14



### Revisions to preamble, page 14:

X. Economic Analysis

EPA has evaluated the potential costs of establishing SNUR reporting requirements for potential manufacturers and processors of the chemical substance included in this proposed rule (Ref. 1). EPA’s economic analysis (Ref. 1), which is briefly summarized here, is available in the docket for this proposed rule.

The costs of submission of a SNUN will not be incurred by any company until a company decides to pursue a significant new use as defined in this proposed SNUR. In the event that a SNUN is submitted, costs are estimated at approximately $8,000 per SNUN submission, and includes the cost for preparing and submitting the SNUN, and the payment of a user fee

. B usinesses that submit a SNUN are either subject to a $2,500 user fee required by 40 CFR 700.45(b)(2)(iii) , or, if they are a s mall business with annual sales of less than $40 million when combined with those of the parent company (if any)

, a reduced user fee of $100 (40 CFR 700.45(b)(1)). In its evaluation of this rule, EPA also considered the potential costs a company might incur by avoiding or delaying the significant new use in the future, but these costs have not been quantified.

In addition to comments on all aspects of this proposal, the Agency is specifically interested in comments and supporting information on the following questions related to assumptions used in the Agency's analysis:

• Do you know of any current domestic production of mercury flow meters for the uses defined as significant in this rule that EPA missed? If yes, please provide detailed
information.

• Are mercury flow meters currently available in the market place for the uses defined as significant in this rule? If yes, please provide detailed information.

• Does the analysis capture the lost option value of mercury flow meters? If no, please provide specific information that y ou believe should be included.

• Are the costs for preparing and submitting a SNUN comparable to the costs for preparing and submitting a PMN? If not, in what ways is it different?

Providing supporting and detailed information for comments on these points will be used by EPA to review related assumptions in the economic analysis as it prepares the final rule.

XI. References

The following documents are specifically referenced in the preamble for this rulemaking. In addition to these documents, other materials may be available in the docket established for this rulemaking under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0483, which you can access through www.regulations.gov. Those interested in the information considered by EPA in developing this proposed rule, should also consult documents that are referenced in the documents that EPA has placed in the docket, regardless of whether the other documents are physically located in the
docket. Deleted: including preparation of the
notification and the user fee

Deleted: notification

Deleted: As a part of these costs, m

Deleted: ost b

Deleted: would be

Deleted: . S

Deleted: es

Deleted: would be subject to

Deleted: EPA’s complete economic analysis is available in the public docket for this proposed rule (Ref. 1).

Deleted: The public docket for this action, EPA-HQ-OPPT-2008-0483 currently includes the following
documents:14



### Revision to EA, page 14 at bottom of page:

5.6 Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review

, gives the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the authority to re view regulatory actions that are categorized as "significant" under section 3(f) of the Executive Order, i.e., those actions that are likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the ec onomy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities; (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arisi ng out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

OMB has determined that this particular SNUR is a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)(4) of the Executive Order. EPA therefore submitted the proposal 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 the Executive Order. Deleted: requires OMB review for rules with an impact on the economy of $100 million or more, or with any other potential significant impact. OMB has previously determined that these types of SNURs are not a “sig nificant regulatory action” that would require OMB review
under this Executive Order.