30168 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 

be received through May 11, 2018 

(http://www.regulations.gov; docket ID 

number HQ–OPPT–2017–0559). 

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

Dated: June 21, 2018. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13833 Filed 6–26–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2017–0144; FRL–9979–59] 

TSCA Chemical Substances; Unique 

Identifier Assignment and Application 

Policy; Notice of Availability 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: As amended in 2016, the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) 

requires EPA to develop a system to 

assign a unique identifier (UID) 

whenever it approves a confidential 

business information (CBI) claim for the 

specific chemical identity of a chemical 

substance, to apply this UID to other 

information concerning the same 

chemical substance, and to ensure that 

any non-confidential information 

received by the Agency identifies the 

chemical substance using the UID while 

the specific chemical identity of the 

chemical substance is protected from 

disclosure. EPA previously requested 

comment on several approaches for 

assigning and applying UIDs. EPA has 

determined that it will use a numerical 

identifier that incorporates the year the 

CBI claim was asserted, and will apply 

this UID to non-confidential information 

related to the chemical substance, 

except where the Agency’s act of 

applying the UID would itself disclose 

to the public the confidential specific 

chemical identity that the UID was 

assigned to protect. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical information contact: 

Jessica Barkas, Environmental 

Assistance Division, Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

telephone number: (202) 250–8880; 

email address: barkas.jessica@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 affected by this action if 

you have submitted or expect to submit 

information to EPA under TSCA. 

Persons who would use UIDs assigned 

by the Agency to seek information may 

also be affected by this action. 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: 

• Manufacturers, importers, or 

processors of chemical substances 

(NAICS codes 325 and 324110), e.g., 

chemical manufacturing and petroleum 

refineries. 

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–2017–0144, is available 

at http://www.regulations.gov or at the 

Office of Pollution Prevention and 

Toxics Docket (OPPT Docket), 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. 

The Public Reading Room is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 

telephone number for the Public 

Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and 

the telephone number for the OPPT 

Docket is (202) 566–0280. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at http://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

II. Background 

A. What is the authority for this action? 

The June 22, 2016, amendments to 

TSCA by the Frank R. Lautenberg 

Chemical Safety for the 21st Century 

Act added a requirement in TSCA 

section 14(g)(4) for EPA to, among other 

things, ‘‘assign a unique identifier to 

each specific chemical identity for 

which the Administrator approves a 

request for protection from disclosure.’’ 

EPA is required to use the ‘‘unique 

identifier assigned under this paragraph 

to protect the specific chemical identity 

in information that the Administrator 

has made public’’ and to ‘‘apply that 

identifier consistently to all information 

relevant to the applicable chemical 

substance,’’ including ‘‘any nonconfidential information received by the 

Administrator with respect to a 

chemical substance . . . while the 

specific chemical identity of the 

chemical substance is protected from 

disclosure.’’ 15 U.S.C. 2613(g)(4). 

B. EPA Sought Public Comment 

The requirements to assign a UID and 

the unreconciled requirements 

concerning application of the UID and 

protection of CBI are more fully 

discussed in a document that published 

in the Federal Register on May 8, 2017. 

(See 82 FR 21386; May 8, 2017; 

hereafter ‘‘May 2017 Federal Register 

document’’.) EPA noted drawbacks to 

each of the two alternative approaches 

discussed in the May 2017 Federal 

Register document, and subsequently 

developed a third alternative approach 

for reconciling the competing 

requirements of TSCA section 14(g), on 

which it requested comment in the 

Federal Register on February 8, 2018. 

(See 83 FR 5623; hereafter ‘‘February 

2018 Federal Register document’’). 

III. Policy 

A. UIDs Will Be a Numerical Identifier 

The UID cannot be the specific 

chemical identity, or a structurally 

descriptive generic term. TSCA section 

14(a)(4)(A)(i). Consequently, EPA has 

developed a system to assign UIDs for 

each substance for which it makes a 

final determination approving a CBI 

claim for specific chemical identity. The 

UID is a number that incorporates the 

year that the claim was asserted (e.g., 

the first approved claim asserted in 

2019 would be UID–2019–00001). 

Including this date will facilitate 

tracking of the expiration of the CBI 

claims for specific chemical identity 

made in that document, pursuant to 

TSCA section 14(e). The reasons for not 

using a preexisting identifier, such as 

the accession number, are further 

explained in the May 2017 Federal 

Register document. Note that in the May 

2017 Federal Register document, it was 

suggested that the UID year would be 

based on year the claim was approved. 

See 82 FR at 21387. However, because 

the year of approval may be different 

from the year the claim was asserted 

(e.g., claims made in December may not 

be approved until the following 

February), and because the initial 

expiration date of the claim runs from 

the point that the claim was asserted, 

EPA determined that the date would 

better facilitate claim expiration 

tracking if it were based on the year the 

claim was asserted. 

B. EPA Will Apply UIDs to Related 

Documents, Except Where It Discloses 

Confidential Chemical Identity 

EPA is adopting the ‘‘third alternative 

approach,’’ as described in the February 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 30169 

2018 Federal Register document. Under 

this approach, EPA will assign one UID 

per chemical substance. In most cases, 

EPA will apply the UID to all nonconfidential information relevant to the 

applicable chemical substance, from any 

company. However, in a small number 

of cases, EPA will not apply the UID to 

some non-confidential documents, in 

order to preserve approved, still-valid 

CBI claims for specific chemical 

identity. These would be cases in which 

the non-confidential document itself 

does not undermine the CBI claim, but 

EPA’s application of the UID to that 

document would result in a linkage that 

would undermine the CBI claim and 

reveal the CBI. The criterion for 

application of the UID to submissions 

made by different submitters is that the 

Agency’s act of applying the UID must 

not disclose to the public the 

confidential specific chemical identity 

that the UID was assigned to protect. 

EPA believes that this is the best of 

the approaches considered because it 

most appropriately balances the two 

purposes of the UID provisions: to 

provide public linkages between related 

non-confidential information 

concerning a particular confidential 

chemical substance (i.e., to promote 

transparency), and to protect 

information that EPA has determined to 

be entitled to confidential treatment. It 

does so by providing linkages to the 

maximum extent possible while still 

preserving valid claims of CBI for 

chemical identity. The third alternative 

approach also has the advantage of 

being more straightforward to 

administer than the other two 

alternative approaches considered. Most 

public commenters supported this 

approach over the other alternatives for 

similar reasons. 

By contrast, the other two alternative 

approaches (described more fully in the 

May 2017 Federal Register document) 

would not provide this balance, and 

would have other significant 

disadvantages. The ‘‘first alternative 

approach’’ would have construed 

section 14(g)(4)(C) as instructing EPA to 

ensure that any non-confidential 

information received by EPA concerning 

a confidential chemical substance 

should identify the substance using only 

the UID, for so long as the confidential 

identity remained protected from 

disclosure. This approach would have 

involved carefully searching for and 

removing specific chemical identifying 

information from all documents relating 

to the applicable chemical, even where 

that information was not claimed as 

CBI, in order to replace that specific 

information with the UID. This 

approach would have provided a 

linkage between documents concerning 

the same chemical, while at least 

superficially maintaining the 

confidentiality of the CBI claim for 

chemical identity, but would require 

withholding or withdrawing 

information that would otherwise be (or 

was previously) public. Moreover, 

because many related documents may 

already have long been made public, 

removing chemical identities from these 

documents would have been ineffectual 

in some cases (such as when the older, 

complete version of a document can be 

compared with the newer version with 

specific chemical identity redacted). 

In the ‘‘second alternative approach,’’ 

whereby a UID would be assigned to 

each chemical-company combination 

(different companies submitting 

information on the same substance 

would be assigned different UIDs for 

that substance), the CBI protection goal 

would at least initially be met, but only 

at considerable expense to the other goal 

of the UID provisions—to provide the 

public with links between related 

documents. In addition, this approach 

would have raised its own 

administrative issues, such as what to 

do with the UID in the case that a 

company or parts of a company changes 

ownership; how such UIDs would be 

applied to EPA-generated documents 

that are relevant to a substance that is 

referenced in multiple submissions from 

different companies; or how the 

multiple UIDs would be handled in the 

case that one company withdraws or 

permits its CBI claim to expire while the 

other does not. Finally, this approach 

seems unreconciled with the TSCA 

section 8(b)(7) requirement to publish 

UIDs alongside other identifiers for the 

same chemical—accession number, 

generic name, and PMN number, where 

applicable. Any list that includes all of 

this information for each chemical 

would automatically link submissions 

from different companies by including 

all of the UIDs and/or by using the same 

accession number for multiple listings 

on the same chemical. (For example, if 

Chemical X has three UIDs, assigned to 

three different company claims, they 

would all be linked on this list, because 

Chemical X only has one accession 

number, and the list is supposed to 

include both accession number and 

UID.) 

IV. Public Comments 

A. Summary of Public Comments 

In response to the two requests for 

comment, in the May 2017 and February 

2018 Federal Register documents, EPA 

received a total of 20 comments from 14 

identified commenters (some 

commenters responded to both 

requests). 

In response to the first request for 

comment (May 2017 Federal Register 

document), most commenters, including 

seven of eight industry or trade group 

commenters, and one non-governmental 

organization (NGO) commenter, 

preferred the one UID per companychemical combination approach 

(‘‘second alternative approach’’). No 

commenter supported the ‘‘first 

alternative approach.’’ One NGO 

commenter argued that assigning more 

than one UID to any given chemical was 

contrary to the purpose and 

requirements of the UID provisions. One 

trade association argued for an even 

more complex system of UIDs (the 

‘‘parent-daughter identifier approach’’), 

whereby even submissions from the 

same company may be assigned 

different UIDs, and would involve 

assigning additional UIDs for EPAgenerated documents and other thirdparty submissions—none of which 

would be linkable by the public. 

In response to the second request for 

comment (February 2018 Federal 

Register document), most commenters 

expressed support for the ‘‘third 

alternative approach’’—applying the 

UID to all related information, but with 

some exceptions to preserve approved 

and still-valid CBI claims for chemical 

identity, as explained above. 

Commenters supporting the third 

alternative approach included three 

trade groups that had previously 

supported the one UID per companychemical combination approach, and 

two more trade groups that had not 

previously commented. One NGO 

commenter maintained the position that 

they had taken in their earlier comment, 

in response to the first request for 

comment, that EPA should apply the 

UID to all related documents, regardless 

of the effect on approved CBI claims for 

chemical identity. This same 

commenter indicated, however, that the 

third alternative approach was an 

improvement over, and would be 

preferred to, the other two alternatives. 

One trade group maintained its 

preference for a ‘‘parent-daughter 

identifier’’ approach. Two commenters 

did not express a preference or position 

with respect to approach, but requested 

clarification regarding EPA’s CBI review 

procedures or commented in general 

support of balancing public 

transparency with CBI protections. 

B. Response to Comments 

EPA has prepared a separate response 

to comments document, a copy of which 

is available in the docket for this action 

(Ref. 1), and is also including the 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
30170 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 

following summary response to selected 

comments. 

1. ‘‘Parent-daughter identifier’’ 

approach. One commenter proposed 

that EPA adopt a system of document 

identifiers, such that documents 

concerning the same substance would 

use several different identifiers, the 

relationship between which only EPA 

would be aware. Documents concerning 

the same substance, submitted by 

different companies, and even 

documents submitted by the same 

company, would or could have different 

identifiers. The public would be able to 

link together only those documents that 

are submitted by the same person, and 

that have the same CBI status (CBI vs. 

non-CBI). The commenter explained 

that this system would provide more 

protection to CBI information than 

would be provided by using one 

chemical identity per company, as in 

the second alternative approach. 

This approach would be largely 

inconsistent with both the letter of 

TSCA section 14(g)(4) and the intent of 

setting up a UID system. EPA interprets 

TSCA section 14(g)(4)(A)(i) (requiring 

the Agency to ‘‘assign a unique 

identifier to each specific chemical 

identity’’ (emphasis added)), to indicate 

that the UID was intended to be a single 

identifier for each chemical. Moreover, 

as noted in the February 2018 Federal 

Register document, the reason for 

assigning multiple UIDs per chemical 

(CBI protection) is not possible to 

reconcile with the TSCA section 8(b)(7) 

requirement that for each confidential 

chemical substance, EPA ‘‘shall make 

available to the public . . . the unique 

identifier assigned under [section 14], 

accession number, generic name, and, if 

applicable, premanufacture notice case 

number.’’ The publication of the UIDs 

alongside their corresponding accession 

number (for which there is generally 

only one per chemical) would cause all 

of the UIDs for a given substance to be 

linked together. The approach 

advocated in this comment would also 

largely defeat one of the two purposes 

of the UID provision—to provide a 

publicly-accessible link between 

information concerning the same 

substance. 

2. ‘‘Straightforward’’ approach. One 

commenter asserted that the text of 

section 14(g)(4) is plain about EPA’s 

obligations to apply the UID uniformly, 

regardless of consequence for approved 

CBI claims, and thus advocated for a 

reading of the statute where one UID is 

assigned to each chemical, and making 

no exceptions in applying UIDs to 

related information (i.e., the 

‘‘straightforward’’ approach). EPA 

disagrees that Congress plainly intended 

that approved, valid CBI claims should 

be disregarded as UIDs are applied to 

related documents. As is noted in the 

May 2017 Federal Register document, 

EPA understands the UID as having two 

purposes: providing a public linkage 

between information on the same 

chemical substance, and protecting 

approved CBI claims for specific 

chemical identity. Under the 

‘‘straightforward’’ approach, those two 

purposes would conflict with each other 

in certain circumstances, while the third 

alternative approach selected by EPA 

balances the two purposes without this 

conflict. 

The UID is specifically described in 

the statute as an identifier assigned ‘‘to 

protect the specific chemical identity’’ 

of the subject chemical. Section 

14(g)(4)(D). It would plainly undermine 

that Congressional purpose if 

application of the UID itself were the 

means by which an otherwise valid 

chemical identity CBI claim was 

disclosed. Congress’ intention that the 

UID preserve valid CBI claims is further 

evidenced by the requirement that the 

UID ‘‘shall not be . . . the specific 

chemical identity.’’ Section 

14(g)(4)(A)(i). Similarly, section 

14(g)(4)(B) requires EPA to publish an 

annual list of confidential chemical 

substances ‘‘referred to by their unique 

identifiers . . . including the expiration 

date for each such claim.’’ This further 

reflects Congress’ understanding that 

the duration of a valid CBI claim would 

be determined by its expiration date and 

that the UID would serve to link 

documents pertaining to a confidential 

chemical during that period, not to 

terminate the period. Section 14(g)(4)(C) 

in turn instructs EPA to ensure that any 

non-confidential information received 

by EPA regarding a chemical substance 

‘‘on the list published under paragraph 

(B)’’ while the specific identity is 

protected from disclosure identifies the 

chemical using the UID. It is apparent 

that Congress intended the UID to serve 

the function of enabling the public to 

link such non-confidential information 

to other documents pertaining to the 

same confidential chemical during the 

life of the valid CBI claim as reflected 

on the list under paragraph (B), not to 

terminate the period of protection. 

Finally, section 14(g)(4)(D) requires EPA 

to link the specific identity of a 

chemical substance to the 

corresponding UID in three 

circumstances: where the claim has 

been denied, has expired, or has been 

withdrawn. If Congress had intended for 

the application of the UID itself to 

reveal the confidential chemical 

identity, it presumably would have 

included this circumstance in the list in 

section 14(g)(4)(D). 

The approach suggested by the 

commenter might also tend to increase 

CBI claims for chemical identity. Many 

TSCA section 8(e) filings, for example, 

concern chemicals that are in the 

research and development (R&D) stage. 

At this early stage, not all companies 

claim the chemical identity as CBI. 

Under the ‘‘straightforward’’ approach, 

any time a company chooses to not 

claim an R&D chemical identity as CBI, 

they would foreclose any chance (of 

theirs, or of a competitor’s) to maintain 

a successful CBI claim for the specific 

identity of that substance in the future. 

This is because even if such a claim 

were made and approved in, for 

example, a section 5 Notice of 

Commencement, the confidential 

chemical identity, and the fact the 

substance is in commerce in the United 

States, would be revealed as soon as 

EPA applied the UID to the related R&D 

8(e) submission and made the labeled 

submission public. In order to avoid this 

foreclosure of opportunity, TSCA 

section 8(e) submitters may feel 

compelled to claim more R&D chemical 

identities as CBI. 

EPA believes that section 14(g)(4) is 

best read as instructing EPA to provide 

a public linkage of non-confidential 

information that concerns each 

confidential chemical substance, while 

simultaneously protecting approved and 

valid CBI claims. It is both appropriate 

and lawful for EPA to interpret 

conflicting requirements of a provision 

in a manner that minimizes those 

conflicts, because provisions of a text 

should be interpreted in a way that 

renders them compatible and not 

contradictory. Accordingly, EPA is 

acting consistent with TSCA by 

attempting to balance two requirements 

that occasionally conflict with one 

another. 

3. UID application procedure. Several 

commenters urged EPA to develop 

procedures to assure that confidential 

chemical identities are not 

inappropriately disclosed as EPA 

applies UIDs to related non-confidential 

documents. Some commenters also 

requested clarification on how 

exceptions to UID application will 

occur. 

EPA has developed procedures for 

applying UIDs to related documents, 

prior to releasing those labeled 

documents to the public. EPA will 

search its records and screen incoming 

submissions for non-confidential 

information that relates to the 

applicable confidential chemical 

identity (using CASRN, accession 

number, PMN number, specific name, 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 124 / Wednesday, June 27, 2018 / Notices 30171 

and/or other identifiers). These 

documents would be reviewed for 

relevance (i.e., to ensure that they are 

not mislabeled with the wrong CASRN 

or PMN number), then searched for 

mention of the confidential specific 

chemical identity that is protected by 

the UID (e.g., CASRN and/or specific 

chemical name). 

Any relevant documents that do not 

reveal the confidential specific chemical 

identity in the public version would be 

labeled with the UID. Any relevant 

documents that mention this 

confidential specific chemical identity 

in the public version would be set aside 

for additional screening. EPA 

anticipates that documents in the latter 

category will be fairly rare. Documents 

subject to additional screening would be 

examined for information indicating 

that the confidential TSCA Inventory 

status may no longer be warranted (e.g., 

if the document reveals to the public 

that the chemical substance is offered 

for commercial distribution in the 

United States for TSCA uses). If there is 

no such public information 

undermining the approved CBI claim, 

then the UID would not be applied to 

this document. The document would 

continue to be available to the public, 

and continue to include reference to the 

confidential chemical identity, but it 

would not be labeled with the UID. 

If the result of the additional 

screening is that the chemical identity 

CBI claim appears no longer valid (i.e., 

EPA develops a reasonable basis to 

believe that the information no longer 

qualifies for protection from disclosure) 

or appears to have been withdrawn (for 

example, where a subsequent 

submission by the original claimant 

does not claim the specific chemical 

identity as CBI), EPA will proceed in 

accordance with section 14(f)(2)(B) and/ 

or 14(e)(1)(B)(ii), as appropriate. 

Consistent with section 14(g)(4)(D), 

whenever a claim for protection of a 

specific chemical identity for which a 

UID has been assigned is subsequently 

denied by EPA, is withdrawn by the 

claimant, or expires, EPA will, to the 

extent practicable, clearly link the 

specific chemical identity to the UID in 

information that EPA has made public. 

V. Annual UID List 

Under TSCA section 14(g)(4)(B), EPA 

is required to ‘‘annually publish and 

update a list of chemical substances, 

referred to by their unique identifiers, 

for which claims to protect the specific 

chemical identity from disclosure have 

been approved, including the expiration 

date for each such claim.’’ EPA will be 

using the approach announced in this 

document and anticipates publishing 

the first annual list on EPA’s internet 

site in November of 2018. 

VI. 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 person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

1. EPA. 2018. Response to Comment 

Document for Unique Identifier 

Assignment and Application Policy. 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2613. 

Dated: June 21, 2018. 

E. Scott Pruitt, 

Administrator, Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. 2018–13829 Filed 6–26–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2017–0652; FRL–9979–75] 

Guidance on Expanded Access to 

TSCA Confidential Business 

Information; Notice of Availability 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The amendments to the Toxic 

Substances Control Act in June 2016 

expanded the categories of people to 

whom EPA may disclose TSCA 

confidential business information (CBI) 

by specifically authorizing EPA to 

disclose TSCA CBI to state, tribal, and 

local governments; environmental, 

health, and medical professionals; and 

emergency responders, under certain 

conditions, including consistency with 

guidance that EPA is required to 

develop. This document announces the 

availability of three guidance 

documents that address this 

requirement. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For technical information contact: 

Jessica Barkas, Environmental 

Assistance Division, Office of Pollution 

Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001; 

telephone number: (202) 250–8880; 

email address: barkas.jessica@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. Executive Summary 

A. What action is EPA taking? 

As directed by TSCA, EPA has 

developed guidance for each of three 

new expanded TSCA CBI access 

provisions. The guidance documents 

cover the content and form of the 

agreements and statements of need 

required under each provision, and 

include some basic logistical 

information on where and how to 

submit requests to EPA. 

EPA maintains a list of Significant 

Guidance Documents at http://

www.epa.gov/regulations/guidance/ as 

called for by the Office of Management 

and Budget’s (OMB) Final Bulletin for 

Agency Good Guidance Practices 

(https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2007-01-25/pdf/E7-1066.pdf). Please be 

aware that the EPA list of Significant 

Guidance Documents does not include 

every guidance document issued by 

EPA and only encompasses those 

documents that are ‘‘significant’’ as 

defined by OMB’s Bulletin. 

These final documents have been 

determined to be EPA Significant 

Guidance Documents per the OMB 

Bulletin definition and are included on 

the EPA list of significant guidance 

documents. OMB’s Bulletin directs 

agencies to allow for the public to 

submit comments on any Significant 

Guidance Document that appears on the 

Agency’s list of significant guidance 

documents. EPA allows for public 

comments to be submitted through the 

Agency’s electronic docket and 

commenting system at http://

www.regulations.gov. Please note that 

although you may receive an 

acknowledgement that EPA has received 

your comment, you may not receive a 

detailed response to your comment. 

Your feedback is nevertheless important 

to EPA and will be forwarded to the 

appropriate program for consideration. 

B. What is the Agency’s authority for 

taking this action? 

TSCA section 14(c)(4)(B) requires that 

EPA develop guidance concerning the 

‘‘content and form of the statements of 

need and agreements required’’ under 

TSCA section 14(d)(4), (5), and (6). 15 

U.S.C. 2613. 

C. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are a state, tribal, or 

local government, or are employed by a 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with NOTICES