704.33).
As an initial step in evaluating whether a change in these current
size standards are warranted, EPA reviewed the change in the Producer
Price Index (PPI) for Chemicals and Allied Products between 1988 (the
year the general size standards at 40 CFR 704.3 were last revised) and
2015 (the most recent year of PPI data available) (Ref. 1). EPA found
that the PPI has changed by 129 percent, far exceeding the 20 percent
inflation index specified as a level above which EPA may adjust annual
sales levels in the current standard if deemed necessary. This change
to the PPI is pertinent for both the $4 million annual sales standard
and the $40 million threshold used in the combined sales and production
standard. Furthermore, among the more than 500 revenue-based size
standards set by the Small Business Administration (SBA), the lowest is
$5.5 million, and more than 75% of those standards are in excess of
$7.5 million. Some revenue-based standards are as high as $38.5
million. Thus, EPA's existing $4 million annual sales standard is an
outlier at the low end of this range. Along the same lines, the sales-
only size standard EPA recently adopted for the TSCA section 8(a)
nanoscale reporting rule is $11 million, significantly larger than $4
million. Because of the magnitude of the increase in the PPI since the
last revision of the size standards and because the current annual
sales standard is comparatively low given current revenue-based size
standards developed by SBA, EPA preliminarily determined that a
revision to currently codified size standards is warranted.
On December 15, 2016, EPA published its preliminary determination
and requested public comment on the adequacy of the current standards
and whether revision of the standards is warranted. In addition, EPA
consulted with the SBA and received feedback on the consultation from
SBA on April 5, 2017. SBA's consultation feedback recommended that EPA
``apply a comprehensive approach that not only evaluates inflation but
also examines other important factors, such as the characteristics of
firms and industries associated with manufacturing or importation of
chemical substances and percentage of firms impacted by the rules, to
determine whether or not a revision to the current size standards is
warranted.''
EPA reopened the public comment period on May 9, 2017 to give the
public an opportunity to review SBA's consultation feedback to inform
their comments on EPA's preliminary determination. On May 9, 2017,
EPA's preliminary finding and its basis remained the same as in the
December 15, 2016 publication in the Federal Register.
EPA's decision not to consider a more comprehensive range of
factors as recommended in SBA's consultation feedback before taking the
current action is appropriate because the current action is limited to
determining whether ``revision of the standards'' is warranted or not.
See TSCA section 8(a)(3)(C)(ii). (The set of size standards covered by
this determination are those that EPA has issued under TSCA section
8(a)(3)(B), pertinent to information collection under TSCA section
8(a).) EPA found that the PPI index changed by a percentage far
exceeding the 20 percent inflation index. EPA had previously specified
20 percent as a level above which EPA may adjust annual sales levels in
the current standard if deemed necessary. This change in the PPI index
(along with the observation that the current annual sales standard is
comparatively low given current revenue-based size standards developed
by SBA) is a sufficient basis to determine that some revision of the
standards is warranted, even if there are other factors that could have
supported the same conclusion. EPA notes that the SBA's Office of
Advocacy substantively agreed with EPA's preliminary determination
(that a revision to the current size standards is warranted) even
though it requested EPA to consider additional factors in reaching that
conclusion.
EPA received a number of comments on its preliminary determination.
Most commenters agreed with EPA's preliminary determination that an
update is warranted. SBA submitted comments that argued that EPA should
have considered more than the second (i.e., the sales-only) standard
when making a final determination, such as whether the standard is
structured appropriately. This comment is similar to the SBA's
recommendation in its consultation feedback that EPA evaluate a broader
set of factors related to firm and industry characteristics and
percentage of firms impacted by section 8 rules to determine whether or
not a revision to the standards is necessary. However, as previously
noted, the change in the PPI index (along with the comparative analysis
of the current annual sales standard) is a sufficient basis to
determine (even if other factors could have supported the same
conclusion) that some revision of the standards for small manufacturers
and processors is warranted, for both the sales-only and the sales plus
production standards.
Two commenters questioned whether a revision to the standards is
warranted. One of these commenters argued that the standards should not
be changed, based on the serious nature of unspecified chemicals of
concern. The second commenter argued that a revision to the standards
that would result in classifying more manufacturers or processors as
small is not warranted because states need to have complete information
about chemical use, including volume, location, and toxicity, in order
to effectively respond to emergencies and to prioritize resources to
address concerns among various chemicals.
EPA does not agree that either argument justifies a determination
that revision of the standards is not warranted. The first commenter
did not explain how chemical risks would be exacerbated by updating the
status quo of small manufacturer standards. With regard to the second
comment, the outcome of the rulemaking (i.e., whether it would result
in exempting more firms from reporting than under the current
standards) cannot be known until the rulemaking is complete. Although
revising the size standards for inflation could be presumed to increase
the number of exempt firms, the second commenter did not explain how
such increase would necessarily translate into a loss of information
necessary for
[[Page 56826]]
states to effectively respond to emergencies and prioritize resources.
With respect to the need of states to have complete information about
the toxicity of particular chemical substances, EPA notes that the size
standards at issue in this action only relate to the collection of
information under TSCA section 8(a). The primary information collection
under TSCA section 8(a) is the Chemical Data Reporting rule, 40 CFR
part 711, which collects exposure-related data rather than hazard data.
In any event, although the exemption of small businesses from reporting
necessarily reduces the amount of chemical information EPA collects,
Congress nonetheless decided to provide for an exemption and directed
EPA to determine the need for revision. As explained above, EPA
believes the currently promulgated standards are clearly outdated with
respect to the current understanding of what qualifies a business as
small. EPA has not yet proposed any revisions to the size standards;
any changes would be established through future notice and comment
rulemaking. At that time, public comments regarding the merits of any
proposed revisions would be sought by EPA and subsequently addressed.
Several commenters also provided their opinions on how the
standards should be specifically revised or explained why specific
parts of the standards ought to be maintained. For example, SBA
commented that, when developing standards, EPA should consider a broad
range of factors that may potentially be relevant in the context of
TSCA reporting. These factors include barriers to entry, start-up and
expansion costs, capital versus labor intensiveness of industries,
average firm size (employment and revenue), growth trends, and
technological factors. Multiple commenters agreed with SBA's
recommendations. Additionally, one commenter argued that the combined
sales and production standard should be revised by lowering its
production threshold and not changing its $40 million sales threshold.
However, the scope of this action is limited to a general determination
as to whether some revision to the TSCA small manufacturer and
processor standards is warranted. More particular issues (i.e.,
relating to how the standards ought to be revised) will be addressed in
a subsequent rulemaking and are beyond the scope of this action.
Although EPA has no obligation to respond to the suggestions for
specific revisions submitted as comments on this action, EPA intends to
consider these comments as it develops its rulemaking proposal. Members
of the public who wish to maintain previously submitted comments or who
wish to submit new comments may do so following the publication of
EPA's proposal in the Federal Register. EPA will address such comments
prior to finalizing any changes to the TSCA size standards.
EPA's preliminary determination that a revision to size standards
was warranted did not include the size standard for nanoscale materials
found at 40 CFR 704.20. See 81 FR 90842 (determination was only with
respect to currently codified size standards as of December 15, 2016).
EPA promulgated the size standards at 40 CFR 704.20 on January 12,
2017, along with the other provisions of EPA's reporting and
recordkeeping rule for nanoscale materials. Concurrent with
promulgating the size standards at 40 CFR 704.20, EPA indicated that it
would consider the adequacy of the size standards at 40 CFR 704.20 in
the course of finalizing this determination under TSCA section
8(a)(3)(C). 82 FR 3650. At this point, EPA has not made a determination
as to whether the size standards in the nanotechnology rule warrant
revision. EPA will further evaluate the need for any revision as part
of the rulemaking to revise the standards identified in this final
determination.
Based on EPA's preliminary determination, a review of the comments
on the preliminary determination, and the feedback from consultation
from SBA, EPA is now making a final determination under TSCA section
8(a)(3)(C)(ii) that revision to the TSCA section 8(a) size standards
for manufacturers and processors is warranted.
III. References
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically
referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and
other information considered by EPA, including documents that are
referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even
if the referenced document is not physically located in the docket. For
assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. ``Producer Price Index, Series
WPU06, Chemicals and Allied Products, 1933-2015''. Retrieved November
14, 2016 from https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgatet.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2607(a).
Dated: November 21, 2017.
Charlotte Bertrand,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2017-25822 Filed 11-29-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P