Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS

FOR PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE NATIONAL OIL AND 

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN 

REGULATIONS

(40 CFR PART 300 Subpart J)

DRAFT

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Office of Emergency Management

Regulations Implementation Division

May 22December 3, 2014
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Table of Contents

Acronyms....................................................................................................................................6

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................7

1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................12

1.1 Statutory Authority.....................................................................................................13

1.2 Regulatory Background.............................................................................................13

1.3 Statement of Need for Regulatory Action...................................................................14

1.4 Proposed Changes to the Rule..................................................................................15

1.5 Organization of this Report........................................................................................21

2.0 Methodology .................................................................................................................23

2.1 General Approach to the Economic Analysis.............................................................23

3.0 Government Entities and the Universe of Regulated Facilities ......................................25

3.1 Government Entities Impacted by the Proposed Rule................................................26

3.2 Universe of Product Manufacturers ...........................................................................26

3.3 Universe of Offshore Platforms, Authorities, and Responders ...................................30

4.0 Regulatory Baseline for the Economic Analysis.............................................................35

5.0 Government and Private Sector Total Cost of Compliance............................................40

5.1 Labor Hours and Costs..............................................................................................40

5.2 Data and Test Requirements.....................................................................................43

5.3 Total Estimated Compliance Costs for Manufacturers ...............................................52

5.3.1 Derivation of Wage Rates..................................................................................52

5.3.2 Estimated Testing Costs for Product Manufacturers ..........................................54

5.4 Estimated Total Annual Burden and Costs ................................................................56

5.5 Total Incremental Costs for Product Manufacturers...................................................63

6.0 Benefits of the Proposed Rule.......................................................................................65

8.0 Key Limitations of the Analysis......................................................................................79

Appendix A: NCP Subpart J Schedule June 28, 2011...............................................................80

Appendix B: North American Industrial Classification System...................................................87

Appendix C: NCP Product Schedule Manufacturer Profile and Expected Impacts ....................90

Appendix D: Estimating Per Gallon Response Cost by Discharge Size ....................................91

References ...............................................................................................................................94

Acronyms....................................................................................................................................6

Executive Summary....................................................................................................................7

1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................12

1.1 Statutory Authority.....................................................................................................13

1.2 Regulatory Background.............................................................................................13

1.3 Statement of Need for Regulatory Action...................................................................14

1.4 Proposed Changes to the Rule..................................................................................15

1.5 Organization of this Report........................................................................................21

2.0 Methodology .................................................................................................................23

2.1 General Approach to the Economic Analysis.............................................................23

3.0 Government Entities and the Universe of Regulated Facilities ......................................25

3.1 Government Entities Impacted by the Proposed Rule................................................26

3.2 Universe of Product Manufacturers ...........................................................................26

May 22December 3, 2014 2
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

3.3 Universe of Offshore Platforms, Authorities, and Responders ...................................30

4.0 Regulatory Baseline for the Economic Analysis.............................................................35

5.0 Government and Private Sector Total Cost of Compliance............................................40

5.1 Labor Hours and Costs..............................................................................................40

5.2 Data and Test Requirements.....................................................................................43

5.3 Total Estimated Compliance Costs for Manufacturers ...............................................52

5.3.1 Derivation of Wage Rates..................................................................................52

5.3.2 Estimated Testing Costs for Product Manufacturers ..........................................54

5.4 Estimated Total Annual Burden and Costs ................................................................56

5.5 Total Incremental Costs for Product Manufacturers...................................................63

6.0 Benefits of the Proposed Rule.......................................................................................65

7.0 Small Business Analysis .....................................................................................................68

8.0 Key Limitations of the Analysis......................................................................................79

Appendix A: NCP Subpart J Schedule June 28, 2011...............................................................80

Appendix B: North American Industrial Classification System...................................................87

Appendix C: NCP Product Schedule Manufacturer Profile and Expected Impacts ....................90

References ...............................................................................................................................91

May 22December 3, 2014 3
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Tables and Exhibits

1 Summary of the Economic Costs and Benefits: Subpart J Proposed Rule 

Requirements ($2011).....................................................................................................8

3-1 Subpart J Three Digit NAICS Codes and Description, June 28, 2011 Schedule............23

3-2 Past Trends for New Listings on the NCP Product Schedule 

(1996 – 2011 Selected Years).......................................................................................25

3-3 Assumptions Used for the Listing of Products on the NCP Product 

Schedule (2012 – 2031)................................................................................................26

3-4 Offshore Oil Platforms, Authorities, and Service Providers............................................29

3-5 Offshore Oil Platforms and Petroleum and Petroleum Products in Waterborne 

Commerce (2001 – 2010) .............................................................................................30

4-1A Baseline Labor Costs ...................................................................................................33

4-1B Baseline Testing, Labor, Annual and Total Costs ..........................................................34

5-1 EPA Burden ..................................................................................................................36

5-2 Data Items Required Under NCP Subpart J ..................................................................40

5-3 Respondent Burden to Prepare and Submit Information to EPA Under Proposed 

Subpart J.......................................................................................................................42

5-4 Unit Burden Associated with Infrequent Burden Items...................................................44

5-5 Proposed Subpart J Rule Revisions: Existing and Proposed Testing Requirements .....45

5-6 Derivation of Hourly Labor Cost Used in the Analysis....................................................47

5-7A Labor Costs for Existing Products .................................................................................51

5-7B Labor Costs for New Products.......................................................................................52

5-7C Aggregate Costs for Existing Products ..........................................................................53

5-7D Aggregate Costs for New Products ...............................................................................54

5-8 Incremental Costs of the Proposed Rule for Existing and New Product Manufacturers .56

6-1 Overview of Subpart J Benefits .....................................................................................58

6-2 Water Oil Spills, 1990-2011 (Gallons vs. Years) ................................................... 59

6-3 Oil Spill Causes, 1990- 2011.........................................................................................60

6-4 Oil Products Spilled to Water, 1990-2011 (Gallons vs. Years) ......................................61

6-5 Incremental Benefits of the Subpart J Rule ...................................................................63

7-1A Per-Product Costs of the Proposed Revisions to the NCP Subpart J Rule ................6560

7-1B NCP Product Schedule Manufacturer Profile and Expected Impacts Associated with 

the Proposed Revisions to the NCP Subpart J Rule for the Most Expensive Product 

to List (Dispersants) ..................................................................................................6661

7-2 Potential Impacts Associated with Proposed Revisions to NCP Subpart J for Existing 

Very Small NCP Product June 2011 Schedule Manufacturers .................................6864

A-1 NCP Subpart J Product Schedule, June 28, 2011 .....................................................7066

B-1 Subpart J NAICS Codes and Descriptions ................................................................7773

B-2 Subpart J NAICS Codes, Descriptions and Small Business Criteria..........................7874

B-3 Offshore Oil Platforms, Responders, and Service Providers......................................7975

C-1 NCP Product Schedule Manufacturer Profile and Expected Impacts Associated with 

Proposed Revision to NCP product Schedule (40 CFR 300.900) ..............................8076

D-1 Per-Gallon Response Cost by Discharge Size ..............................................................83

May 22December 3, 2014 4
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

May 22December 3, 2014 5
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Acronyms

ACP Area Contingency Plan

ANS Alaska North Slope 

BFT Baffled Flask Test

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

D&B Dun and Bradstreet

EO Executive Order

CBI Confidential Business Information

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CWA Clean Water Act

DfE Design for the Environment

DOI Department of the Interior

ECEC Employer Costs for Employee Compensation

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

FR Federal Register

GC/MS Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry

HAZCOM Hazard Communication Standard

ICR Information Collection Request

IFO Intermediate Fuel Oil

LCL Lower Confidence Limit

MOSCA Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agent

NAICS North American Industrial Classification System

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

NRC National Response Center

O&M Operation and Maintenance

OCS Outer Continental Shelf

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OSC On-Scene Coordinators

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PAH Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons

PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyls

PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration

RCP Regional Contingency Plan

RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis

RP Responsible Party

RRT Regional Response Team

SBA Small Business Administration

SDS Safety Data Sheet

SFT Swirling Flask Test

SIC Standard Industrial Classification System

SISNOSE Significant Impact on a Substantial Number of Small Entities

SONS Spill of National Significance

SPCC Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure

T/V Tank/Vessel

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USCG United States Coast Guard

WCUS Waterborne Commerce of the United States
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Executive Summary

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to amend the National Oil 

and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300 Subpart J –

Use of Dispersants and Other Chemicals. Section 311(d)(2)(G) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 

delegated to EPA by Executive Order (EO) 12777, requires a schedule that identifies

dispersants, other chemicals, and other spill mitigating devices and substances, if any, that may 

be used in carrying out the NCP. Subpart J makes provisions for such a schedule (Schedule) 

and applies to the navigable waters of the United States and adjoining shorelines, the waters of 

the contiguous zone, and the high seas beyond the contiguous zone. Subpart J applies to the 

use of any chemical and biological agents or other substances as defined in Subpart A of the 

NCP that may be used to remove, control, or otherwise mitigate oil discharges.

The proposed rule reorganizes existing Subpart J requirements, revises certain 

requirements, adds new provisions, and updates the product listing and authorization 

requirements to reflect scientific advances and lessons learned from application of products in 

response to oil discharges. The tragic Deepwater Horizon explosion and fire in the Gulf of 

Mexico in 2010 led to the use of approximately 1 million gallons of dispersants on the surface 

and approximately three quarters of a million gallons applied subsurface on a reported 

discharge of approximately 5 million barrels (about 200 million gallons)1

. The application of 

dispersants, both at the surface and subsurface levels, raised the concern of state, local and 

federal officials and the public about the use of these products. EPA anticipates that the 

proposed requirements will provide incentives to develop, monitor, and manufacture effective 

products while, at the same time, reducing the risks to public health and the environment.

This Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) examines the costs and benefits of the proposed 

amendments to Subpart J and Appendix C to part 300 as well as proposed revisions to 

definitions in Subpart A and 40 CFR Part 110. The RIA also analyzes the impacts of the 

proposed requirements on small businesses. The economic analysis began in 2011, and uses 

the June 28, 2011 Product Schedule as the starting point for assessing economic costs of the 

proposed rule requirements. There were 86 domestically and internationally located 

manufacturers with products on the June 28, 2011 Schedule and 81 of these manufacturers

were small businesses. Subpart J businesses manufactured 99 different products as of June 

2011. Several of these businesses are diversified product companies that manufacture or 

market a range of products. Other businesses with products on the Schedule may only 

manufacture or market one product. The Schedule contains information on products, 

manufacturers, listing dates, and related product information. The Schedule is updated as 

manufacturers submit new products that are approved for listing, or need to make changes to 

existing listings. 

The economic analysis uses the existing regulations as the baseline. The baseline 

analysis examines the costs and benefits for manufacturers or submitters to comply with the 

existing regulations. The economic analysis then estimates the costs and benefits of the 

1 Ramseur, Jonathan L. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: The Fate of the Oil. CRS Report# R41531, 2010.

May 22December 3, 2014 7

 
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

proposed rule. The small business analysis was conducted following EPA’s Final Guidance for 

EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Act as Amended by the Small Business and Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act, November 30, 2006 (http://www.epa.gov/rfa/documents/GuidanceRegFlexAct.pdf). 

Subpart J establishes a Schedule of chemical and biological agents, testing 

requirements, and authorization of procedures that when taken together address the types of 

waters and the quantities of listed agents that may be used in response to discharges of oil and 

hazardous substances. The proposed rule amends sections on authorization of use, including 

preauthorization of use of these products; revises analytical laboratory testing methods and 

establishes listing criteria; and establishes monitoring requirements by the responsible party 

(RP) for certain discharges. Appendix C to part 300 of the proposal regulatory package contains 

the analytical methods and criteria for laboratory testing of oil, chemical, and biological agents. 

The Subpart J regulated community includes market entities that test, manufacture, 

market, import and export, use and monitor oil spill mitigating products under the proposal. 

These businesses make up the supply chain for Subpart J products. They include 

manufacturers and businesses in the marketplace that sell, stockpile or apply Subpart J 

products on oil spills. In addition, chemical laboratories provide analytical services to 

manufacturers to analyze chemical and biological agents and provide results to the 

manufacturers for submission to EPA. In certain cases, manufacturers may hire an agent, 

attorney, or marketing representative or pay a laboratory to prepare the submission package for 

EPA. The proposal also contains requirements for the RP to monitor surface and subsurface 

dispersant use for certain discharges. This economic analysis focuses mainly on the 

manufacturers of Subpart J products, because most of the requirements and costs of this 

proposal apply to the manufacturers. 

The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) is a system of industrial 

codes maintained by the U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, to categorize

companies and industries by specific codes. The NAICS system succeeds the Standard 

Industrial Classification (SIC) System that continues to be used in transition with the NAICS 

system. The most frequently reported NAICS code reported by manufacturers on the June 28, 

2011 Product Schedule is NAICS 325 Chemical Manufacturing. Twenty-six out of 65 

manufacturers that reported their NAICS code to Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) reported NAICS 

325. Other significant three digit codes in terms of number of manufacturers reported were 424 

Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods and 541 Professional, Scientific and Technical 

Services. This is a heterogeneous industry in terms of NAICS code coverage with companies 

reporting twelve different three digit and 32 different six digit NAICS codes. At the six-digit

NAICS code level, there were a number of NAICS codes with only one firm reporting the code. 

In addition to helping define the characteristics of the industry, NAICS codes are used in 

combination with Small Business Administration (SBA) information to identify the criteria in 

terms of annual revenue or employment for small businesses.

Exhibit 1 provides a summary of the costs, benefits, and small business analysis for the 

Subpart J proposed rule. The baseline annual costs to manufacturers for existing testing and 

May 22December 3, 2014 8
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

labor requirements are approximately $91,000. The proposed rule will add to these testing and 

labor costs as well as introduce costs for required RP monitoring and government 

administration. The proposed rule’s incremental annual costs to manufacturers for testing and 

labor are estimated at approximately $154,000 annualized at 3%, or $177,000 at 7%. For

certain discharges, the proposed rule requires the RP to incur costs for monitoring, roughly 

estimated as $500,000 per year. Annual government (EPA) incremental costs are estimated at

$13,000 (annualized at 3%) or $17,000 (7%). Thus, total annual incremental costs of the rule 

are estimated as $668,000 (at 3%) or $694,000 (at 7%). 

The benefits are analyzed as the avoided costs of oil spill response and cleanup. For 

large spills, EPA estimated that the full opportunity cost of oil spill cleanup is about $40 per 

gallon. This value is from an analysis of oil spill cleanup costs for the Spill Prevention, Control 

and Countermeasures (SPCC) 2008 and 2009 regulatory amendments. The analysis was 

developed from oil spill cleanup costs reported to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration (PHMSA), U.S. Department of Transportation. Although it is a simple avoided 

cost estimate and based on limited and highly aggregated data, EPA believes the benefits 

analysis provides useful information by illustrating the magnitude of the potential benefits of the 

proposed rule. For the average current amount of oil spilled each year that would be affected by 

the rule, the benefits are estimated at about $2.3 million each year. The annual benefit-cost ratio 

is approximately 3.3 to 3.5; the cost effectiveness ratio is approximately $12 per gallon of spilled 

oil that will not reach shore as a result of the proposed rule. The net benefits for the proposed 

rule are estimated at $1.6 to $1.7 million each year. 

In addition to providing annual values, Exhibit 1 also summarizes the total present value 

of baseline and incremental costs of the rule as well as incremental benefits discounted at 3% 

and 7% over a 20 year period of analysis. Net national benefits are estimated as $26.6 million 

(3%) or $14.0 million (7%). SomeThe benefits of the rule are not monetized includingSubpart J 

amendments are assessed qualitatively. Such benefits include, for example, greater clarity of 

regulatory requirements, as well as less toxic products. Finally, as highlighted in Exhibit 1, the 

small business analysis in Chapter 7 of this RIA concludes the rule will have no significant 

impact on a substantial number of small entities. 

EPA has determined, subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) agreement,

that the proposal is a significant regulatory action, because it raises novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in EO 12866

and confirmed in EO 13563. The proposal is not an economically significant regulation under 

EO 12866 and EO 13563 based upon the incremental costs and benefits of the regulation.

May 22December 3, 2014 9
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Exhibit 1. 

Summary of Economic Costs and Benefits: Subpart J Proposed Rule 

Requirements ($2011)1

Costs, Benefits, and 

Small Business

Analysis

Total Present 

Value (3%)

20 Years1

Total Present 

Value (7%)

20 Years1

Annual 

Value

(3%)1

Annual 

Value 

(7%)1

Baseline Costs of 

Existing Subpart J 

Testing and Labor

$1,389,197 $1,027,642 $90,656

Incremental Costs of 

the Proposed Rule:

Testing and Labor $2,339,511 $1,948,041 $154,408 $177,245

RP Monitoring 

(SONS) 2 $7,661,900 $5,667,798 $500,000

Government (EPA) $196,406 $181,140 $13,202 $17,098

Total National 

Incremental Costs of 

the Proposed Rule

$10,197,817 $7,796,979 $667,610 $694,343

Total National 

Incremental Benefits

of the Proposed Rule

$36,792,921 $21,766,300 $2,317,303

Net National Benefits 

of the Proposed 

Subpart J Rule

$26,595,104 $13,969,321 $1,649,693 $1,622,960

Benefits not 

monetized

- The Less toxic products would reduce potential economic, human 

healthenvironmental, and ecosystem impacts of more stringent 

toxicity testing.from oil spill cleanup. 

- ReorganizationImproved efficacy of products would decrease 

costs associated with oil spill clean-up and remediation in water 

and adjoining shorelines. Since increased efficacy reduces the 

probability that oil reaches the shoreline, it would also decrease 

potential human, environmental, and ecosystem impacts.

- More efficient use of planning and response resources would 

result from reorganization and clarification of rule requirements.

- Improved,Improved information about the efficacy, toxicity, and 

application of listed products for planners and responders.

- Improved planning and response from more effective 

preauthorization requirements and plans.

- Lower quantities of products used and targeted uses.

- Benefits of the The monitoring program, including provides critical

data that provide information on the oil spill and products used to 

disperse the spill for improvedoverall effectiveness of dispersant 

use and informs response actions for more effective and efficient

May 22December 3, 2014 10
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

incident management decisions that minimize potential 

environmental and ecosystem impacts.

Small Business

Analysis

There is no significant impact on a substantial number of small 

entities (SISNOSE) from this proposed regulation.

Notes: 

1. For the calculation of total present values, discount rates of 3% and 7% are used to bring future values to the 

present. A higher discount rate reduces total present values, ceteris paribus. On the other hand, since some of 

the costs are assumed to be financed, those costs were annualized over 20 years using 3% and 7% interest 

rates. A higher interest rate increases annual costs.

2. This is a rough calculation that does not try to account for baseline spending on monitoring. Baseline costs are 

assumed to be $0, likely a significant underestimate.

May 22December 3, 2014 11
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

1.0 Introduction

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to amend the National Oil 

and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300 Subpart J –

Use of Dispersants and Other Chemicals. Section 311(d)(2)(G) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 

delegated to EPA by Executive Order (EO) 12777, requires a product schedule (Schedule) that 

identifies dispersants, other chemicals, and other spill mitigating devices and substances, if any, 

that may be used in carrying out the NCP. Subpart J makes provisions for and applies to the 

use of any chemical and biological agents or other additives as defined in Subpart A of the NCP 

that may be used to remove or control oil discharges. This proposal amends the existing 

regulation for authorizing, using and testing Subpart J products. In addition, the proposal 

amends definitions in Subpart A (part 300.5), limitations in 40 CFR Part 110 and adds new 

requirements for subsurface and surface dispersant monitoring by the responsible party (RP) as 

directed by the On-Scene Coordinator (OSC). 

The proposal also reorganizes sections in Subpart J for improved understanding, revises 

other sections to clarify the requirements, and adds new sections based upon the best science 

available. EPA anticipates that a reorganized, clarified, and tailored Subpart J rule with new 

requirements will provide more complete information about these products to the public and to 

federal, state and local agencies. The regulatory proposal, if finalized, will improve 

communication between the Agency, manufacturers and laboratories and increase the 

efficiency in processing the requests to list products on the Schedule.

The proposal addresses the public and government agencies’ concerns about the 

unprecedented use of 1 million gallons of dispersants on the surface and approximately three 

quarters of a million gallons applied subsurface on a reported oil discharge of approximately 5 

million barrels (about 200 million gallons) of oil during the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill in the 

Gulf of Mexico (Ramseur, 2010). These requirements will encourage manufacturers to develop 

and manufacture more effective and less toxic (i.e., green products) products and will better 

target the use of these products to reduce the risks to public health and the environment. 

Additionally, these amendments will ensure that OSCs, Regional Response Teams (RRT), and 

Area Planners have complete information to make preauthorization decisions and to develop 

plans to preauthorize the use of dispersants or other chemical agents for an oil spill emergency 

response. RRT’s will have the option to request that the manufacturer conduct additional 

efficacy and toxicity tests due to existing site-specific or area-specific concerns. 

This Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) contains the cost-benefit analysis of the proposed 

regulations and the impacts on small businesses and considers alternatives to the proposed 

regulatory requirements. The existing Subpart J regulation was last amended in 1994 and is the 

baseline for the economic analysis. The baseline analysis assumes “no change” in the 

regulatory program consistent with guidance in Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

Circular A-4 (September 17, 2003). The Schedule contains the list of oil spill mitigation products, 

and identifies the manufacturer, listing dates and other information about a product. The 

May 22December 3, 2014 12
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Schedule is updated routinely, on average about once each month, to add new products and 

manufacturers or to make changes to existing listings. 

Chapter 1 provides background information on the existing Subpart J regulation, 

summarizes the proposed regulatory changes, and describes the organization of this report. As 

a convention, the RIA uses Subpart J titles and section numbers as they appear in both the 

existing regulation and in the proposed regulation.

1.1 Statutory Authority

Section 311(d)(2)(G) of the CWA requires that EPA prepare a schedule of dispersants,

other chemicals, and other spill mitigating devices and substances, if any, that may be used in 

carrying out the NCP. Subpart J makes provision for such a schedule. Subpart J applies to the 

navigable waters of the United States and adjoining shorelines, the waters of the contiguous 

zone, and the high seas beyond the contiguous zone in connection with activities under the 

Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, activities under the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, or activities 

that may affect natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive 

management authority of the United States, including resources under the Magnuson Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act of 1976. The authority of the President to implement the 

CWA was delegated to the EPA Administrator by EO 12777 (56 FR 54757, October 18, 1991). 

1.2 Regulatory Background

Section 300.910 of Subpart J addresses the authorization of the use of products on the 

Schedule and specifies the conditions under which OSCs may authorize the use of dispersants, 

other chemicals, and other spill mitigating substances. Sections 300.915 and 300.920 describe 

the data requirements and the process for adding products to the Schedule. To list a product on 

the Schedule, Subpart J currently requires the submission of technical data on the product to 

EPA. Data on dispersants, surface collecting agents, surface washing agents, and 

miscellaneous oil spill control agents must include the results of the toxicity test set for these 

products in Appendix C to part 300 of the NCP. Data on dispersants must also include the 

results of the dispersant effectiveness test, while bioremediation agents must include results of 

the bioremediation effectiveness test, also set forth in Appendix C to part 300. These tests are 

conducted at the expense of the product manufacturers and must be performed by laboratories 

experienced with Appendix C to part 300 protocols. 

The raw data and a summary of the results from these tests are then submitted to EPA, 

where they are reviewed to confirm that the data are complete and that the specified procedures 

were followed. The data requirements for placement of a product on the Schedule are designed 

to provide sufficient data for the OSCs to judge whether and in what quantities a product may be 

used to control a particular discharge. Inclusion of a product on the Schedule means only that 

the data submission requirements have been satisfied. The listing of a product on the Schedule 

does not mean that the product is recommended or authorized for use on any specific oil 

May 22December 3, 2014 13
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

discharge nor does it imply that EPA has in any other way endorsed the product for the use 

listed or for other uses. The standardized testing procedures set forth in Appendix C to part 300

provide OSCs comparable data regarding the toxicity, effectiveness, and other characteristics of 

different products. Under the current 300.910(a) regulation, RRTs and the Area Committees are 

required to address, as part of their planning activities, the desirability of using appropriate 

dispersants, and other chemical or biological agents. The RRTs and Area Committees generally 

develop “preauthorization plans” which address the specific context in which products can be 

used.

The Schedule is available for use by OSCs, RRTs, and Area Committees for 

preauthorization decisions and plans and to determine the most appropriate products to use for 

different oil discharge sizes and in different regions, areas and waters. Under 40 CFR 

300.910(a), RRTs and Area Committees are required to address the desirability of using the 

products on the Schedule in their Regional Contingency Plans (RCP) and Area Contingency 

Plans (ACP), respectively. The Subpart J proposed revisions would ensure that OSCs, RRTs, 

and Area Committees have the necessary data on toxicity, effectiveness, and use of different 

chemical and biological agents to make informed decisions. The proposal revises part 300.910 

to make clear the statutory and regulatory authorities and use of products on spills for different 

types of oil, locations, and waters. 

1.3 Statement of Need for Regulatory Action

The OMB January 11, 1996 guidance for conducting economic analyses requires a 

description of the market failure. The main market failures that this rule addresses relate to 

damages from oil spills and dispersant use. The many costs borne by nearby populations after 

oil spills are not always accounted for in the financial statements of oil producers. Furthermore, 

when dispersants are used to clean up oil spills, their toxic effects are borne by local 

populations and ecosystems and not always accounted for by the oil and dispersant producers. 

Since the existing competitive markets do not properly price and allocate these impacts, there is 

a market failure. 

The testing and use of these products has been an issue of concern to the public and 

businesses and federal, state and local governments. In addition to reflecting scientific

advances, the proposed amendments will improve the availability of information about these 

products and the ability of federal and state agencies to respond more effectively to oil spills.

The proposal requires that manufacturers submit additional information to EPA for listing a 

product on the Schedule and for using the product in the field to mitigate oil spills. 

Under the proposed amendments, oil spill responders and decision makers will have 

more accurate and complete information to choose appropriate oil spill mitigating products. 

Better information may have both direct and indirect benefits in the process of remediating oil 

spills. EPA and other federal agencies recognize that environmental tradeoffs may be 

necessary to achieve the best outcome. We anticipate that providing the best information 

available when selecting products for use on an oil discharge will support decision making 

May 22December 3, 2014 14
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

during emergency responses to oil spills. The Agency projects that better toxicological and 

efficacy information will lead to a reduction in the risk of harm to the environment and human 

health that might result from the application of these products. 

1.4 Proposed Changes to the Rule

EPA proposes to revise Subpart J to clarify the authorization of use provisions (40 CFR 

part 300.910), add new monitoring requirements (40 CFR part 300.913), and revise efficacy and 

toxicity tests and criteria (40 CFR part 300.915). The proposal renumbers Subpart J to include 

new, consolidated, and revised sections. Some of the rule sections have been retained, 

removed, or moved in their entirety. The revised analytical tests and criteria will help ensure that 

products that perform effectively, while minimizing toxicity, will be listed on the Schedule. The 

proposed rule also contains subsea and surface monitoring requirements for the responsible 

party. EPA considered regulatory alternatives before deciding on a preferred requirement. 

The proposed amendments to Subpart J would require that manufacturers conduct 

efficacy and toxicity tests for each chemical and biological agent consistent with the analytical 

test methods and criteria in the revised Appendix C to part 300. The proposal both revises 

existing analytical tests and criteria and adds new efficacy and toxicity tests in Appendix C to 

part 300. EPA will make product listing determinations based on a technical evaluation of all 

data and information submitted, relevant information on impacts or potential impacts of the 

product or any of its components on human health or the environment, and the intended use of 

the product. A disclaimer must be reproduced on the product label that states that the listing of a 

product on the Schedule does not mean that EPA endorses or approves the product; listing 

means only that the data requirements are met. The agency requires that manufacturers place a 

specific disclaimer on all product labels, advertisement or technical literature. The proposal 

clarifies that information within electronic media including website pages also reflect this 

disclaimer. Overall, the Subpart J proposed revisions would increase the costs for existing rule 

requirements. In addition, manufacturers will incur additional costs for the totality of the 

proposed amendments for reading and understanding the proposed rule and taking action to 

comply with the proposed requirements. This RIA estimates that the monetized environmental 

benefits exceed the incremental costs, yielding a positive net benefit.

Specifically, the Agency proposes to:

• Definitions. Amend definitions for Bioremediation agents, Burning agents, Chemical 

agents, Dispersants, Sinking agents, Sorbents, and Surface washing agents; add new 

definitions for Bioaccumulation, Bioconcentration, Biodegradation, Biological agents, 

Bioremediation, Herding agents, Products, and Solidifiers; and remove definitions for 

Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agents (MOSCA) and Surface Collecting Agents.

• General Requirements. Revise to reflect new and amended regulatory definitions.

• Authorization of Use. Revise to clarify planning and preauthorization responsibilities, 

establish limitations and prohibitions on the use of certain agents, establish requirements 

for storage and use of agents, clarify authorities for requiring supplemental testing, 

May 22December 3, 2014 15
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

monitoring and information on agents, establish requirements for agent recovery from the 

environment, and establish reporting requirements for agent use.

• Monitoring the Use of Dispersant. Establish monitoring requirements for dispersant use in 

response to major discharges and/or certain dispersant use situations. 

• General Product Information for Schedule Listing. Revise and establish requirements, 

including designation of and testing for all product categories under which the listing is 

requested, Material Safety Data Sheets, sample product labels, shelf life, collection and 

recovery, persistence in the environment, storage and use conditions, physical and 

chemical properties, component identities, concentration limits on National Water Quality 

Criteria and Standards contaminants, laboratory accreditations, submission of all testing 

data and calculations, production capabilities, and any other data or certification informing 

the product’s performance capabilities or environmental benefits.

• Dispersant Testing and Listing Requirements. Revise the efficacy testing methodology 

using a baffled flask test, establish new developmental and sub-chronic toxicity testing 

requirements, revise the acute toxicity testing methodologies, revise the listing criteria, 

and establish use limitations to saltwater environments.

• Surface Washing Agent Testing and Listing Requirements. Revise the acute toxicity 

testing methodology and listing requirements, establish efficacy testing requirements and 

listing criteria, and establish use limitations based on product testing for salt and/or 

freshwater environments.

• Bioremediation Agent Testing and Listing Requirements. Revise the efficacy and acute 

toxicity testing methodologies and listing criteria, establish exceptions for specified nonproprietary products, and establish use limitations based on product testing for salt and/or 

freshwater environments.

• Solidifier and Herding Agent Testing and Listing Requirements. Revise the acute toxicity 

testing methodology and listing criteria, and establish use limitations based on product 

testing for salt and/or freshwater environments.

• Sorbent Requirements. Establish a list of known, non-proprietary sorbents to be made 

publicly available in lieu of listing sorbents on the Schedule, and requirements for data 

and information for sorbent products with components other than those specifically 

identified in the rule.

• Submissions of Confidential Business Information. Revise the allowable confidential 

business information claims and reporting procedures.

• Addition of a Product to the Schedule. Revise the submission requirements including the 

package contents, EPA’s review of submission package, requests for review of decision, 

changes to a product listing, and transitioning of listed products from the current Schedule 

to the new Schedule.

• Mandatory Product Disclaimer. Revise the product disclaimer requirements.

May 22December 3, 2014 16
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

• Removal of a Product from the Schedule. Revise the basis for removal and appeals 

process.

• Appendix C to part 300. Revise the requirements for product testing protocols and 

summary test data including new dispersant baffled flask efficacy and toxicity tests; new 

standard acute toxicity tests for bioremediation agents, surface washing agents, herding 

agents, and solidifiers; and revised bioremediation agent efficacy test.

• Appendix E to part 300 – Oil Spill Response. Remove this appendix from the NCP.

The Tables below provide an overview of the existing rule and proposed rule citations for 

a quick reference of the proposed changes.

40 CFR part 100 Discharge of Oil

Current Citation Proposed Rule Citation

110.4 Dispersants 110.4 Chemical and Biological Agents

40 CFR part 300 – National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

Current Citations Proposed Rule Citations

§300.5 Definitions §300.5 Definitions

Subpart J – Use of Dispersants and 

Other Chemicals

Subpart J – Use of Dispersants, and Other Chemical 

and Biological Agents

§300.900 General §300.900 General

§300.900(a) §300.900(a)

§300.900(c) §300.900(c)

§300.905 NCP Product Schedule Deleted

§300.910 Authorization of Use §300.910 Authorization for Agent Use

§300.910(a) §300.910(a) Use of Agents Identified on the Schedule 

on Oil Discharges Addressed by a Preauthorization 

Plan

§300.910(b) §300.910(b) Use of Agents Identified on the Schedule 

on Oil Discharges Not Addressed by a 

Preauthorization Plan

§300.910(c) §300.910(c) Burning Agents

§300.910(d) §300.910(d) Exceptions

§300.910(e) §300.910(e) Prohibited Agents

§300.910(f) §300.910(g) Supplemental Testing, Monitoring, and 

Information

§300.910(f) Storage and Use of Agents

§300.910(h) Recovery of Oil and Agents from the 

Environment

§300.910(i) Reporting of Agent Use

§300.913 Monitoring the Use of Dispersants

§300.913(a)

§300.913(b)

§300.913(c)

May 22December 3, 2014 17
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Current Citations Proposed Rule Citations

§300.913(d)

§300.913(e)

§300.913(f)

§300.915 Data Requirements §300.915 Data and Information Requirements for 

Product Schedule Listing

§300.915(a)(1)-(12) Dispersants §300.915(a)(1)-(21) General Product Information

§300.915(b) Dispersant Testing and Listing 

Requirements

§300.915(b) Surface Washing Agents §300.915(a)(1)-(21) General Product Information

§300.915(c) Surface Washing Agent Testing and 

Listing Requirements

§300.915(c) Surface Collecting Agents Deleted

$300.915(d) Bioremediation Agents §300.915(a)(1)-(21) General Product Information

§300.915(d) Bioremediation Agent Testing and Listing 

Requirements.

§300.915(e) Burning Agents Deleted

§300.915(f) Miscellaneous Oil Spill 

Control Agents

Deleted

§300.915(g) Sorbents §300.915(g) Sorbent Listing Requirements

§300.915(h) Mixed Products Deleted

§300.915(e) Solidifier Testing and Listing 

Requirements, including §300.915(a)(1)-(21) General 

Product Information

§300.915(f) Herding Agent Testing and Listing 

Requirements, including §300.915(a)(1)-(21) General 

Product Information

§300.920 Addition of Products to 

Schedule

§300.955 Addition of a Product to the Schedule

§300.920(a)(1) Dispersants §300.955(a) Submission

§300.915(b) Dispersant Testing and Listing 

Requirements

§300.920(a)(2) §300.955(c) EPA Review

§300.920(a)(3) §300.955(d) Request for Review of Decision

§300.955(b) Package Contents

§300.920(b)(1) Surface Washing 

Agents, Surface Collecting Agents, 

Bioremediation Agents, and 

Miscellaneous Oil Spill Control Agents

§300.955(a) Submission

§300.920(b)(2) §300.955(c) EPA Review

§300.920(c) §300.950 Submission of Confidential Business 

Information (CBI)

§300.920(d) §300.955(e) Changes to a Listed Product

§300.955(f) Transitioning Listed Products from the 

Current Schedule to the New Schedule

§300.920(e) §300.965 Mandatory Product Disclaimer

§300.970 Removal of a Product from the Schedule

May 22December 3, 2014 18
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Section 300.900 General makes clear that Section 311(d)(2)(G) of the CWA, as 

delegated to EPA by EO 12777 provides for a “schedule identifying chemical and biological 

agents, and procedures that when taken together, identify water and quantities in which such 

dispersants, other chemicals, or other mitigating devices and substances may be used.” Section 

300.910 Authorization for Agent Use clarifies the preauthorization plans and delegation of 

authority for the use of oil spill mitigating agents. This section also describes the authority of the 

OSC for oil spill situations not addressed in a preauthorization plan, burning agents, prohibited 

agents, storage and use of agents, supplemental testing, monitoring and information, recovery 

of agents, and reporting of agent use. Section 300.913 Monitoring the Use of Certain Agents 

contains new requirements for monitoring dispersant use for surface and subsurface waters for 

certain oil discharges.

Section 300.915 has been reorganized with data and product information requirements 

for listing products on the Schedule. In section (a), the general requirements are listed for all 

products. Subsections (b) through (g) contain specific requirements for each product category. 

In the existing requirements, general product category information and product specific category 

information were both listed for each agent category section. The reorganized section is 

intended to clarify for product manufacturers the requirements for submission packages and 

facilitate listing products on the Schedule.

Revisions are intended to clarify requirements and to reflect scientific advances 

available. The reorganization and clarification of the rule will result in applicants submitting a 

better package with fewer requests by the agency for additional information. 

The following list provides brief descriptions of the proposed efficacy and toxicity tests 

and criteria requirements. The existing test requirements are contained in the regulations

including Appendix C to part 300. An important proposed requirement is a new, peer reviewed 

Baffled Flask Test (BFT) to conduct efficacy testing for dispersants. The BFT was developed by 

EPA for testing dispersant efficacy. The BFT replaces the existing Swirling Flask Test (SFT). 

The final report “Analysis of Dispersant Effectiveness of Heavy Fuel Oils and Weathered Crude 

Oils at Two Different Temperatures Using the Baffled Flask,” by Percin (2005) provides 

additional information. The proposed rule identifies specific crude oils and temperatures for 

each test, identifies species for toxicity tests, and the criteria that each product must meet for 

each test. The Agency considered a set of testing options and thresholds before selecting a set 

of preferred alternatives.

Dispersant Testing and Listing Requirements (part 300.915(b))

• Dispersant Efficacy test and listing criteria. Manufacturers or other submitters of 

dispersants are required to test the dispersant product for efficacy using the method in 

Appendix C to part 300. 

• Dispersant Toxicity test and listing criteria. Manufacturers or other submitters would be 

required to use the methods specified in Appendix C to part 300 to test the dispersant 

alone, the dispersant mixed with Alaska North Slope (ANS) and the dispersant mixed with 

May 22December 3, 2014 19
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Intermediate Fuel Oil (IFO)-120 for acute toxicity using Americamysis bahia and Menidia 

beryllina, for development toxicity using a sea urchin assay, and for sub-chronic effects.

• Limitations. Product listing would be for use only in saltwater environments. 

Surface Washing Agent Efficacy test and listing requirements (part 300.915(c))

• Surface Washing Agent Efficacy test and listing criteria. Using a standard recognized 

methodology, a surface washing agent must meet an efficacy of 30% in either freshwater

or salt water or both depending on the intended product use.

• Surface Washing Agent Toxicity test and listing criteria. Using the toxicity test 

methodology in Appendix C to part 300, test the surface washing agent for acute toxicity 

against freshwater species Ceriodaphnia dubia and Pimephales promelas, or saltwater 

species Americamysis bahia and Menidia beryllina, or both, depending on the intended 

product use. 

• Limitations. Based on testing, product listing would be for use only in freshwater and/or 

saltwater environments for which it was tested and for which it met the efficacy and 

toxicity listing criteria.

Bioremediation Agent Testing and Listing Requirements (part 300.915(d))

• Bioremediation Agent Efficacy test and listing criteria. To be listed on the Schedule, a 

bioremediation agent must successfully degrade both alkanes and aromatics as 

determined by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) in saltwater or 

freshwater or both, depending on the intended product use. Test the bioremediation agent 

using the method specified in Appendix C to part 300. 

• Bioremediation Agent Toxicity test and listing criteria. The bioremediation agent must be 

tested for acute toxicity in saltwater, freshwater or both, depending on the intended 

product use, following the method specified in Appendix C to part 300. 

• Limitations. Based on testing, product listing would be for use only in freshwater and/or 

saltwater environments for which it was tested and for which it met the efficacy and 

toxicity listing criteria.

• Exceptions. If the product consists solely of: ammonium nitrate, ammonium phosphate,

ammonium sulfate, calcium ammonium nitrate, sodium nitrate, potassium nitrate, 

synthetically-derived urea, sodium triphosphate (or tripolyphosphate), sodium phosphate, 

potassium phosphate (mono- or dibasic), triple super phosphate, potassium sulphate or 

any combination thereof, no technical product data are required, are generically listed as 

non-proprietary nutrients on the Schedule, and no further action is necessary. 

Solidifier Testing and Listing Requirements (part 300.915(e))

• Solidifiers must be tested for acute toxicity in saltwater, freshwater or both, depending on 

the intended product use, following the method specified in Appendix C to part 300. 

• Limitations. Based on testing, product listing would be for use only in fresh water and/or 

saltwater environments for which it was tested and for which it met the toxicity listing 

criteria.

May 22December 3, 2014 20
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Herding Agent Testing and Listing Requirements (part 300.915(f))

• Herding agents must be tested for acute toxicity in saltwater, freshwater or both, 

depending on the intended product use, following the method specified in Appendix C to 

part 300. 

• Limitations. Based on testing, product listing would be for use only in fresh and/or 

saltwater environments for which it was tested and for which it met the toxicity listing 

criteria. 

 

Sorbent Listing Requirements (part 300.915(g))

• For sorbent products that consists solely of the following materials: feathers, cork, peat 

moss, and cellulose fibers such as bagasse, corncobs, and straw; volcanic ash, perlite, 

vermiculite, zeolite, and clay; and polypropylene, polyethylene, polyurethane, and 

polyester, or any combination thereof, no technical data are required and no further action 

is necessary for use as a sorbent. 

• If the product consists of one or more natural organic substances, inorganic/mineral 

compounds, and/or synthetic compounds not specifically identified in paragraph (g)(1) of 

this section but the manufacturer believes the product meets the definition of a sorbent

then, as applicable under §300.955(a) and (b), then the manufacturer has to submit 

information for listing it as a sorbent on the Sorbent Product List.

In addition to the efficacy and toxicity testing requirements (part 300.915 and Appendix 

C to part 300) for products to be listed on the Schedule, EPA is proposing to revise 

authorization for agent use (part 300.910(a)–(i)), add subsea and surface dispersant monitoring 

requirements (part 300.913) for certain oil discharge situations, and revise submission 

requirements (part 300.950 Submission of Confidential Business Information (CBI), part 

300.955 Addition of a product to the Schedule.) 

1.5 Organization of this Report

This RIA quantifies and monetizes the baseline costs, total compliance costs, and 

incremental costs for the proposal. The report also monetizes the benefits and calculates the 

benefit-cost and cost effectiveness ratios. The report also contains a description of the nonquantified and non-monetized benefits such as improved efficiency in processing submission 

packages and public health and environmental protection. In addition, the analysis examines the 

potential impacts on small businesses. The report is organized as follows:

• Chapter 2 summarizes the economic methods used for the regulatory impact analysis

• Chapter 3 describes the universe of regulated entities

• Chapter 4 estimates the baseline costs for the existing regulations.

• Chapter 5 discusses the estimated changes in compliance costs for the proposed 

revisions.

• Chapter 6 monetizesqualitatively describes the benefits of the proposed rule.

May 22December 3, 2014 21
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

• Chapter 7 presents a summary of the impacts of the proposed revisions on small 

businesses.

• Chapter 8 discusses key limitations of the analysis.

• Appendix A is the list of products on the June 28, 2011 Schedule.

• Appendix B contains three digit and six digit NAICS for manufacturers.

• Appendix C contains small business sensitivity analyses.

• Appendix D contains cost of response by oil discharge size.

• References contain economic literature, EPA and OMB guidance documents, and oil spill 

science and technology references.

May 22December 3, 2014 22
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

2.0 Methodology

EPA believes, subject to agreement by OMB, that the proposal is a significant regulatory 

action consistent with provision f(4) of EO 12866 “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 

51735; October 4, 1993) and EO 13563 (January 2011). EO 12866(f)(4) defines a rule as 

significant if it raises "novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's 

priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order." Given the total costs of the action, 

EPA has determined that the proposed rule is not an economically significant regulatory action

consistent with EO 12866(f)(1); it is a significant regulatory action, which requires a more 

rigorous analysis of the costs and benefits of the rule and of feasible alternatives. Nevertheless, 

to the extent possible with available data, this regulatory impact analysis is consistent with EO’s

12866 and 13563, EPA's "Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses" (September 2000, 

revised December 2010) and the OMB's Circular A-4 ("Regulatory Analysis"). The analysis also 

addresses the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act.

The remainder of this chapter presents the overall methodology used to estimate the 

regulatory impacts of the proposed Subpart J rule. Section 2.1 outlines the major steps of the 

analysis, and Section 2.2 describes the regulatory baseline for the analysis. Subsequent 

sections provide greater detail on specific steps and calculations.

2.1 General Approach to the Economic Analysis

The general approach to the economic analysis is to calculate the regulatory compliance 

costs and benefits for manufacturers or other submitters to comply with the proposed regulatory 

requirements. The analysis also contains costs for the RP to monitor subsea and surface 

dispersants for certain oil discharge situations. In addition to manufacturers for testing and 

responsible parties for monitoring, the costs to governmental entities, in this case EPA, are 

analyzed to implement and manage the program. The current regulations serve as the baseline 

for the economic analysis. The manufacturers with products that are on the current Schedule 

will be required to retest their products using the new efficacy and toxicity tests. The 

manufacturers of new products will be required to test their products using the new test methods 

and meet the new testing criteria. Attempts to quantify and monetize the benefits of the rule 

were limited by the lack of data on actual oil spill quantities and whether a credible and 

measurable increase in product performance under the proposed criteria could be estimated. 

The benefits section therefore attempts to comprehensively describe the potential benefits of 

the rule.

The benefit-cost analysis contains a series of discrete economic analyses for the 

proposed rule. The first analysis examines the universe of regulated facilities and the number of 

existing businesses that manufacture Subpart J products. Another analysis estimates the unit 

costs for each efficacy and toxicity test for the proposed rule. The RIA also provides information 

on the number of manufacturers that are projected to submit products for listing on the Schedule 

over the next 20 years. Information is provided for a 20-year period, a time horizon that will 

May 22December 3, 2014 23
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

include the 24-month transition period during which the final rule is fully implemented and that 

estimates the time span over which the revised regulations will be relevant. The 20-year time 

frame coincides with comprehensive changes in the Subpart J testing requirements. The 

original rules were written in 1968 and then comprehensive changes to the required tests 

occurred in 1994. Twenty years beyond 1994 brings us to the present and the current proposed 

rule, which institutes a major change in the testing requirements. Thus, a 20-year time frame 

appears reasonable in the context of the Subpart J program, although a much shorter

alternative of 5 years is also used to annualize the efficacy and toxicity testing costs.

One possible time horizon to consider in the analysis would be the average length of 

time that a product is listed on the Schedule. This average is difficult to estimate because 

products can remain on the Schedule for an unlimited length of time. Many products will 

continue to be on the Schedule past the current year, yet we can only observe the length of time 

on the schedule up to the present. As of December 2010, approximately 9years was the 

average time a product had been on the Schedule. This is a conservative estimate because out 

of approximately 200 products that had ever appeared on the Schedule (as of December 2010), 

just under half were still on the Schedule at that time, which was the end point of the data set. 

Thus, just under half of the products will have lives longer than the number of years they existed 

on the Schedule when the average was calculated. Since December 2010, and as of March 

2014, 28 new products have been accepted to and one product has been voluntarily removed 

from the Schedule. Another criteria for the time horizon could be the duration for a potential 

loan. This analysis uses a relatively conservative length of only 5 years for the sensitivity 

analysis to annualize the efficacy and toxicity testing costs.

This part of the analysis assesses the number of existing businesses that must retest 

their products and the businesses that must test new products using the new efficacy and 

toxicity tests in the proposed rule. Another analysis projects the number of new products that 

manufacturers will submit to EPA over the next twenty years for listing on the Schedule. The 

number of manufacturers and products projected over the 20-year time horizon was based on 

background historical and existing data available for the Subpart J program and program 

experience managing the Product Schedule. The analytical testing costs were obtained from 

historical program data and limited surveys of laboratories and manufacturers. 

In addition to testing costs, laboratories and manufacturers also provided information on 

the time required to read and understand the rule and prepare the submission packages for 

EPA. Labor-hour figures provided by the laboratories and manufacturers were multiplied by the 

corresponding fully loaded wage rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to estimate 

total labor costs. Non-labor unit costs or laboratory testing costs were multiplied by the number 

of products and manufacturers to calculate the compliance costs for the 1994 baseline 

requirements and for the proposed rule. Total labor and laboratory testing costs were summed 

to estimate total compliance costs. 

The difference in total regulatory compliance costs between the baseline and total 

regulatory compliance costs is the incremental cost of the proposed rule. Total regulatory 

compliance costs were estimated over a 20-year projection period. As described elsewhere, the 

May 22December 3, 2014 24
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

20-year time horizon is a period of time over which the market effects of the final rule including 

the 24-month transition period should be complete and the market should have returned to long 

term market equilibrium. The total present value of the stream of annual compliance costs was 

calculated and discounted at 3% and 7% rates. In the transition period (part 300.955(f)), 

manufacturers of existing products already on the Schedule will remain conditionally listed until 

24 months from the effective date. At the end of the 24-month period, all products that have not 

been tested in accordance with the final rule will be removed from the Schedule. Products that 

complete their testing will be transitioned from the current Schedule to the new Schedule after a 

new, complete application package is submitted and EPA makes a favorable finding to list the 

product on the new Schedule. New product manufacturers who apply for placement on the 

Schedule during the transition period will also conduct analytical tests using the new test 

methods and criteria in the proposed rule and Appendix C to part 300. After the first 24 months

following the effective date of the final rule, only manufacturers of new products that conducted 

the new efficacy and toxicity tests will be listed on the Schedule. 

All manufacturers incur costs on a one-time only basis to list products on the Schedule. 

For example, manufacturers with products on the Schedule incur costs during the transition 

period (part 300.955(f)). Manufacturers of new products incur costs for the required efficacy and 

toxicity tests in the year that they apply to list products on the Schedule. Although the costs for 

analytical testing are one-time costs, manufacturers benefit from having products on the

Schedule for long periods. As discussed earlier, the truncated data on the number of years on 

the Schedule indicate that the average time for a product in December 2010 was roughly 9

years. This analysis annualizes the efficacy and toxicity testing costs using a more conservative

alternative time frame as part of a sensitivity analysis, which should bound most reasonable 

scenarios, at a 5 year duration. The incremental annualized cost for each manufacturer is used 

in the small business analysis discussed later in the report. Please see the Small Business 

Analysis in Chapter 7 for additional information.

3.0 Government Entities and the Universe of Regulated Facilities

The universe of affected entities includes, but is not limited to, government entities and 

manufacturers of bioremediation agents, dispersants, surface-washing agents, solidifiers, 

herding agents, and sorbents used as countermeasures against oil spills. Other affected entities 

are those in the product supply chain such as privately contracted oil spill response 

organizations, vendors, analytical laboratories, and RP’s. The primary focus of this economic 

analysis is on the manufacturer of oil spill mitigating products. The manufacturer or 

manufacturer’s representative is often the entity that submits an application package to EPA to 

list a product. In some cases, a laboratory may be hired by the manufacturer to complete and 

submit the application package in addition to laboratory analytical services. EPA is the principal 

government entity affected by the proposed testing and listing requirements. EPA receives the 

application package submitted by a manufacturer, reviews these materials and makes the 

decision to list the product. 

May 22December 3, 2014 25
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

3.1 Government Entities Impacted by the Proposed Rule

EPA, as a government entity affected by this proposed rule, has the responsibility for 

managing the NCP Subpart J Product Schedule. In this capacity, EPA reviews submission 

packages and makes the listing decision. The labor burden to EPA under the existing 

regulations is reported in the OMB-approved ICR, EPA #1664.07, OMB 2050-0141. 

In the OMB-approved ICR, the analysis of the burden to EPA is to administer the 

Product Schedule under the existing regulations. Since the proposed regulations are not 

covered by ICR, EPA #1664.07, OMB 2050-0141, the labor burden to EPA under the proposed 

regulations is an incremental or additional burden above and beyond the OMB-approved ICR. 

This economic analysis will analyze the incremental burden to EPA to administer the 

requirements of the proposed rule.

3.2 Universe of Product Manufacturers

The analysis of the universe of regulated facilities contains four parts: (1) manufacturers of 

Subpart J products; (2) offshore oil and platform owners and operators, (3) oil spill response 

authorities, and (4) oil spill response companies and laboratories. The analysis of the universe 

of manufacturers uses the June 28, 2011 Schedule. The analysis of NAICS codes requires an 

extraction of data from D&B, a financial information publication company that charges for their 

services. EPA pulled data one time only for the June 28, 2011 Schedule at the time of the 

analysis. Manufacturers are not required to submit NAICS codes, employment and revenue 

data to EPA. However, this economic information is important to conduct economic and small 

business analysis. Therefore, EPA purchased a one-time extraction of data that provides 

important economic and small business information about the regulated industry. Affected 

Subpart J manufacturers on the June 28, 2011 Schedule reported 12 different three-digit NAICS 

codes and 32 different six-digit NAICS codes. 

For about one-half of the six digit NAICS codes, only one or two businesses reported the

code. The predominant three digit NAICS codes, indicated by the number of manufacturers 

reporting the codes, are:

• Support Activities for Mining (NAICS 213);

• Chemical Manufacturing (325);

• Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods (NAICS 424);

• Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (NAICS 541);

• Administrative and Support Services (NAICS 561); and

• Waste Management and Remediation Services (562).

The three-digit code reported by most manufacturers is NAICS 325 Chemical 

Manufacturing; 26 of the 65 manufacturers reporting their NAICS code to D&B reported NAICS 

325. Exhibit 3-1 contains the NAICS codes for 65 of the 86 manufacturers in the universe of 

facilities. Twenty-one of the manufacturers that did not report their NAICS codes are assumed 

May 22December 3, 2014 26
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

to follow a similar distribution. The list of three digit and six digit NAICS codes reported by 

companies on the June 28, 2011 Schedule are contained in Appendix B of this report.

In addition to regulated manufacturers impacted by the proposed rule, offshore oil and 

gas facility responsible parties are potentially impacted by the proposal if they have an oil spill

by part 300.913 Monitoring the Use of Dispersants. Section 3.3 Universe of Offshore Platforms, 

Authorities and Responders provide more information on these entities, the NAICS codes, and 

the universe of offshore platforms and waterborne petroleum and petroleum products.

Waterborne petroleum and petroleum products provides information that indicates the 

waterborne traffic by self-propelled vessels and barges. 

Exhibit 3-1

Subpart J Three Digit NAICS Codes and Descriptions

June 28, 2011 Schedule

(65 of 86 manufacturing reporting facilities)

NAICS (Three 

Digit Codes)

Number of 

Manufacturers NAICS Descriptions

213 2 Support Activities for Mining

237 1 Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction

325 26 Chemical Manufacturing

333 2 Machinery Manufacturing

336 1 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing

423 3 Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods

424 9 Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods

453 1 Miscellaneous Store Retailers

541 9 Professional, Scientific and Technical Services

561 2 Administrative and Support Services

562 7 Waste Management and Remediation Services

Other 2 Incorrect codes

Total 65 Manufacturers with NAICs codes

Additional 21 Manufacturers without NAICS codes

Grand Total 86 Total manufacturers

Sources: Dun and Bradstreet (D&B), SRA International, Inc., and EPA. D&B had NAICS codes for 65 of 86 

manufacturers on the June 28, 2011 Schedule. Two of the 65 manufacturers reported incorrect NAICS codes.

The analysis of manufacturers on the Schedule provides the basis for estimating the 

economic impact of the proposed rule. The proposed testing and listing requirements apply 

primarily to manufacturers. Certain requirements also apply to the owners and operators of 

offshore oil platforms and vessels, responsible parties, and authorities that decide which 

products should be used on a particular oil spill. Most of the compliance costs apply to 

manufacturers that must test or retest their products for efficacy and toxicity. 

This report contains data on the products listed on the Schedule each year over the past 

fifteen years and on the current Schedule. Past data on products on the Schedule provides 

May 22December 3, 2014 27
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

background for describing the progression of products and projecting the number of products 

that may be added to the Schedule in the next 20 years. This background data shows that 3.3 

products on average were listed each year between 1996 and 2009. If 2010 and 2011 product 

submissions are included, the average number is 5.2 products listed each year. This 

comparison appears to show that the Deepwater Horizon spill had an effect on product 

submissions and listings in 2010 and 2011. This was a market shock that had a temporary 

effect on submissions. After the market stabilized, the submissions returned to a new 

equilibrium. 

For the June 28, 2011 Schedule used for the economic analysis, there were 86

manufacturers and 99 products (22 bioremediation agents, 15 dispersants, 13 MOSCAs, and 49

surface washing agents) listed on the Schedule. In a comparison snapshot from the later May 

10, 2012 Schedule, there were 108 products (25 bioremediation agents, 18 dispersants, 14

MOSCAs, and 51 surface washing agents) submitted by 94 manufacturers. This comparison 

shows an increase of 10 products and 8 manufacturers, and includes one voluntary product 

removal, in less than one year. A detailed list of manufacturers and products on the June 28,

2011 Product Schedule is included in Appendix A of this document.

 

The Subpart J total compliance baseline and proposal costs for each efficacy and 

toxicity test depend on the number and types of products manufacturers submit for listing on the 

Schedule. The costs for efficacy and toxicity tests are different and vary by product and the 

number of products. Exhibit 3-2 presents the number of listed products for selected years 

between 1996 and 2011. 

Between 1996 and 2011, 72 products were listed on the Schedule. Also during this time, 

27 products that were on the Schedule prior to the 1994 amendments were relisted on the 

Schedule. During 2010, there were 25 new products submitted and listed on the Schedule. 

Given the profit motive, suppliers wanted to market products for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. 

Manufacturers capitalizing on these types of opportunities may do so again if there is another 

SONS.

May 22December 3, 2014 28
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Exhibit 3-2

Past Trends for New Listings on the NCP Product Schedule

(1996 – 2011 Selected Years)

Year Dispersants

Surface 

Washing 

Agents

Bioremediation 

Agents

Miscellaneous Oil Spill 

Control Agents 

(MOSCA)

Total

1996 1 1

1998 1 2 3

1999 1 1 2 4

2000 1 1 1 1 4

2001 1 3 1 5

2002 3 1 1 5

2003 1 1 2

2005 2 1 3

2006 2 1 3

2007 2 2

2008 1 1 1 1 4

2009 1 1

2010 18 4 3 25

2011 1 7 3 11

Total 11 38 16 8 73

Relisted 4 11 7 5 27

Grand 

Total 15 49 23 13 100

Note: This assumes that 27 products on the list before 1994 were relisted following the 1994 rule amendments.

Source: NCP Product Schedule database. The database is an informal data collection for the Subpart J program.

Based on past and current Schedule activity and program experience, EPA estimates 

that manufacturers on average will submit 10 new products to be listed on the Schedule each 

year. The estimate contains an assumption for a specific mix of products for listing on the

Schedule each year. It is assumed that there will be 2 bioremediation agents, 2 dispersants, 3 

solidifiers, and 3 surface washing agents listed yearly (Exhibit 3-3). Solidifiers are currently 

listed under MOSCA. As noted, the definitions for MOSCA and surface collecting agents will be 

removed and product specific categories will be substituted (e.g., solidifier, herding agent). The 

mix of products and projections are based upon past trends during years after the Exxon Valdez 

oil spills, but before the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The Deepwater Horizon spill created a 

market shock with a spike in submissions for several years and the market is returning to 

market equilibrium. The projection assumes that each product is submitted by a discrete 

manufacturer and that each manufacturer is required to comply with the amended requirements.

The mix of products and the total number of products projected over the next twenty years may 

be the high end of the range for submission of products to be listed on the Schedule during a 

period of market stability and equilibrium (i.e., without a SONS). 

May 22December 3, 2014 29
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Exhibit 3-3

Assumptions Used for the Listing of Products 

on the NCP Subpart J Schedule

(2012 – 2031)

Year

(2015-2031) Dispersants Bioremediation 

Agents Solidifiers

Surface 

Washing 

Agents

2012 2 2 3 3

2013 2 2 3 3

2014 2 2 3 3

2015 2 2 3 3

2016 2 2 3 3

2017 2 2 3 3

2018 2 2 3 3

2019 2 2 3 3

2020 2 2 3 3

2021 2 2 3 3

2022 2 2 3 3

2023 2 2 3 3

2024 2 2 3 3

2025 2 2 3 3

2026 2 2 3 3

2027 2 2 3 3

2028 2 2 3 3

2029 2 2 3 3

2030 2 2 3 3

2031 2 2 3 3

Note: This is an EPA projection based upon historical trends and program experience for listings on the Subpart J 

NCP Product Schedule. The market shock caused by the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico affected

the number of actual submissions and listings for several years.

The efficacy and toxicity testing cost and the costs to prepare and submit a product for 

listing on the Schedule remain the same whether or not EPA lists the product. Therefore, 

compliance costs are determined for all manufacturers that submit an application package to list 

a product on the Schedule, rather than just for those that are listed by EPA. Products that meet 

the data requirements in the Subpart J rule are listed on the Schedule.

3.3 Universe of Offshore Platforms, Authorities, and Responders

Exhibit 3-4 contains the description and lists the NAICS codes for offshore oil 

production platforms owners and operators and oil spill authorities and responders regulated by 

May 22December 3, 2014 30
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

the proposed rule. Exhibit 3-5 lists the number of offshore oil platforms and the volume of 

petroleum and petroleum waterborne commerce in the United States.

Monitoring the Use of Dispersants

40 CFR Part 300.913 contains proposed monitoring requirements including a description 

of potential ecological and wildlife impacts. The U.S. Geological Survey incident data indicate 

that there were 21 spills greater than 100,000 gallons between 1990 and 2011, or approximately 

one per year, some of which would have used dispersants, and some of which might also have 

been monitored. The trend of the frequency and volume of oil spills in the past, along with other 

appropriate information, informs forecasts of oil spills in the future. 

The proposed rule contains the following new monitoring requirements:

As directed by the OSC, the responsible party must monitor any subsurface use of 

dispersant in response to an oil discharge, surface use of dispersant in response to oil 

discharges of more than 100,000 U.S. gallons occurring within 24 hours, and continuous

surface use of dispersant for more than 96 hours in response to an oil discharge. Upon 

initiation and for the duration of dispersant use under these conditions, the responsible party 

shall: 

(a) Document the characteristics of the source oil; best estimate of the oil discharge flow 

rate, periodically reevaluated as conditions dictate, including a description of the method, 

associated uncertainties, and materials; dispersant(s) product used, rationale for 

dispersant product choice(s) including the results of any efficacy and toxicity tests 

specific to area or site conditions, recommended dispersant-to-oil ratio; and the 

application method and procedures, including a description of the equipment to be used, 

hourly application rates, capacities, and total amount of dispersant needed. For 

subsurface discharges also document the best estimate of the discharge flow rate of any 

associated volatile petroleum hydrocarbons, periodically reevaluated as conditions 

dictate, including a description of the method, associated uncertainties, and materials. 

(b) Collect a representative set of background water column samples, following 

standard operating and quality assurance procedures, at the closest safe distance as 

determined by the OSC from the discharge and in any direction of likely transport 

considering surface and subsurface currents and oil properties for the parameters listed 

below. Collect daily water column samples daily in the dispersed oil plume, following 

standard operating and quality assurance procedures, at such depths and locations 

where dispersed oil may be present and test for:

(1) In-situ oil droplet size distribution, including mass or volume mean diameter for 

particle sizes ranging from 2.5 to 2,000 micrometers, with the majority of data 

collected between the 2.5 and 100 micrometer size; 

(2) In-situ fluorometry and fluorescence signatures targeted to the type of oil 

discharged and referenced against the source oil;

(3) Dissolved oxygen;

May 22December 3, 2014 31
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

(4) Total petroleum hydrocarbons, individual resolvable constituents including volatile 

organic compounds, aliphatic hydrocarbons, mono-cyclic, polycyclic, and other 

aromatic hydrocarbons including alkylated homologs, and hopane and sterane 

biomarker compounds;

(5) Carbon Dioxide (subsurface only);

(6) Methane, if present (subsurface only);

(7) Heavy metals, including nickel and vanadium; 

(8) Turbidity;

(9) Water temperature;

(10) pH; and

(11) Conductivity.

(c) In consultation with the OSC, characterize the dispersant effectiveness and oil 

distribution, considering the condition of oil, dispersant, and dispersed oil components 

from the discharge location.

(d) In consultation with the OSC, characterize the ecological receptors (e.g. aquatic 

species, wildlife, and/or other biological resources) and their habitats that may be 

present in the discharge area and their exposure pathways. Include those species that 

may be in sensitive life stages, transient or migratory species, breeding or breedingrelated activities (e.g., embryo and larvae development), and threatened and/or 

endangered species that may be exposed to the oil that is not dispersed, the dispersed 

oil, and the dispersant alone. Estimate an acute toxicity level of concern for the 

dispersed oil using available dose/response information relevant to potentially exposed 

species.

(e) Immediately report to the OSC any:

(1) Deviation of more than 10 percent from the mean hourly dispersant use rate for 

subsurface application, based on the dispersant volume authorized for 24 hours 

use, and the reason for the deviation; and

(2) Ecological receptors, including any threatened or endangered species that may 

be exposed based on dispersed plume trajectory modeling and level of concern 

information.

(f) Report daily to the OSC water sampling and data analyses collected in (b) and 

include:

(1) Specific hourly dispersant application rate and the total amount of dispersant 

used for the previous reporting period established by the OSC with concurrence 

from the EPA representative to the RRT;

(2) All collected data and analysis of that data within a time frame necessary to 

make operational decisions (e.g., within 24 hours of collection), including 

documented observations, photographs, video, and any other information related 

to dispersant use, unless an alternate time frame is authorized by the OSC;

(3) For analyses that take more than 24 hours due to analytical methods, provide 

such data and results within 5 days, unless an alternate time frame is authorized 

by the OSC; and

May 22December 3, 2014 32
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

(4) Estimates of the daily transport of dispersed and non-dispersed oil and 

associated volatile petroleum hydrocarbons, and dispersants, using the best 

available trajectory modeling. 

May 22December 3, 2014 33
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Exhibit 3-4

Offshore Oil Platforms, Authorities, and Service Providers

Description NAICS Codes

Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction 211111

Petroleum refineries 324110

Petroleum and petroleum products merchants 

wholesalers

424720

Environmental consulting services 541620

Remediation services 562910

Note: Offshore oil platforms are located on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The OCS is all submerged lands 

lying seaward of state coastal waters, which are under U.S. jurisdiction. (Source: DOI/BOEM)

Oil spills and oil discharges can occur at any point in the “life cycle” of petroleum –

during exploration and production; transport by vessel, pipeline, railroad, or tanker truck, 

refining; storage, consumption or usage as fuel or raw material for manufacturing; or waste 

disposal (Fingas 2011). Products on the Schedule would likely be used on the largest spills. The 

largest worldwide oil spills that would likely use these products would occur in offshore waters, 

such as offshore oil platforms or vessels that have a significant discharge in open waters. In the 

United States, there have been two: T/V Mandoil (42,857 tons – 1968), T/V Exxon Valdez 

(37,415 tons – 1989) 2

. The Deepwater Horizon (2010 – 200 million gallons) in the Gulf of 

Mexico is a recent large worldwide oil spill. Thus, a large vessel or oil platform could be the 

source of an oil discharge that requires the use of a product on the Schedule or monitoring by 

the RP. 

EPA consulted a number of sources to provide information on the number of platforms 

and vessels that could discharge oil and where the use of products listed on the Schedule could 

be authorized. The U.S. Department of Transportation (2001) grouped oil spill sources into five 

categories: oil-laden tankers underway, oil-laden-barges underway, tanker lightering operations, 

all offshore facilities and onshore marine transportation-related facilities, and bunker fuel tanks.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Waterborne Commerce of the United States 

(WCUS) Part 5 National Summaries provides statistics on waterborne commerce by commodity 

groups through their National Data Center. The U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) issues permits 

for offshore oil platforms and maintains the database for the facilities. Information on the number 

of platforms and vessels that could discharge oil can be found in these sources. 

Certain discharges originating from offshore oil platforms or vessels, including barges,

self-propelled vessels and oil transport tankers meet the criteria proposed at part 300.913 for 

subsurface and surface dispersant monitoring. Exhibit 3-5 shows the number of oil platforms on 

the Gulf and Pacific Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) from 2001 to 2010 from the U.S. Department 

of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). BOEM (http://www.boem.gov) 

reports in “Offshore Stats and Facts” that no production facilities have been installed on the 

Atlantic or Alaska OCS. The exhibit also contains the amount of petroleum and petroleum 

2 Fingas, Mervin (2011). Oil Spill Science and Technology, Chapter 2, p 15

May 22December 3, 2014 34

 
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

products in waterborne commerce each year from the USACE database and report “Waterborne 

Commerce of the United States, Calendar Year 2010.” 

Exhibit 3-5

Offshore Oil Platforms and Petroleum and Petroleum Products in Waterborne 

Commerce (2001 - 2010)

Year Offshore Oil Platforms1

(count)

Petroleum and Petroleum Products2

(million short tons)

2001 4,045 1,055.3

2002 4,025 1,017.9

2003 3,977 1,080.5

2004 3,909 1,127.1

2005 3,886 1,111.4

2006 3,887 1,122.2

2007 3,815 1,133.0

2008 3,739 1,086.3

2009 3,547 1,016.4

2010 3,409 1,018.8

Notes:

1. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), “Offshore Stats and Facts,” 

accessed August 3, 2012, http://www.boemre.gov.

2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Institute for Water Resources “Waterborne Commerce of the United 

States, Calendar Year 2012 Part 5 – National Summaries.”

Chapter 6 provides additional information on the volume of oil spills reported to the 

National Response Center (NRC), maintained by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). EPA has 

conducted an analysis of the oil spills reported to the National Response Center (NRC). The 

data compiled and maintained by the USCG, DOI/BOEM, and USACE can help inform the 

population of platforms and vessels with waterborne petroleum and petroleum products and the 

possible frequency and volume of future oil spills, based upon past oil spills where the use of 

products listed on the Schedule could be authorized.

4.0 Regulatory Baseline for the Economic Analysis

OMB Circular A-4 (OMB, September 17, 2003) states that the benefits and costs are 

defined in comparison with a clearly stated alternative. This will normally be a “no action” 

baseline: what the world will be like if the proposed rule is not adopted. The baseline assumes 

no change in the regulatory program under consideration. The baseline serves as the primary 

point of comparison for an analysis of a proposed regulatory or policy action. In this analysis, 

the baseline for proposed requirements includes the existing requirements, which were last 

amended on September 15, 1994 (59 FR 47453) and codified at 40 CFR Part 300 Subpart J –

Use of Dispersants and Other Chemicals.

There are several key areas in the proposed rule for economic analysis. The first is the 

revisions to part 300.910(a)-(i) Authorization for Agent use requirements. The second is a new 

May 22December 3, 2014 35
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

section on Monitoring the Use of Dispersants, part 300.913. The third is part 300.915 Data and 

Information Requirements for Product Schedule Listing. The second and third areas impose 

costs and all three areas generate benefits under the proposed rule.

Baseline for Government Entities

EPA is the government entity impacted by the proposed rule. The existing OMBapproved ICR for the NCP Subpart J Product Schedule (EPA #1664.07, OMB 2050-0141) is the 

baseline for impacts on EPA. The ICR shows that the labor burden is 280 hours under the 

assumption that EPA will receive 14 products each year. Under the assumptions of this RIA, 

there will be 10 new products per year, resulting in a baseline of 200 hours of labor. 

Baseline for Proposed Monitoring Requirements

The proposed rule requires the RP to monitor the use of dispersants, a completely new 

requirement under Subpart J (section 300.913). At present, monitoring is sometimes carried out 

jointly by USCG and other government entities. The rule will shift the burden of these costs to 

RPs, thereby internalizing them. While some monitoring of dispersant use has occurred in past 

spills without being required by Subpart J, we have no estimates of the frequency of monitoring 

or associated expenditures. Therefore, we do not estimate baseline monitoring costs and 

essentially assume they are zero which is likely a significant underestimate.

Baseline for Proposed Revision of Authorization of Agent Use

The proposal also contains revisions to part 300.910 Authorization for agent use 

requirements. These revisions impose no additional costs on Regional Response Teams and 

Area Committees. Part 300.910(h) Recovery of Oil and Agents from the Environment imposes 

costs, if any, on RPs: 

(h) Recovery of Agents from the Environment. Depending on factors such as the safety 

of response personnel and harm to the environment, and as directed by the OSC, the 

responsible party shall ensure that any removal action adequately contains, collects, stores and 

disposes of agents that are intended to be recovered from the environment.

The recovery of Subpart J products would likely include sorbents, solidifiers, and surface 

washing agents. Recovery of such agents used on an oil spill is a cost associated with the 

response to the spill, not an incremental cost imposed by the Subpart J proposed rule. Thus, 

there are no incremental costs to RPs for part 300.910(h) requirements.

Baseline for Product Manufacturers

The proposal contains new requirements for efficacy and toxicity testing for existing and 

new products. Under the new rule, the full costs of re-testing are incurred by product

manufacturers with existing products on the Schedule. The re-testing costs are incremental to 

the proposed rule. For new products, their incremental cost is only the difference between the

existing testing costs and the new testing costs. Thus for product manufacturers, the 

May 22December 3, 2014 36
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

incremental costs of the proposed rule are the sum of re-testing costs for existing products on 

the Schedule and the incremental costs of testing new products submitted by manufacturers in 

the future.

To determine the regulatory baseline for manufacturers, EPA estimated the 

administrative and paperwork costs and the efficacy and toxicity testing costs for each product 

under the existing rule. The costs for efficacy and toxicity tests in the baseline were compiled 

from data submitted to EPA as part of Schedule submissions, from a limited sample survey of 

nine manufacturers and nine laboratories, and past Agency experience. 

Exhibit 4-1 A summarizes the baseline labor costs to manufacturers of preparing and 

submitting documentation for bioremediation agents, dispersants, MOSCAs, and surface 

washing, collecting agents. Estimates of labor hours needed vary from low to high. Three labor 

categories are included: technical, managerial, and clerical. The final column illustrates the 

estimated average total labor cost per manufacturer per product is $1,100 for all products 

except surface washing, collecting agents for which the average total labor cost is $1,047. 

Exhibit 4-1 A also reports the estimated baseline labor costs to manufacturers of 

infrequent burden items such as sorbent documentation, and reformulation of product and 

resubmission of data. The estimated average total labor cost per manufacturer per item varies 

between $129 and $1,877.

Exhibit 4-1 B summarizes the baseline cost analysis of the existing Subpart J rule 

requirements for product manufacturers. In addition to the costs of preparing and submitting 

documentation and infrequent burden items, Exhibit 4-1 B shows the costs of efficacy and 

saltwater toxicity tests. The annual number of manufacturers facing each of these cost 

categories varies between 1 and 10. The bottom row of Exhibit 4-1 B shows estimates of the 

total regulatory baseline compliance cost, projected over the 20-year time horizon, of $1.4

million discounted at 3% and $1.0 million discounted at 7%. The total baseline annual cost for 

manufacturers is estimated as $91,000. The total and annual baseline costs also appear in 

Exhibit 1 in the Executive Summary. (Refer to Exhibit 1 for a summary of the economic 

analysis.)

May 22December 3, 2014 37
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Exhibit 4-1A 

Baseline Labor Costs

Hours Per Respondent Per Product Total Hours Per

Respondent Per Product

Total Labor Cost Per Respondent 

Technical Managerial Clerical Per Product

Low High Avg. Low High Avg. Low High Avg. Low High Avg. Low High Avg.

Prepare and Submit Documentation

Bioremediation

Agents 7 18 12.5 1.4 3.6 2.5 5 10 7.5 13.4 31.6 22.5 $639 $1,561 $1,100

Dispersants 7 18 12.5 1.4 3.6 2.5 5 10 7.5 13.4 31.6 22.5 $639 $1,561 $1,100

MOSCA 7 18 12.5 1.4 3.6 2.5 5 10 7.5 13.4 31.6 22.5 $639 $1,561 $1,100

Surface Washing, 

Collecting Agents 6.5 17 11.75 1.3 3.4 2.35 5 10 7.5 12.8 30.4 21.6 $604 $1,491 $1,047

Infrequent Burden Items

Sorbent 

Documentation 2 2 2 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.75 3 3 3 $153 $153 $153

Re-test 2 2 2 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 $129 $129 $129

Request for 

review of EPA 

Decision

5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 10 10 10 $624 $624 $624

Reformulate 

Product and 

Re-Submit Data

11.63 32.5 22.06 2.33 6.5 4.41 7 15 11 20.95 54 37.48 $1,024 $2,731 $1,877

May 22December 3, 2014 38
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Exhibit 4-1 B

Baseline Testing, Labor, Annual and Total Costs

Cost

Number of 

Annual 

Respondents

Annual Cost

Total Costs -

20 Years 

(3%)

Total Costs -

20 Years 

(7%)

Prepare and Submit Documentation

Bioremediation Agents $1,100 2 $2,200 $33,719 $24,943

Dispersants $1,100 2 $2,200 $33,719 $24,943

MOSCA $1,100 3 $3,301 $50,578 $37,415

Surface Washing, Collecting Agents $1,047 3 $3,141 $48,139 $35,610

Efficacy Tests

Bioremediation Agents $15,000 2 $30,000 $459,714 $340,068

Dispersants $1,850 2 $3,700 $56,698 $41,942

Saltwater Toxicity Tests

Dispersants $5,150 2 $10,300 $157,835 $116,757

MOSCA $5,150 3 $15,450 $236,753 $175,135

Surface Washing, Collecting Agents $5,150 3 $15,450 $236,753 $175,135

Infrequent Burden Items

Sorbent Documentation $153 10 $1,529 $23,435 $17,336

Re-test $129 2 $258 $3,948 $2,920

Request for Review of EPA Decision $624 2 $1,249 $19,137 $14,157

Reformulate Product and Re-Submit 

Required Data $1,877 1 $1,877 $28,770 $21,282

TOTAL BASELINE COSTS OF 

TESTING AND LABOR $90,656 $1,389,197 $1,027,642

The economic analysis estimates the incremental impacts of the changes to the existing 

requirements by the proposed rule. The proposal contains changes and revisions to the existing 

regulatory requirements. Changes in efficacy and toxicity testing requirements are contained in 

the Subpart J proposed rule and specified in Appendix C to part 300. Manufacturers will also 

need additional time to read and understand changes to the Subpart J rule and complete the 

submission package. All of these costs are calculated relative to the baseline and are the 

incremental costs of the rule, as discussed in the next chapter. 

May 22December 3, 2014 39
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

5.0 Government and Private Sector Total Cost of Compliance

There are impacts and incremental compliance costs under the proposed rule that may 

be incurred by government entities and different regulated facilities. Chapter 3 describes the 

government entities and universe of regulated facilities that may be impacted by the proposed 

rule. The government entity affected by the action is EPA. The universe of regulated facilities 

contains domestically and internationally located product manufacturers and offshore platform 

owners and operators, authorities, and oil spill responders. Indirectly, analytical laboratories, 

vendors, wholesalers and manufacturing representatives may be impacted by the proposed 

regulations. Please see Chapter 3 for additional information on the universe of Subpart J 

regulated facilities.

In discussing the costs of the proposed rule updates, it is important to distinguish 

between new and existing product manufacturers. For the existing manufacturers, to keep 

existing products on the list in the baseline, no action (or costs) would be required with respect 

to the Subpart- J rule. So all of their testing and labor costs are incremental to the proposed 

update to the Subpart J rule. On the other hand, new manufacturers would still be required to do 

tests and other requirements to be listed on the Subpart-J list in the baseline. For them, the 

incremental costs are due to the differences between the baseline listing requirements and the 

proposed listing requirements (which now require more actions and costs).

5.1 Labor Hours and Costs

Government Costs

EPA is the government entity that is impacted by the proposed rule. The OMB-approved 

ICR (EPA#1664.07, OMB 2050-0141) shows that the EPA burden under the existing regulations 

is 280 hours each year, with approximately 20 hours per product. At the estimated federal 

employee hourly rate to manage the Subpart J Product Schedule, this is about $18,909 each 

year. The proposed rule will increase the labor burden and costs to EPA, because the Agency 

will have to review more material in each submission package. In addition, the Agency will have 

to review more packages in the 24-month transition period, because manufacturers must re-test 

each product on the Schedule. 

The ICR indicates that the average EPA burden to implement a product listing on the 

Subpart J list is, on average 7 hours to process submitted data, 6 hours to review data to make 

a listing determination, 4 hours to notify a respondent of decision and 3 hours to store data 

(yielding an average of 20 hours). The latter two categories should not be affected by the new 

requirements. However, we assume that the new rule requirements will increase the first two 

categories by 50%, increasing the total EPA burden to 26.5 hours per product. The following 

table illustrates the incremental EPA labor burden. Since all existing product resubmission costs 

are incremental, the full cost of $84,953 for existing products is added to the incremental cost of 

new products. The incremental cost of new products is a result of the additional 6.5 hours per 

product. After year 2 there are no longer any existing products listing, so the incremental costs 

May 22December 3, 2014 40
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

are solely the result of new products. Consequently, the annualized costs of EPA’s burden over 

20 years is $13,202 (at 3%) or $17,098 (at 7%).

Exhibit 5-1 EPA Burden

Year 1 Year 2 Years 3-20

Existing Product Applicants 59 40 0

Existing Products Baseline Cost 0 0 0

Existing Products Proposed cost $84,953 $57,595 $0

New Product Applicants 10 10 10

New Products Baseline Cost $10,867 $10,867 $10,867

New Products Proposed Cost $14,399 $14,399 $14,399

Total Incremental Cost $88,485 $61,127 $3,532

Authorization of Agent Use (part 300.910)

40 CFR Part 300.910(a)-(i) clarifies the existing requirements. The RRTs and Area 

Committees are required to address in a preauthorization plan whether the use of chemical and 

biological agents listed on the Schedule on certain oil discharges is appropriate (part 

300.910(a)). They are also required, as appropriate, to include the preauthorization plans in 

RCPs and ACPs. The OSC may use the agents for their intended purpose when they are 

included in the preauthorization plan without obtaining specific concurrences. 

40 CFR Parts 300.910(a)(1), (2), and (3) provide for preauthorization plan, approval and 

reviews. 40 CFR Part 300.910(b) provides for agent use on oil discharges not addressed by a 

preauthorization plan. Part 300.910(c) provides for the authorization of burning agents and

300.910(d) provides exceptions for agent use to substantially reduce threats to human life, (e) 

prohibited agents, (f) storage and use of agents, (g) supplementary testing, monitoring and 

information, (h) recovery of agents from the environment, and (i) reporting of agent use. 

The incremental burden for members of the RRTs and Area Committees requires labor 

hours to participate in the development of preauthorization plans and to add them to RCPs and 

ACPs. The incremental estimate for these activities is 2 hours. 

Monitoring Costs (part 300.913)

The total cost of the monitoring requirements by the responsible party, described in 

Section 3.2, is incremental to the proposed rule. There are no monitoring requirements in the 

existing regulations. While monitoring of dispersant use has probably occurred in past spills and 

thus in the baseline, we have no information on frequency or costs of baseline monitoring. Thus,

we assume it is $0, which causes our monitoring cost estimates to be conservative.

Two methods were used to analyze the monitoring costs: (a) identify prices for 

equipment and processes for monitoring dispersants, and (b) identify literature that can inform 

the costs of dispersant monitoring programs. In the first approach, websites for manufacturers of 

monitoring equipment were accessed to identify prices for different types of equipment to 

May 22December 3, 2014 41
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

monitor dispersants (e.g., fluorometer). Other equipment and prices were identified that 

established a range of costs to monitor dispersants. For the literature, two books contained 

methods monitoring, equipment and equipment prices for monitoring: (1) NRC (2005); and (2) 

Fingas (2011). Both books contain information on monitoring for dispersants and the prices of 

equipment. 

The monitoring provisions include, among other requirements, in-situ oil droplet size 

distribution and in-situ fluorometry and fluorescence signatures targeted to the type of oil 

discharged and referenced against the source oil. The National Research Council (NRC) report

on oil spill dispersants estimates that a monitoring program costs for a field trial of dispersant 

effectiveness is about $500,000. Prices and detailed information in Fingas (2011) appear to 

support this estimate. 40 CFR Part 300.913 is limited to in-situ monitoring (part 300.913(b)(2)

and Fingas (2011) and NRC (2005) costs are higher than the expected incremental costs for the 

proposed rule requirements. Moreover, the research of equipment prices on fluoro-sensor

supplier websites estimate costs, subject to price quotes, that range from $5,000 to $10,000 

each. A large oil spill, such as Deepwater Horizon, would require multiple fluoro-sensors and 

other monitoring and laboratory equipment (GC/MS) to provide adequate and timely data. This 

equipment may be available after a spill or the life cycle may be exhausted during a specific 

spill. The exact cost depends upon the size and location of an oil spill and the life of the 

equipment. (For additional information on in-situ fluorometry, please see paper #246, 1999 

International Oil Spill Conference, “A Primer on In Situ Fluorometry to Monitor Disperse Oil.”)

For this analysis, we have estimated that monitoring an oil discharge for dispersants is 

about $500,000 annually, the estimated costs for field trial monitoring in NRC, to be 

conservative. These costs can vary significantly depending upon the frequency, volume and 

location of oil discharges. The incremental costs of monitoring for a dispersant by a responsible 

party depends upon the frequency and volume of oil spills that would meet the criteria in part 

300.913: (1) any subsurface use of dispersant to an oil discharge, (2) surface use of dispersant 

in response to an oil discharge of more than 100,000 gallons occurring within 24 hours, and (3) 

surface use of dispersant for more than 96 hours in response to an oil discharge. The U.S. 

Coast Guard (USCG) incident data contain 21 spills (approximately one per year over the 1990 

to 2010 period) above 100,000 gallons that would be required to monitor for dispersants. These

oil spills would result in a cost of monitoring of approximately $500,000 each year. Assuming 

baseline costs are $0 and thus being conservative, the total incremental compliance cost would 

be approximately $7,700,000 ($5,700,000) discounted at 3% (7%), respectively. These cost 

estimates appear in Exhibit 1. Please see Chapter 6 for additional information on the frequency 

and size of oil spills reported to the NRC. 

Product Testing Costs (part 300.915)

There are two types of costs that product manufacturers may incur to comply with the 

proposed rule: (1) administrative and paperwork costs; and (2) efficacy and toxicity test costs. 

Existing manufacturers will incur costs for the additional paperwork requirements to review the 

rule changes, to understand the new listing requirements, and prepare product application 

packages consistent with the amended requirements. New manufacturers require time to 

understand the rule and prepare packages based upon the entire rule requirements. 

May 22December 3, 2014 42
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Exhibit 5-2 lists the required administrative and paperwork data elements and labor 

hours for each data element by product category. The required data elements and labor hours 

are used in combination with labor costs from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to 

analyze the administrative and paperwork costs of the proposed rule. The largest incremental 

costs for compliance with the proposed rule are the efficacy and toxicity re-testing costs for 

existing products on the Schedule and testing new products with the revised analytical 

laboratory protocols in part 300.915 and Appendix C to part 300.

5.2 Data and Test Requirements

Under the proposed revisions to Subpart J, manufacturers who wish to list a product on 

the Schedule need to report data items listed in Exhibit 5-2. Exhibit 5-2 presents requirements 

under the existing Subpart J rule (baseline scenario) and additional requirements under the 

proposed rule. General product information is required for all product types (part 300.915(a)).

Requirements that differ across product types are reflected. 

General product information is currently required to be submitted under Subpart J. The 

Agency is proposing revisions to several of the existing general requirements. These revisions 

propose new data and information requirements to better characterize the nature of the product. 

To assist EPA in product listing decisions the list of proposed changes to the list of general 

product information requirements includes:

• Identification and documentation by the submitter of its status in relationship to the 

product as the manufacturer, vendor, importer, distributor, or other designated agent of 

the manufacturer.

• Chemical or biological agent categories under which the product is submitted for listing, 

including information on the specific process(es) through which the product affects the oil, 

and the specific environment(s) (water and/or adjoining shorelines) on which it is intended 

to be used.

• Copy of the Safety Data Sheet (SDS) required by the Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) under their Hazard Communication Standard (HAZCOM) for the 

product.

• Sample product label for all names, brands, or trademarked versions of the product that 

include the manufacture and expiration dates of the product, as well as the conditions for 

storage.

• Environmental fate information on any known and available measured data and 

supporting documentation on the persistence, bioconcentration factor, bioaccumulation 

factor, and biodegradability of the product and/or all of its components.

• New physical/chemical properties and removal of the incorporation by reference of the 

measurement standards. 

• Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) Registry Numbers for each component in a product.

May 22December 3, 2014 43
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

• Certification that bioremediation agents do not contain, at levels that exceed the National 

Ambient Water Quality Criteria lowest density value, bacterial, fungal, viral or opportunistic 

pathogens. 

• Certification that the product does not contain levels that exceed the National Water 

Quality Standards lowest acute value for aquatic life of the following contaminants: 

arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, zinc, or any other heavy 

metal reasonably expected to be in the product; cyanide; chlorinated hydrocarbons; 

pesticides; polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons 

(PAHs). 

• Removal of the requirement for laboratories performing the efficacy and toxicity testing for 

products to have prior experience specific to the required methodology in lieu of 

recognized national or international accreditations. 

• Estimated annual product production volume, average and maximum amounts that could 

be produced per day, and time frame needed to reach maximum production rate (days). 

• Recognition received from EPA’s Design for the Environment (DfE). International product 

certification, testing or use data informing the performance capabilities or environmental 

benefits of the product.

May 22December 3, 2014 44
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

EXHIBIT 5-2

Data Items Required Under NCP Subpart J

Response Form Items Respondent Activity Oil Spill Mitigating Agent

BA D MA* SCA* SWA

Existing Data Requirements

Name, brand, or trademark, if any, under which the product is sold

Simple Information

X X X X X

Name, address, and telephone number of the manufacturer, importer or vendor X X X X X

Name, address and telephone number of primary distributors or sales outlets X X X X X

Special handling information and worker precautions for storage and field application, 

including maximum and minimum storage temperatures Short Answer X X X X X

Shelf life information Simple Information X X X X X

Recommended application procedures, concentrations, and conditions for use Short Answer X X X X X

Results of the effectiveness test set forth in Appendix C of the NCP Narrative Answer X X

Result of the toxicity test set forth in Appendix C of the NCP Narrative Answer X X X X

Physical properties covered by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 

reference standards Short Answer X X X X

Test results for distinguishing surface collecting agents from other chemical agents Short Answer X

List of product components Narrative Answer X X X X

The concentrations or upper limits of any heavy metals, cyanide, and chlorinated 

hydrocarbons Short Answer X X X X

Information on microbiological cultures, enzyme additives, and nutrient additives Narrative Answer X X

Identity of laboratory performing tests, the qualifications of the laboratory staff, and 

laboratory experience with similar tests Narrative Answer X X X X X

Proposed Data Requirements

SDS form review and submission Simple Information X X X X X

May 22December 3, 2014 45
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Sample product label Simple Information X X X X X

Chemical and biological agent category Short Answer X X X X X

Product use Narrative Answer X X X X X

Information on persistence, bioconcentration, bioaccumulation, and biodegradability Narrative Answer X X X X X

Certification that the product meets the National Ambient Water Quality Criteria and does 

not contain prohibited agents Narrative Answer X X X X X

Product volume capacity Simple Information X X X X X

Recognition under EPA’s Design for the Environment (DfE) Simple Information X X X X X

International product testing, use data or certifications Short Answer X X X X X

Results of new and revised efficacy tests set forth in Appendix C of the NCP: dispersants, 

surface washing agents, bioremediation agents Narrative Answer X X X X X

Results of revised toxicity tests set forth in Appendix C of the NCP: dispersants, surface 

washing agents, bioremediation agents, solidifiers, herding agents Narrative Answer X X X X X

Key: BA = Bioremediation Agent, D = Dispersant, MA = Miscellaneous Agent, SCA = Surface Collecting Agent and SWA = Surface washing Agent

* The definitions for MOSCA and SCA would be removed under the proposed rule. Herders and Solidifiers would be added; the proposed data requirements are the same.

Note: Manufacturers of sorbents with one or more substances not identified in 300.915(g)(1) would submit information.

May 22December 3, 2014 46
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

In addition to the data requirements listed in Exhibit 5-2, the proposed Subpart J rule 

would also require manufacturers to read and understand the proposed Subpart J rule. While 

manufacturers that are new to the Schedule may incur more burden than existing manufacturers 

in order to orient and familiarize themselves with NCP Subpart J as a whole, for this analysis 

EPA assumes that on average manufacturers of existing and new products would spend 2.5 

hours (1.0 hour of technical time, 0.5 hours of managerial time and 1.0 hour of clerical time) to 

read and understand the relevant sections of the Subpart J requirements. Manufacturers of 

products already on the Schedule would also incur the burden of submitting data to EPA 

associated with the additional proposed general and agent-specific revisions, as detailed in 

Exhibit 5-2.

Manufacturers that apply to list a new product on the Schedule would incur the 2.5-hour 

burden to familiarize themselves with the Subpart J requirements and would also incur the 

burden of preparing and submitting all existing and additional proposed data requirements 

detailed in Exhibit 5-2. Exhibit 5-3 presents the labor hour estimates to read and understand 

the Subpart J rule and to submit required data listed in Exhibit 5-2 by labor type (managerial, 

technical, clerical) for each product type. In addition, Exhibit 5-3 distinguishes between existing 

products already on the Schedule with the option to submit a new package for transitioning into 

the new Schedule based on the proposed classification categories, and for new products

applying for listing. 

Exhibit 5-3

Respondent Burden to Prepare and Submit Information to EPA Under Proposed NCP Subpart J

Subpart J Rule 

Requirement

Oil Spill Mitigating 

Agent

Unit Burden (hours)

Managerial Technical Clerical Total 

Low High Low High Low High Low High

Existing Products – Required Product Data

Read and understand 

Subpart J Rule All 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 2.5

Prepare and submit 

documentation to EPA 

(Requirements Listed in 

Exhibit 5-2)

Bioremediation Agents 1.00 3.00 5.00 15.00 2 5 8 23

Dispersants 1.40 4.00 7.00 20.00 2 5 10.4 29

MOSCA1 0.80 2.60 4.00 13.00 2 5 6.8 20.6

Surface Washing /

Collecting Agents 0.60 2.20 3.00 11.00 2 5 5.6 18.2

Average 0.95 2.95 4.75 14.75 2.00 5.00 7.70 22.70

New Products - Required Product Data

Read and understand 

Subpart J Rule All 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 2.5

Prepare and submit 

documentation to EPA 

(Requirements Listed in 

Exhibit 5-2)

Bioremediation Agents 2.4 6.6 12.00 33.00 7.00 15.00 21.4 54.6

Dispersants 2.8 7.6 14.00 38.00 7.00 15.00 23.8 60.6

MOSCA1 2.2 6.2 11.00 31.00 7.00 15.00 20.2 52.2

Surface Washing /

Collecting Agents 1.9 5.6 9.50 28.00 7.00 15.00 18.4 48.6

Average 2.3 6.5 11.6 32.5 7 15 21 54

1 – MOSCA is proposed to be deleted; these are typically Herders and Solidifiers in the proposed rule.

May 22December 3, 2014 47
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Infrequent Respondent Burden Items

In addition to the data requirements listed in Exhibits 5-2 and 5-3, there are a number of 

infrequent respondent burden items in the existing Subpart J rule that would continue under the 

proposed rule. The infrequent items are sorbents (part 300.915(g)(2)), review of EPA’s decision, 

and retesting for changes to a listed product. Exhibit 5-4 presents the burden hours for these 

infrequent items.

The proposal changes the requirement for sorbents. Under the existing rule, sorbents 

were not listed on the Schedule. That remains unchanged in the proposal, however it does

establish a publicly available Sorbent Product List in which known sorbent materials and 

products will be identified for their use when responding to an oil discharge. For sorbent 

products that consist solely of the following materials, or any combination thereof, no technical 

data will be required and no further action will be necessary for use as a sorbent:

• Feathers, cork, peat moss, and cellulose fibers such as bagasse, corncobs, and straw;

• Volcanic ash, perlite, vermiculite, zeolite, and clay; and

• Polypropylene, polyethylene, polyurethane, and polyester.

If the product consists of one or more natural organic substances, inorganic/mineral 

compounds, and/or synthetic compounds not specifically identified in the regulation, but the 

manufacturer believes the product meets the definition of a sorbent, then the manufacturer must 

submit the following information for consideration for listing it on the Sorbent Product List. The 

labor hours for submission of sorbents and other infrequent items are summarized in Exhibit 5-4

and described in the paragraphs that follow. 

For products consisting of one or more substances not specifically identified in the 

proposed listing, the Agency proposes submission requirements that include general and 

product characterization information required under paragraphs (a)(1) through (8), and 

paragraph (a)(13) of proposed §300.915. The submitter would also be required to include 

information to support the claim that the product meets the sorbent definition. The Agency will 

review the submission and make a determination to include the product as a sorbent on the 

Sorbent Product list. The unit burden for sorbent submission is estimated at 3 hours (0.25 hours 

of managerial time, 2 hours of technical time, and 0.75 hours of clerical time). EPA assumes 

that manufacturers of approximately 10 sorbents per year would submit data specified in part

300.915(g)(2).

EPA will continue to allow manufacturers to request a review of EPA’s decision not to list 

or re-list a product on the Schedule (part 300.955(d)) and to reformulate their product and 

resubmit information to EPA if a product fails to be listed (part 300.955(c)(4)). EPA will also 

continue to require manufacturers to re-test and resubmit supporting documentation if 

information is missing or contains errors.

May 22December 3, 2014 48
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Manufacturers of products on the current Schedule3 who would be required to prepare 

and submit additional documentation for re-testing are estimated to require 2.5 hours of labor 

burden. The re-testing burden for changes to a listed product is estimated to require 2 hours of 

technical time and 0.5 hours of clerical time. The appeal process to request a review of EPA’s 

decision not to list a product on the Schedule is expected to require approximately 5 hours of 

managerial and 5 hours of technical time. Preparing and submitting documentation for a 

reformulated product is assumed to require on average the same burden as for an original 

application. For this reason, the technical, managerial, and clerical burden for reformulated 

products are assumed to be equivalent to the average hours for data submission for all product 

types. Based on historical experience, EPA anticipates that there would be two re-tests each 

year; appealing EPA’s non-listing decision to occur twice annually; and submitting data for 

reformulated products to occur once annually. 

Exhibit 5-4

Unit Burden Associated with Infrequent Items

Infrequent Burden Item Agent

Unit Burden (Hours)

Managerial Technical Clerical Total

Low High Low High Low High Low High

Existing products

Sorbent Manufacturer Submission / 

Information Sorbents 0.25 0.25 2 2 0.75 0.75 3 3

Re-Test1

All

0 0 2 2 0.5 0.5 2.5 2.5

Request for Review of EPA Decision2 5 5 5 5 0 0 10 10

Reformulate Product and Re-Submit 

Required Data3 2.3 6.5 11.6 32.5 7.0 15.0 21.0 54.0

Notes:

1Re-testing burden for new products may be necessary if EPA determines there is missing information or errors in the 

supporting materials for the required effectiveness and/or toxicity tests (See section 300.920(a)(2)). 2 Manufacturers may request a review of EPA’s decision to not list a product on the Schedule (See section 

300.955(d)). 3 If necessary, reformulating a product and re-submitting the required data is assumed to require the same burden as 

preparing and submitting documentation for an original application (See section 300.955(e)); the burden presented 

represents the average of all oil spill mitigating agents.

In addition to the data requirements listed in Exhibits 5-3 and 5-4, the proposed revisions 

to Subpart J also involve changes to the effectiveness and toxicity tests currently required in 

part 300.915 and Appendix C to part 300 of the NCP. Exhibit 5-5 summarizes the existing and 

new tests would need to be performed for existing and new chemical and biological agents, by 

type, under the proposed revisions to Subpart J. 

3 Analyses based on the June 28, 2011 Schedule, when 86 manufacturers had 99 products listed on the NCP 

Schedule. The June 28, 2011 Schedule included: 22 bioremediation agents, 15 dispersants, 13 MOSCAs, and 49 

surface washing agents. 

May 22December 3, 2014 49

 
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Exhibit 5-5

Proposed Subpart J Rule Revisions: Existing and Proposed Testing Requirements

Product Type Existing Rule Testing 

Requirement Proposed Requirements for all products1

Bioremediation 

Agents

Current 

product

Efficacy test;

Appendix C

Toxicity test:

Reserved

Efficacy Testing:

Degrade both alkanes and aromatics as determined by GC/MS in saltwater, freshwater or both depending on use. 

The percentage reduction of total alkanes must be greater than or equal to 95% at day 28 and the percentage 

reduction of total aromatics must be greater than or equal to 70% at day 28 for salt water and greater than or equal 

to 40% for freshwater based UCL95.

Toxicity Testing:

The bioremediation agent must be tested for acute toxicity in saltwater, freshwater or both, depending upon 

intended product use. To be listed on the Schedule, the bioremediation agent must demonstrate an LC50 at the 

lower 95% confidence interval of greater than 10 ppm in either fresh or salt water for all tested species.

Dispersants Current 

product

Efficacy test:

SWT>45%

Toxicity test:

Certification of results

Efficacy Testing: 

Baffled Flask Test. Dispersant Efficacy at the lower 95% confidence level (LCL95) greater than: i) 55% for IFO-120 at 

5°C, ii) 65% for IFO-120 at 25°C, iii) 70% for ANS crude oil at 5°C, and iv) 75% for ANS at 25°C. 

Toxicity testing: 

Test dispersant alone, dispersant mixed with ANS and mixed with IFO-120 for acute toxicity, for development 

toxicity, and for sub-chronic effects. Acute LC50>10 ppm, developmental toxicity IC50>10 ppm and sub-chronic 

NOEC=>1 ppm.

Solidifiers Current 

product

Efficacy test:

NA

Toxicity test:

Appendix C

Efficacy Testing:

NA

Toxicity Testing:

To be listed on the Schedule, the solidifier must demonstrate an LC50 at the lower 95% confidence interval greater 

than 10 ppm in either freshwater, saltwater or both, depending upon the intended use, for all tested species.

Herding 

Agents

Current 

product

Efficacy test:

NA

Toxicity test:

Appendix C

Effectiveness Testing:

NA

Toxicity Testing:

To be listed on the Schedule, the herding agent must demonstrate an LC50 at the lower 95% confidence interval 

greater than 10 ppm in either freshwater, saltwater or both, depending upon intended use, for all tested species. 

Surface 

Washing 

Agents

Current 

product

Efficacy test:

NA

Toxicity test:

Appendix C

Efficacy test:

Using a standard recognized methodology, product must meet efficacy of 30% in fresh or saltwater or both 

depending on intended use.

Toxicity test:

Acute toxicity using freshwater, saltwater species depending upon use. LC50 at the lower 95% confidence interval 

of equal to or greater than 10 ppm in either freshwater, saltwater or both, depending upon intended use, for all 

tested species.

May 22December 3, 2014 50
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

1

The proposal requires tests in addition to the existing 1994 rule requirements. These tests are incremental additions to the existing rule. EPA is not removing any existing requirements for product testing 

under the Subpart J rule; the Agency is also revising certain tests.

May 22December 3, 2014 51
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

5.3 Total Estimated Compliance Costs for Manufacturers

This section presents both the estimated administrative and paperwork and the efficacy 

and toxicity tests compliance costs for product manufacturers. The administrative and 

paperwork costs reflect the labor hours for company personnel to read the regulations and to 

complete the application packages to submit to EPA. The laboratory testing costs are based 

upon the prices charged to manufacturers by analytical laboratories for efficacy and toxicity 

testing costs services. The prices charged by laboratories were compiled from submission 

packages, limited survey data from laboratories and manufacturers, and anecdotal information. 

There is no complete set of data on the costs to prepare and submit an application package for 

listing a product on the Schedule.

5.3.1 Derivation of Wage Rates

To estimate hourly labor costs, EPA used March 2011 Employer Costs for Employee 

Compensation (ECEC) data in Table 11 reported by the BLS of the U.S. Department of Labor.4

 

ECEC measures the average cost per employee hour worked that a manufacturer pays for 

wages, salaries and benefits. Hourly ECEC include wages, salaries, and benefit costs, including 

paid leave, supplemental pay, insurance, retirement and savings, and legally required benefits.

These compensation costs reflect private industry averages, which were estimated by the BLS 

based on a sample survey of 58,700 occupations within 12,400 establishments in the private 

sector. To derive the hourly labor costs used in this analysis, EPA applied an overhead rate of 

17 percent to hourly ECEC for management, technical, and clerical employees as summarized 

in Exhibit 5-6.

5

 

4 United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, 

Employment Cost Trends, Table 11 -- Private industry, by occupational group and full-time and part-time status, March 

2011, accessed at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf July 21, 2011 . 5 Overhead costs were computed separately from BLS data and were assumed to be an additional 17 

percent of the total wage rate, which is comprised of direct wages and salaries and employee benefits, as reported by 

BLS. Adjustments to wage rates for overhead costs are based on the results of several earlier Information Collection 

Requests that adjusted wage rates by an additional 17 percent based on the results of a survey of chemical 

industries and trade associations. (See, for example, Information Collection Request for the Toxic Chemical Release 

Report for the Proposed Lead Rule, EPA ICR #1363.08.) 

May 22December 3, 2014 52

 
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Exhibit 5-6

Derivation of Hourly Labor Cost Used in the Analysis

Occupational Category

March 2011

Hourly ECEC1

Overhead 

Cost2

Hourly Labor Cost Used in 

the Analysis3

Managerial $57.84 $9.83 $67.67

Technical $48.90 $8.31 $57.21

Clerical $24.60 $4.18 $28.78

Notes:

1

Hourly Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) for March 2011 include wages and salaries, benefit 

costs, including paid leave, supplemental pay, insurance, retirement and savings, and legally required benefits.

2

An overhead rate of 17 percent is applied to the March 2011 hourly ECEC costs to derive the overhead costs. 

Overhead costs were computed separately from BLS data and were assumed to be an additional 17 percent of the 

total wage rate, which is comprised of direct wages and salaries and employee benefits, as reported by BLS. 

Adjustments to wage rates for overhead costs are based on the results of several earlier Information Collection 

Requests that adjusted wage rates by an additional 17 percent based on the results of a survey of chemical industries 

and trade associations. (See, for example, Information Collection Request for the Toxic Chemical Release Report for 

the Proposed Lead Rule, EPA ICR #1363.08.) 

3

The hourly labor cost used in the analysis represents the sum of the March 2011 hourly ECEC costs and derived

overhead costs.

Source: United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation, 

Employment Cost Trends, Table 11 -- Private industry, by occupational group and full-time and part-time status, 

March 2011, accessed at http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf July 21, 2011.

May 22December 3, 2014 53
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

5.3.2 Estimated Testing Costs for Product Manufacturers

Laboratory incremental costs are incurred when a manufacturer must test or re-test a

product for efficacy and toxicity consistent with the proposed rules and Appendix C to part 300. 

Based upon information from manufacturers and laboratories, EPA anticipates that 

manufacturers will purchase these services (laboratory testing) for a price, rather than invest in 

physical capital (e.g., computers, machinery, or laboratory equipment) to conduct the tests 

themselves. Several companies have invested in laboratory capital to conduct their own tests; 

most companies purchase these services at the price set in the marketplace. Therefore, testing 

costs are incurred through purchased services. In order to provide the necessary test result 

information to EPA, manufacturers typically have their product tested at a laboratory but, at their 

option, they could conduct tests in a company owned laboratory if the laboratory is certified 

under existing standards. 

• Dispersant Efficacy Test: The Swirling Flask Test (SFT) required by the existing Subpart J 

regulations is priced in the market at about $1,850 for each test. We assume that the new, 

proposed BFT would require additional equipment (e.g., flasks, stopcocks for the first such 

test)) and new laboratory procedures. Laboratories would recover the cost of new 

equipment and laboratory procedures by increasing their prices and passing these 

through to the manufacturers for these analytical laboratory services. In addition, the 

market for the analytical laboratory industry appears to have changed with a shift 

(increase) in demand for laboratory services after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the 

Gulf of Mexico. Market forces also influence analytical testing prices in addition to the 

costs for additional procedures and equipment. The total price for the dispersant efficacy

test is about $2,200 for each BFT, reflecting the change in the test and the change in the 

market. Manufacturers may be able to recover some of these costs by increasing prices 

and passing these through to the market. The pressure on prices is more likely to be 

greater during a SONS event. 

To estimate the total present value costs and the annualized total costs for all dispersant 

products for the BFT, the economic analysis assumes that all manufacturers with 

dispersants on the Schedule will retest their products and dispersant manufacturers will 

require their analytical laboratories to use the BFT (part 300.915(b)). The economic 

analysis also assumes that manufacturers that apply to list new dispersants will also 

require their laboratories to use the BFT.

• Bioremediation Saltwater Efficacy Test: EPA estimates that the bioremediation saltwater 

efficacy test for new bioremediation agents would cost $10,750 per product. This cost 

reflects the following savings and increases over the previous estimate of $15,000 for 

each test under the existing requirements that is associated with the following proposed 

changes to the efficacy testing requirements:

Savings

o Elimination of the microbiological test ($650);

May 22December 3, 2014 54
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

o Elimination of the GC/MS test with nutrient control (nine samples at $400 per 

sample, or $3,600); and

o Elimination of intermediate/day-7 sampling (six samples at $400 per sample, or 

$2,400).

Increases

o Addition of positive controls (flasks containing seawater, oil, nutrients, and a culture 

of oil degrading bacteria) at days 0 and 28 (six samples at $400 per sample, or 

$2,400).

o One potentially minor cost increase associated with the bioremediation agent 

efficacy test is not considered because EPA assumes this would result in 

insignificant change to the cost estimate. This cost increase is the proposal to require 

manufacturers that may need to provide a nutrient solution in the correct ratio to the 

laboratory performing the efficacy test, which would increase the testing costs slightly 

for certain manufacturers.

EPA will require the revised saltwater efficacy testing costs for manufacturers with 

bioremediation products currently on the Schedule. Because manufacturers applying to 

place new products on the Schedule would be required to test their product for efficacy in 

the waters that the product will be used, EPA assumes that half of these manufacturers 

would test their product with the revised saltwater efficacy test for use in saltwater, while 

the other half would test their product using the freshwater efficacy test (described below) 

for use in freshwater.

• Bioremediation Freshwater Efficacy Test: EPA estimates that the cost of the 

bioremediation freshwater efficacy test will be roughly equivalent to the revised saltwater 

efficacy test. Therefore, EPA estimates that the freshwater efficacy test will cost $10,750.

EPA assumes that half of the manufacturers with bioremediation agents currently on the 

Schedule will test their product with the freshwater efficacy test for use in freshwater. 

Similarly, EPA assumes that half of the manufacturers applying to have a new 

bioremediation agent placed on the Schedule will test their product with the freshwater 

efficacy test for use in freshwater.

• Freshwater and Saltwater Toxicity Test: EPA estimates that the freshwater and saltwater 

toxicity tests required for solidifiers, herding agents, surface-washing agents, and certain 

bioremediation agents would cost $5,150 each per product. 

EPA assumes half of the manufacturers with bioremediation agents listed on the Schedule 

would conduct both saltwater and freshwater toxicity testing, and the other half would only 

conduct one of the tests. EPA uses this same assumption for manufacturers applying to 

have new bioremediation agents listed on the Schedule.

EPA assumes that manufacturers of solidifiers and surface-washing agents on the 

Schedule would all conduct freshwater toxicity testing in addition to the existing saltwater 

May 22December 3, 2014 55
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

toxicity test requirement. EPA uses this same assumption for manufacturers applying to 

have new solidifiers and surface-washing agents listed on the Schedule.

 

Manufacturers of bioremediation agents, dispersants, herding agents, solidifiers or 

surface washing agents listed on the Schedule are required to notify the EPA if their product 

changes in composition, formulation, or application (part 300.955(e)). EPA assumes that such 

notifications would be rare after the first year of the revised NCP Subpart J regulations, since 

most products would be re-tested in the initial two years to comply with the proposed new 

requirements. In addition, most manufacturers are not expected to incur any capital/start-up 

costs as a result of the proposed revisions to NCP Subpart J, because manufacturers are likely 

to purchase these services from existing analytical laboratories. There are several companies 

that may have their own in-house analytical laboratories. These in- house laboratories would 

have to be certified just as a commercial laboratory. In those cases, the fully loaded capital, and 

operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for each test should be similar to the prices charged by 

analytical laboratories in the marketplace.

5.4 Estimated Total Annual Burden and Costs

The average annual costs and total costs for the 20-year projection period are illustrated 

in Exhibits 5-7 A-D. The labor costs represent the average hourly labor burden for 

administrative and paperwork requirements. In addition, the labor costs also contain the costs 

for reading and understanding the regulations. Manufacturers with products on the Schedule are 

familiar with the existing regulations and will have to invest less time reading and understanding 

the proposed regulations than new manufacturers submitting products for listing. New 

manufacturers will have to become familiar with the revised regulations without the advantage of 

familiarity with the existing requirements. New manufacturers will have to spend more time 

reading and understanding the requirements than manufacturers with products on the Schedule. 

These differential labor requirements are reflected in the analysis. 

The labor hours are multiplied by the wage category (management, technical, or clerical)

labor rates to estimate the total labor costs. Efficacy and toxicity testing costs vary by product 

type and the test(s) required. Testing assumptions used for costs are detailed in Section 5.3.3 of 

this report.

Exhibit 5-7 A contains labor costs for the existing product category, while 5-7 B has 

similar figures for new products, as well as some infrequent burden items. The average total 

labor cost per respondent per product is used in the next tables to calculate aggregate costs

over the 20 year period of analysis for all manufacturers. Exhibit 5-7 C contains estimates of the 

aggregate costs for existing products, which are required to perform all actions within the first 

two years of the rule, as discussed above. Since none of these costs are required in the 

baseline, all of them are incremental to this proposed update to the Subpart-J rule. These labor, 

testing, and other costs for existing products are aggregated in the last two columns of the table, 

resulting in total cost estimates of $878,002 (3% discount rate) and $864,960 (7%). Exhibit 5-7 

D illustrates the aggregate costs for new producers resulting from the proposed updates to the 

Subpart-J rule. These costs do not represent the incremental costs of the rule for new 

May 22December 3, 2014 56
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

producers, however, since the costs that would have been faced in the baseline (from Exhibit 4-

1) need to be subtracted. The final two columns of Exhibit 5-7 D indicate the estimated 

aggregate costs to new manufacturers, including both incremental and baseline costs, as 

$2,669,250 (3% discount rate) or $1,974,545 (7%).

May 22December 3, 2014 57
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Exhibit 5-7 A

Labor Costs for Existing Products

Technical Managerial Clerical Total Hours per 

Respondent

Total Labor Cost per 

Respondent per Product

Low High Avg Low High Avg Low High Avg Low High Avg Low High Avg

Read and understand Subpart Rule

Bioremediation Agents 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 $134 $134 $134

Dispersants 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 $134 $134 $134

Solidifiers, MOSCAs 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 $134 $134 $134

Surface Washing, Collecting 

Agents 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 $134 $134 $134

Prepare and Submit Documentation

Bioremediation Agents 5 15 10 1 3 2 2 5 3.5 8 23 15.5 $411 $1,205 $808

Dispersants 7 20 13.5 1.4 4 2.7 2 5 3.5 10.4 29 19.7 $553 $1,559 $1,056

Solidifiers, MOSCAs 4 13 8.5 0.8 2.6 1.7 2 5 3.5 6.8 20.6 13.7 $341 $1,064 $702

Surface Washing, Collecting 

Agents 3 11 7 0.6 2.2 1.4 2 5 3.5 5.6 18.2 11.9 $270 $922 $596

May 22December 3, 2014 58
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Exhibit 5-7 B

Labor Costs for New Products

Technical Managerial Clerical Total Hours per 

Respondent per Product

Total Labor Cost Per 

Respondent Per Product

Low High Avg Low High Avg Low High Avg Low High Avg Low High Avg

Read and Understand Subpart Rule

Bioremediation Agents 2 2 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 $148 $148 $148

Dispersants 2 2 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 $148 $148 $148

Solidifiers, etc. 2 2 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 $148 $148 $148

Surface Washing, 

Herding Agents 2 2 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 2.5 2.5 2.5 $148 $148 $148

Prepare and Submit Documentation

Bioremediation Agents 12 33 22.5 2.4 6.6 4.5 7 15 11 21.4 54.6 38 $1,050 $2,766 $1,908

Dispersants 14 38 26 2.8 7.6 5.2 7 15 11 23.8 60.6 42.2 $1,192 $3,120 $2,156

Solidifiers, etc. 11 31 21 2.2 6.2 4.2 7 15 11 20.2 52.2 36.2 $980 $2,625 $1,802

Surface Washing, 

Herding Agents 9.5 28 18.75 1.9 5.6 3.75 7 15 11 18.4 48.6 33.5 $874 $2,413 $1,643

Infrequent Burden Items

Sorbent Review 2 2 2 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.75 3 3 3 $140 $140 $140

Re-test 2 2 2 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 2.5 2.50 $53 $53 $53

Request for Review of 

EPA Decision 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 10 10 10 $436 $436 $436

Reformulate Product and 

Re-Submit Required 

Data

11.63 32.5 22.06 2.33 6.5 4.41 7 15 11 20.95 54 37.48 $924 $2,197 $1,561

May 22December 3, 2014 59
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Exhibit 5-7 C

Aggregate Costs for Existing Products

Unit Cost*

Year 1 

Respondents

Year 2 

Respondents

Year 1 

Costs

Year 2 

Costs

Total Cost 

(3%)

Total Cost 

(7%)

Read and understand Subpart Rule

Bioremediation Agents $134 13 9 $1,743 $1,206 $2,914 $2,870

Dispersants $134 9 6 $1,206 $804 $1,987 $1,958

Solidifiers, MOSCAs $134 8 5 $1,072 $670 $1,723 $1,699

Surface Washing, Collecting Agents $134 29 20 $3,887 $2,681 $6,490 $6,393

Prepare and Submit Documentation

Bioremediation Agents $808 13 9 $10,507 $7,274 $17,569 $17,305

Dispersants $1,056 9 6 $9,502 $6,335 $15,653 $15,423

Solidifiers, MOSCAs $702 8 5 $5,617 $3,510 $9,025 $8,898

Surface Washing, Collecting Agents $596 29 20 $17,283 $11,919 $28,855 $28,423

Efficacy Tests

Bioremediation Salt/Freshwater Efficacy $10,750 13* 9* $69,875* $48,375* $116,841 $115,085

Revised Dispersant Efficacy $2,200 9 6 $19,800 $13,200 $32,616 $32,136

Toxicity Tests

Bioremediation Agents Salt/Freshwater Toxicity $5,150 13* 9* $100,425* $69,525* $167,925 $165,402

Dispersant Developmental Sea Urchin Test $3,000 9 6 $27,000 $18,000 $44,476 $43,822

Dispersant Sub-chronic Test $3,350 9 6 $30,150 $20,100 $49,665 $48,935

Dispersant to Oil Mixture Test $4,500 9 6 $40,500 $27,000 $66,714 $65,734

Solidifiers, MOSCAs Freshwater Toxicity $5,150 8 5 $41,200 $25,750 $66,200 $65,265

Surface Washing Agents Freshwater Toxicity $5,150 29 20 $149,350 $103,000 $249,350 $245,612

Total Cost $529,118 $359,351 $878,002 $864,960

*As explained above, for some tests, some respondents are assumed to have to do multiple tests, so the annual cost is not simply equal to the unit cost times the no. of respondents 

May 22December 3, 2014 60
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

Exhibit 5-7 D

Aggregate Costs for New Products

Unit Cost*

No. of Annual 

Respondents

Annual 

Cost

Total Cost 

(3%)

Total Cost 

(7%)

Read and understand Subpart Rule

Bioremediation Agents $148 2 $297 $4,544 $3,361 

Dispersants $148 2 $297 $4,544 $3,361 

Solidifiers, etc. $148 3 $445 $6,816 $5,042 

Surface Washing, Herding Agents $148 3 $445 $6,816 $5,042 

Prepare and Submit Documentation

Bioremediation Agents $1,908 2 $3,817 $58,489 $43,266 

Dispersants $2,156 2 $4,312 $66,077 $48,880 

Solidifiers, etc. $1,802 3 $5,407 $82,854 $61,290 

Surface Washing, Herding Agents $1,643 3 $4,929 $75,536 $55,877 

Infrequent Burden Items

Sorbent Review $140 10 $1,403 $21,499 $15,904 

Re-test $53 2 $106 $1,623 $1,201 

Request for Review of EPA Decision $436 2 $872 $13,368 $9,889 

Reformulate Product and Re-Submit Required Data $1,561 1 $1,561 $23,917 $17,692 

Efficacy Tests

Bioremediation Agents Salt/Freshwater Efficacy $10,750 2* $32,250 $494,193 $365,573 

Revised Dispersant Efficacy $2,200 2* $8,800 $134,849 $99,753 

Toxicity Tests

Bioremediation Agents Salt/Freshwater Toxicity $5,150 2* $15,450 $236,753 $175,135 

Dispersant Saltwater Toxicity $5,150 2* $10,300 $157,835 $116,757 

Dispersant Developmental Sea Urchin Test $3,000 2* $6,000 $91,943 $68,014 

Dispersant Sub-chronic Test $3,350 2* $6,700 $102,669 $75,948 

Dispersant to Oil Mixture Test $4,500 2* $9,000 $137,914 $102,020 

Solidifiers, etc. Saltwater & Freshwater Toxicity $5,150 3* $30,900 $473,505 $350,270 

Surface Washing Agents, Herding Agents Saltwater & 

Freshwater Toxicity $5,150 3* $30,900 $473,505 $350,270 

Total Cost $174,190 $2,669,250 $1,974,545

*As explained above, for some tests, some respondents are assumed to have to do multiple tests, so the annual cost is not simply equal to the unit cost times the no. of respondents 

May 22December 3, 2014 61
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

May 22December 3, 2014 62
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

5.5 Total Incremental Costs for Product Manufacturers

Exhibit 5-8 presents the total incremental costs of the proposed rule for manufacturers.

The proposed rule also contains government costs and monitoring costs (Section 5.1) that are 

added to the total manufacturer’s costs and appear in Exhibit 1. Exhibit 5-8 contains the 

estimated total annual incremental labor and testing costs for manufacturers for the 24-month 

transition period as well as for the 20-year projection period. 

The incremental cost of the proposed rule is the total cost of all requirements minus the 

baseline or existing costs. The baseline annual costs for manufacturers are approximately 

$91,000 (from Exhibit 4-1) and the proposed rule adds combined costs to existing and new 

products of approximately $154,000 or $177,000, annualized at 3% and 7%, respectively. 

Existing producers face annual costs of approximately $60,000 (3%) or $82,000 (7%), while 

new producers face annual costs of approximately $95,000. The proposed rule also adds costs 

for governmental entities (i.e., EPA) to implement the new requirements. The incremental 

government costs (EPA) to manage the program is about $13,000 (3%) or $17,000 (7%) each 

year for the proposed rule. In addition, the proposed rule requires the responsible party to 

monitor for dispersants (part 300.913) with monitoring costs of roughly $500,000 each year, 

assuming one oil spill each year. (Refer to Chapter 6 for more information on the frequency of 

oil spills that may require monitoring by the RP.) The estimated annual incremental costs of the 

current proposal to the Subpart J rule are approximately $667,610 or $694,343 annualized at 

3% and 7%, respectively, for all affected entities. These values appear in Exhibit 1.

The total present value of incremental costs of the proposal for all existing and new 

product manufacturers on the Schedule is estimated at $2,339,511 or $1,948,041, discounted 

at 3% and 7%, respectively. The total present value of monitoring costs for the Subpart J 

proposed rule (of $500,000 per year) is approximately $7,661,900 (3%) or $5,667,798 (7%).

The total incremental costs for government are $196,406 (3%) or $181,140 (7%). Thus, the 

total national incremental costs of the proposed rule are estimated as $10,197,817 (3%) or 

$7,796,979 (7%). Exhibit 1 presents a summary of these values.

The annualized costs for each manufacturer can provide additional information about 

the impacts of a regulation. As presented in Section 3.0 Universe of Facilities, the June 28, 

2011 Schedule contained 99 different products manufactured by 86 different manufacturers. 

The Small Business Analysis in Section 7.0 will show slightly different annualized compliance 

costs per manufacturer, because that analysis focuses on the smallest subset, indicated by the 

number of employees and annual sales, of manufacturers from D&B data. Refer to Chapter 7.0 

Small Business Analysis for additional information. The impact of the monitoring requirements 

will be incurred by large oil production companies and are unlikely to adversely impact these 

firms. 

A different time horizon may also be considered appropriate, one that is more closely

associated with the length of life of a product on the schedule (approximately 9 years if we 

truncate the length of life at the year 2010), or the duration of a loan (expected to be longer 

than 10 years). To conduct a sensitivity analysis of annualized costs of efficacy and toxicity 

testing, EPA adopts the very conservative 5 year horizon. The model run results for 5 years 

appears in Appendix C.

May 22December 3, 2014 63
Documentation of changes made during OMB review under EO 12866

Subpart J_NPRM_RIA_OMBRedlined_20141203

The total compliance costs of the proposed rule may appear small in comparison to the 

total compliance costs or cost savings for other EPA federal rules and regulations. Part of the 

difference is that the universe of businesses regulated by the Subpart J proposed rule total to 

less than 100 manufacturing firms and the number of products on the Schedule is about 100. 

Based upon the D&B data described in Chapter 3 and analyzed in Chapter 7, approximately 

94 percent of product manufacturers are small businesses. Please see Chapters 3 and 7 for 

additional information on the small business analysis.

Exhibit 5-8

Incremental Costs of the Proposed Rule for Existing and New 

Product Manufacturers

Existing Products New Products

Year 1 

Labor 981 172.2

Labor Costs $50,818 $9,105

Testing and other costs $478,300 $85,700

Year 1 Costs $529,118 $94,805

Year 2

Labor 664 172.2

Labor Costs $34,401 $9,105

Testing and other costs $333,950 $85,700

Year 2 Costs $368,351 $94,805

Years 3-20 (annual)

Labor 0 172.2

Labor Costs 0 $9,105

Testing and other costs 0 $85,700

Annual Costs Years 3-20 0 $94,805

All Years

Average Annual Costs (3%) $59,603 $94,805*

Average Annual Costs (7%) $82,440 $94,805*

Total 20 Year Costs (3%) $886,740 $1,452,771

Total 20 Year Costs (7%) $873,371 $1,074,670

* Since annual costs for new products are constant across years 1-20, they are not annualized like the existing products.

May 22December 3, 2014 64
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

6.0 Benefits of the Proposed Rule

Due to its targeting of multiple substances, as well as its use of a range of testing 

improvements, the proposed rule has a variety of benefits. Stricter testing requirements will 

result in less toxic and more effective products on the Schedule. With dispersants, for example, 

this will result in less oil reaching shorelines and the shoreline ecosystems. Furthermore, OSCs, 

RRTs, Area Committees, and the oil spill response community use the Schedule to determine 

the most appropriate oil spill mitigating products to use in various oil spill scenarios. The 

information provided by manufacturers enables OSCs, RRTs, and Area Committees to make 

informed decisions about the most appropriate products to use in oil spill situations. The 

proposed rule is intended to provide better information on the efficacy, toxicity and application of 

oil spill mitigation products. Responders can make more appropriate choices on the best 

product to use in a given situation. Increased monitoring requirements will also improve 

response capabilities and provide valuable information and data for future efforts.

Additional benefits are the results of using more effective less toxic products. Human 

health may be better protected both in terms of workers who apply these products and the 

general population. Protection of the environment and reduction in social and economic impacts 

may be expected when lower quantities of these products are applied and with reduction in 

exposure to oil, which is dispersed or degraded with these products.

The proposed requirements to improve the efficacy and reduce the toxicity of oil spill 

response agents would provide a range of benefits. With improved efficacy, the probability of oil 

reaching shorelines would decrease, reducing the potential for ecological and human health

impacts. For example, recent oil spills highlight the breadth of occupations and activities 

potentially impacted by a spill, such as recreational and commercial boaters, swimmers, and 

recreational and commercial fishers.6 Further, local environmental and ecosystem impacts

would be reduced if less oil and less toxic spill agents and oil/agent mixtures reach animals, 

plants, and other living organisms along shorelines. 

Exhibit 6-1 highlights benefits from improvements in efficacy and toxicity testing for 

Subpart J products. The sources cited in the Table illustrate examples of the described benefits.

Due to a lack of high quality data availability and other concerns, some of thethese benefits are 

easier to quantify than others.not quantified. Data on oil spill isspills are difficult to obtain and 

spill reports are not easily verified. Monetizing oil spill damages is also quite difficult. Although 

the Exxon Valdez spill in the late 1980’s resulted in several estimates of the public’s willingness 

to pay to avoid oil spill damages, these estimates are somewhat dated now and only focus on a 

remote area in Alaska. Furthermore, since accurate data on the size of past oil spills is quite 

limited, only rudimentary forecasts of the distribution of future oil spills can be made. This 

severely limits the ability to quantify the benefits of the rule.

6 For instance, the Smithsonian Institution describes a range of impacts and related research at 

http://ocean.si.edu/gulf-oil-spill.

May 22December 3, 2014 65

 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

EPA believes the benefits analysesdiscussed in this chapter provide useful information. 

Although they are based on limited data and simplified modeling, they nonetheless illustrate the 

magnitudescope of the potential benefits of the proposed rule. 

May 22December 3, 2014 66
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Exhibit 6-1

Overview Of Subpart J Benefits Due to Stricter 

Efficacy and Toxicity Testing Requirements

Benefits More Information Sources

Improved Product Performance

Improved product dispersion 

effectiveness.

With improved test results the 

identification of better dispersant 

effectiveness may be expected.

Percin, et al. ( 2005).

Improved Human Health

Reduced primary contact 

withImproved product 

exposure. effectiveness.

Listed and preauthorized products will be 

more effective and less toxic, both of 

which could reduce human health 

impacts from primary contact exposure. 

See the Reference section for past 

studies that illustrate the public’s 

willingness to pay to avoid exposure to oil 

and mitigation products.Testing 

requirements would improve product 

efficacy resulting in oil spills being more 

effectively remediated. There are also 

benefits of using more effective products 

on oil spills on land and in other 

applications.

Percin, et al. ((Carson 

et al., 2003; Garza-Gil 

et al., 2006; Loureiro 

et al., 2009)2005)

ImprovedReduced Impacts on the Environment and Ecosystem

MinimizingReduced adverse 

effects to fish, shellfish, and 

other marine animals and 

wildlife.

See the Reference section for discussion 

of non-use values that have been 

estimated in this category. A range of 

water, coastal, migratory, and other 

wildlife are potentially impacted by oil 

spills. Improvements in product efficacy 

and toxicity, as well as monitoring 

requirements for more effective 

responses, can reduce the potential 

impacts to these populations.

(Gunkel and 

Gassmann, (1980;),

Carson et al., (2003)

Minimizing theReduced

impacts on water quality.

See Reference section for a variety of 

sources that estimate the value of 

improved water quality for recreation 

activities.Decreased water quality

resulting from oil spills has the potential 

for a range of ecosystem impacts, 

especially on local plant and animal 

populations. Water quality is essential to 

key ecosystem functions. Improvements 

in efficacy and reduced toxicity of oil spill 

(Van Houtven et al., 

(2007)

May 22December 3, 2014 67
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

mitigation products would reduce the 

potential impacts to water quality.

MinimizeReduced impact on 

tourism.

Potential for a smallOil spills can impact 

on the tourism industry; effective spill 

remediation would reduce this impact.

(Garza-Gil et al., 

(2006)

Ecological ImprovementsOther Benefit Categories

MarketReduced impact on 

market products.

HarvestReduced potential damages from 

oil spills that reach shorelines that could 

impact harvest or extractionproduction of:

Food food, fuel, fiber, timber, fur and 

leather.

US EPA (December 

2010)

RecreationReduced impact 

on recreational activities and 

aesthetics.

Wildlife viewingMore effective oil spill 

remediation would reduce impact on 

wildlife observation, hunting, fishing, 

boating, swimming, hiking, scenic views, 

reduced odors.

US EPA (December 

2010;), Freeman 

(1993.).

Non-use values. RelevantEnhanced non-use values of 

relevant species, populations, 

communities, or ecosystems

US EPA (December 

2010;), Freeman 

(1993.).

Smaller impact on 

commercialCommercial

harvesting.

As the efficacy of listed products 

increases,Less impact on commercial 

harvesting, including smaller areas 

designated restricted consumption zones.

(Goodlad, (1996;),

Law and Hellou, 

(1999)

Aesthetic improvements. Visibility, taste, odor EPA December 

2010

Reduced materials damage. Reduced soiling, reduced corrosion US EPA (December 

2010)

The principal benefit modeled here is the improvement in dispersion of oil into the water 

column using more effective and less toxic dispersants. The present analysis estimates the 

benefits of improved dispersant efficacy using past RIA’s from the USCG and DOI. Given the 

paucity of data and benefits estimates, this represents the most tangible benefit. As mentioned 

previously however, there are many other benefits that are not quantified and monetized.

6.1 Estimating Oil Spills

In order to estimate the benefits of improved dispersant efficacy, an estimate of future oil 

spills is needed. This is an inherently difficult process since future oil spills depend on a variety 

of unobservable factors, including future oil demand, growth rates, technology, safety 

compliance rates, operator error, as well as other influences. Instead of trying to forecast future 

oil spills in each year, this analysis takes the approach of USCG (2009), and uses an annual 

average of recent oil spills. 

Although there is not a comprehensive database of oil spills, the USCG’s NRC has data 

on reported spill incidents. These data contain information on all oil and chemical spills reported 

to the NRC. Although these data represent the best available data, there are some important 

caveats associated with them. Chief among these concerns is that data are based on incident 

May 22December 3, 2014 68
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

reports. Not all incidents are reported, incidents cannot always be verified, and reports may be 

inaccurate. Nonetheless, when looking at annual averages the data represent the best located 

by EPA for the current analysis. 

EPA downloaded and cleaned NRC data from 1990-2011 for the purposes of this 

analysis. Each spill is accompanied by a description, which can be used to eliminate some data 

errors. Exhibit 6-2 contains a graph of the total oil spills in water throughout the 1990 – 2011

period. After cleaning the data and eliminating errors, the average annual amount of oil spilled in 

water is 1,641,818 gallons per year.

7

Exhibit 6-2: Water Oil Spills, 1990-2011 (Gallons vs. Years)

7 Errors include double entries, entries for internal tests, and inputting errors, among others.

0

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

5000000

6000000

7000000

1990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011

May 22December 3, 2014 69

 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Exhibit 6-3 presents causes of oil spills on water from 1990 to 2011. Each cause lists the 

frequency and percent of occurrence. During the 1990 to 2011 period, 50,505 spills were 

reported in water. Over half the spills (54.49%) were caused by equipment failure.

Exhibit 6-3: Oil Spill Causes, 1990 – 2011

INCIDENT/CAUSE Frequency Percent

AIRCRAFT DIVERSION 1 0

DERAILMENT 4 0.01

DUMPING 209 0.41

EARTHQUAKE 1 0

EQUIPMENT FAILURE 27,521 54.49

EXPLOSION 13 0.03

FLOOD 31 0.06

HIJACKING 1 0

HURRICANE 2,080 4.12

NATURAL PHENOMENON 1,756 3.48

OPERATOR ERROR 4,554 9.02

OTHER 4,873 9.65

OVER PRESSURING 41 0.08

TORNADO 5 0.01

TRANSPORT ACCIDENT 167 0.33

UNKNOWN 9,236 18.29

VESSEL SINKING 12 0.02

Total 50,505 100

The volume of reported oil spills can provide information about the potential volume of 

dispersants and other products applied to oil spills. The potential products for application on an 

oil spill are dispersants, bioremediation agents and solidifiers, for example. Surface washing 

agents may be used to remove oil from shorelines, rocks, and other natural or man-made 

features. Exhibit 6-4 provides additional details about the volume of oil spilled. This chart 

provides details on the volume of gasoline products, crude oil and diesel products that are 

spilled each year. 

May 22December 3, 2014 70
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Exhibit 6-4: Oil Products Spilled to Water, 1990 -2011 (Gallons vs. Years)

The total volume of oil spilled and the volume spilled by product line provides additional 

information about the volume of dispersants and other Subpart J products that may be used on 

spilled oil. Subpart J products are not used on every oil spill, thus the key to the analysis is 

determining the proportion of spills that have Subpart J products applied to them. Most 

dispersants are used on offshore crude oil spills. Thus, information that distinguishes spills 

offshore compared to oil spills on land provides additional information. The crude oil component 

is shown in blue in the Exhibit 6-4.

Fingas (2011) contains four chapters on modeling the movement of spilled oil. Data is 

available to analyze the increase in effectiveness in oil spill products under the proposed rule. 

Venosa et al. in their 2005 report on dispersant effectiveness, state that “Evidence from spills 

treated with dispersants shows that dispersion of oil can reduce overall environmental impacts 

by reducing exposure to water fowl at the sea surface and shoreline. At the same time, 

dispersant use for cleanup of an oil slick on the water may reduce intrusiveness, duration, and 

cost of cleanup.”

6.2 Dispersant Use and Effectiveness

The NRC annual spill average of 1.64 million gallons represents an estimate of the total 

gallons of oil spilled in water each year. However, dispersants will not be used on all of these 

spills. Data on dispersant use is scarcer than oil spill data; there are no known databases of 

dispersant use. To overcome this data gap, a past USCG RIA involving dispersants and other 

oil spill mitigation techniques (USCG, 2009) convened a panel of experts. The expert panel 

estimated that the proportion of oil spilling in either a preauthorized area or greater than 3 

nautical miles from shore is approximately 50%. Dispersants are not typically used in areas less 

than 3 nautical miles from shore, or in non-preauthorized areas. Given that a spill occurs in one 

of these areas, the expert panel projected that the probability authorization for dispersant use is 

granted is 0.55. Also, the panel estimated that the probability a dispersant is used once

authorized is 0.8050. The probability that dispersants are used on a spill is therefore 0.2214. 

Applying this probability to the annual average obtained in the last section yields an estimate of 

363,499 gallons of oil per year that dispersants are used on. 

0

2000000

4000000

6000000

8000000

10000000

12000000

14000000

19901992199419961998200020022004200620082010

Gal Oil Spill Water

Gal Gas Prod. Spill

Water

Gal Diesel Prod. Spill

Water

May 22December 3, 2014 71
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

The incremental change monetized in this analysis is the change in dispersant efficacy 

resulting from stricter efficacy testing. The revised toxicity test will also generate benefits for 

exposed populations and ecosystems. However, the benefits would be difficult to quantify as an 

incremental change since the exposure pathways are spill specific and much more difficult to 

characterize. The dispersant efficacy tests in the existing rule required a dispersant to display 

an effectiveness value of 45% or greater average dispersion efficacy of two crude oils (South 

Louisiana Crude and Prudhoe Bay Crude) at room temperature (20-23 degrees Celsius). The 

proposed rule requires the following efficacy tests to be demonstrated using BFT:

• ≥55% for Intermediate Fuel Oil 120 (IFO-120) at 50C;

• ≥65% for IFO-120 at 250C;

• ≥70% for Alaska North Slope (ANS) crude oil at 50C; and 

• ≥75% for ANS at 250C.

The required dispersant efficacy has increased by an average of 21.25%. Using the 

annual average of 363,499 gallons computed above for the amount of oil dispersed each year, 

the increase in effectiveness should result in an increase of 77,243 gallons of oil dispersed each 

year. However, due to uncertainty regarding what types of oil will be spilled in the future and 

where, as well as uncertainty in changes in actual product efficacy since exact product blends 

are unknown, EPA calculates two additional, more conservative, estimates of increased product 

efficacy. Some of the existing dispersants may operate at a more efficient rate than the 

minimum 45%, while it is also possible that the dispersants on the new list may also operate at 

a more efficient rate than the new minimum. To reflect this uncertainty, EPA estimates two 

alternatives assuming that the average dispersant efficacy only improves by either 15.94% or 

10.63% (which correspond to 75% and 50% of the original 21.25%). Using these values would 

result in an increase in 57,932 or 38,622 gallons of oil dispersed each year under the rule 

relative to the baseline.

6.3 Estimated Incremental Benefits

There are several potential methods to use in assigning benefits to the incremental 

change in dispersant effectiveness. In an ideal situation, an original study would be formulated, 

that would attempt to measure the welfare change to the affected populations. This type of 

study would focus on the effects summarized in Table 6.1. Unfortunately, time and monetary 

constraints prevent the use of an original study and benefits transfer of avoided cost estimates 

must be used instead. Benefits transfer refers to the use of estimates from one study to 

evaluate the benefits of a different policy.8 EPA believes the benefits analyses in this chapter 

provide useful information. Although they are based on limited and highly aggregated data on 

response costs, they nonetheless illustrate the magnitude of the potential benefits of the 

proposed rule. 

The benefit transfer for the present policy analysis uses avoided costs as a proxy for 

welfare measures, such as willingness to pay (WTP).9 Cost estimates are derived from U.S. 

Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety Administration 

8 For additional information on benefit transfer, see US EPA (2010e).

9 There are certain caveats for this approach, summarized in EPA’s Guidelines for Preparing Economics Analysis. 

Although avoided costs are only equal to WTP under strict circumstances, they can still provide an informative 

estimate.

May 22December 3, 2014 72

 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

(PHMSA) data.

10 The PHMSA data contain information on cleanup costs for oil spills from 2002 

to 2007. The costs of a variety of oil spills—which vary in size, location, and affected habitats—

were analyzed to develop estimates of the avoided costs per gallon spilled. The analysis 

included direct response cost categories in the PHMSA data on spills from pipelines for spills 

containing crude oil.11 For the category of large spills (over 10,000 gallons) that dispersants are 

used on, there is an average avoided cost of $40 per gallon.12 (See Appendix D of this report for 

more details.) Applying this figure to the incremental estimates of oil dispersed by the present 

rule from the last section (77,243, 57,932, or 38,622 gallons) yields average annual benefits of 

$3,089,737, $2,317,303, and $1,544,869, respectively. Although the SPCC analysis has some 

notable caveats, it is comparable to other recent estimates of avoided costs. For instance, a 

recent RIA from the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement 

calculated the avoided costs (of similar oil spill response and damage assessment costs) of a 

catastrophic oil spill to be $70.74 per gallon. Since some of the costs of a catastrophic spill 

would not apply to the average spill in the present analysis, it is expected to be somewhat 

higher. Nonetheless, it provides support to the SPCC estimate of $40 per gallon. EPA’s 

preferred estimate of benefits is the middle estimate corresponding to an increase in average 

efficacy of 15.94%, yielding $2,317,303. 

There are some notable caveats to this estimate. First, although the analysis was as 

comprehensive as possible, the data on oil spill damages is limited. In many cases oil spill 

damages are not fully tracked or recorded. Additionally, the SPCC analysis is of avoided costs 

and does estimate ecological and human health impacts nor does it estimate non-use benefits. 

Previous studies from the environmental economics literature have found that non-use benefits 

can be a substantial portion of total benefits (Carson et al., 2003; Garza-Gil et al., 2006; 

Loureiro et al., 2009). These are benefits that do not have a price in the marketplace. 

The total benefits of the rule over 20 years (which are summarized in Exhibit 6-5), when 

discounted at 3% and 7%, are $36,792,921 and $21,766,300 at 15.94% improved efficacy, 

EPA’s preferred estimates.

Exhibit 6-5: Incremental Benefits of the Subpart-J Rule

Efficacy 

Improvement

Annual Benefits Total Benefits (20 

years)

3% Discount rate

Total Benefits (20 

years)

7% Discount rate

10.63% $1,544,869 $24,528,614 $14,510,866

15.94% $2,317,303 $36,792,921 $21,766,300

21.25% $3,089,737 $49,057,228 $35,822,459

Note: These figures do not account for several categories of benefits, such as property benefits, human health 

benefits, or the full range of ecological benefits.

7.0 7.0 Small Business Analysis

This section estimates the impact of the proposed rule on small entities using EPA’s 

Regulatory Flexibility Guidance (November 2006). To estimate the impacts of the proposed rule 

10 U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration. 

(http://ops.dot.gov/stats/IA98.htm

11 The PHMSA cost categories are the public and private property damage, cost of emergency response, cost of 

environmental remediation, other public costs, value of product lost, value of operator property damage, other 

operator costs, and the total cost of cleanup. (See Appendix D) 12 Note that this is the cost of cleaning up an additional gallon that has reached the shore, which is only a rough 

estimate of the costs that are avoided by dispersing a gallon of oil.

May 22December 3, 2014 73

 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

on entities that apply to list products on the Schedule, we started with employment and revenue 

information for manufacturers with products listed on the June 28, 2011 Schedule. This 

information was queried from the D&B Market Spectrum database, a proprietary data source for 

financial company information. Total annual sales (revenue) data were available for 60 out of 86

manufacturers; the total number of employees was available from D&B for 62 out of 86

manufacturers. NAICS codes were available for 65 out of the 86 manufacturers on the June 28, 

2011 Schedule. We used these data to model the number of employees for the 86 

manufacturers. 

Manufacturers were classified as small or large businesses consistent with SBA criteria,

which are organized by NAICS codes and based on the number of employees or annual sales 

revenue for each NAICS industry sector of interest. Product manufacturers and corresponding 

NAICS codes were mapped into the SBA small business definitions. As a result, each 

manufacturer was matched with the appropriate NAICS code and SBA criteria to determine if it 

was a small business. The small business category was then sub-divided into four sizes based 

on the number of employees, 1 to 9, 10 to 19, 20 to 99, and 100 to 499. About 94 percent of the 

65 manufacturers with listed products on the June 28, 2011 Schedule and with adequate D&B 

data are small businesses. 

For the purposes of this analysis, the manufacturers with products listed on the June 28, 

2011 Schedule without D&B data were modeled using the distribution of data for the 65 

manufacturers with data in D&B. EPA also modeled the size distribution for manufacturers of 

new products over the 20-year projection period. Exhibits 7-1 (A and B) and 7-2 present the 

results of the small business analysis. Exhibit 7-1 A contains the incremental costs for each 

product from the proposed updates to the Subpart-J rule, as well as the two alternate scenarios

for annual costs, based on either 20 or 5 year periods. Exhibit 7-1 A indicates (and highlights in 

yellow) that the most expensive product to list is a dispersant, with $1,841 in annual costs per 

new product and $1,344 for existing products over a 20 year horizon; or $4,757 in annual costs 

per new product and $3,473 for existing products over a 5 year horizon. 

Exhibit 7-1 B uses the costs of listing a dispersant to illustrate the costs to existing and 

new manufacturers and analyzes the impacts on an aggregate basis for five different

manufacturer size categories. EPA’s Regulatory Flexibility Guidance suggests using annualized 

compliance costs as a percentage of annual sales to determine the impacts on small 

businesses. In analyzing previous rules, EPA has often defined the lower threshold as 

incremental compliance costs of 1% of sales and the higher threshold as compliance costs of 

3% of sales. The costs presented in the table are from the most expensive product 

(dispersants). Other products would therefore be expected to have less impact, so this is 

therefore a conservative figure for most products. Finally, Exhibit 7-2 presents the impacts on a 

business-by-business basis for 30 of the smallest existing businesses. 

The result of the small business analysis, with the 1% and 3% sales tests, is less than 

one percent of the annual sales for each product manufacturer size category in Exhibit 7-1 B. 

EPA expects that the proposed regulation will not impose a significant adverse impact on a 

substantial number of small entities (SISNOSE).

May 22December 3, 2014 74
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Exhibit 7-1 A

Per-Product Costs of the Proposed Revisions to the NCP Subpart J Rule

PerProduct

Testing 

Costs

PerProduct 

Labor 

Costs

PerProduct 

Costs

Annualized 

(7%) 20 

Years

Annualized 

(7%) 5 

years

New Producers

Dispersants $18,550 $956 $19,506 $1,841 $4,757 

Bioremediation Agents $8,850 $1,204 $10,054 $949 $2,452 

Solidifiers, etc. $5,150 $850 $6,000 $566 $1,463 

Surface Washing, Herding Agents $5,150 $744 $5,894 $556 $1,437 

Existing Producers

Dispersants $13,050 $1,190 $14,240 $1,344 $3,473

Bioremediation Agents $13,100 $942 $14,042 $1,325 $3,425

Solidifiers, MOSCAs $5,150 $836 $5,986 $565 $1,460

Surface Washing, Collecting 

Agents $5,150 $730 $5,880 $555 $1,434

May 22December 3, 2014 75
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Exhibit 7-1 B

NCP Product Schedule Manufacturer Profile and Expected Impacts

Associated with the Proposed Revisions to the NCP Subpart J Rule for the Most Expensive Product to List (Dispersants)

Company 

Size

Manufacturer Profile Using 

Dun & Bradstreet Data a Impact on Existing Manufacturers b Impact on New Manufacturers c

Number of 

Employees

Number of 

Companies

Annual 

Revenue per 

Company d

Number

Average 

Annual 

Incremental 

Change in 

Cost of Listing 

a Dispersant 

per Company e

Impact 

(Cost to 

Revenue)

Number

Average Annual Incremental 

Change in Cost of Listing a 

Dispersant per Company e

Impact (Cost to 

Revenue)

Small Businesses

1 to 9 35 $1,953,786 46 $1,344 0.07% 5 $1,841 0.09%

10 to 19 11 $1,699,803 15 $1,344 0.08% 2 $1,841 0.11%

20 to 99 11 $9,879,764 15 $1,344 0.01% 2 $1,841 0.02%

100 to 499 4 $50,624,645 5 $1,344 0.00% 1 $1,841 0.00%

Total 61 81 9

Large Businesses

500+ 4 $4,560,366,000 5 $1,344 0.00% 1 $1,841 0.00%

a. Manufacturers of products currently on the Product Schedule were categorized according to size based on availability of D&B data (i.e., annual 

revenue and number of employees) and SBA company size definitions.

b. Manufacturers of existing products on the Schedule total 86, based on the June 2011 NCP Product Schedule. The 21 manufacturers with products 

currently on the Schedule that were not classified according to company size due to insufficient D&B information were allocated across the five 

company size categories in proportion to the distribution of manufacturers with sufficient D&B company size information. (Note: 65 companies have 

reportable data, 21 companies did not)

c. EPA assumes the size distribution for the estimated 10 manufacturers of new products to be considered for listing on the Product Schedule will be 

similar to the size and revenue distribution of existing product manufacturers.

d. Five companies were missing revenue information in the 1 to 9 number of employees size category, and one company was missing revenue 

information in the 100 to 499 number of employees size category.

e. These estimates are based on average incremental cost estimates per manufacturer for existing and new manufacturers presented in Exhibit 7-1 A.

May 22December 3, 2014 76
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

EPA conducted a more detailed analysis in which current manufacturers in the smallest 

company size category (1 to 9 employees) were classified by their product types and their 

annual sales revenue. The incremental annualized compliance costs (from Exhibit 7-1 A) were 

compared to the annual sales revenue for each manufacturer. This analysis in Exhibit 7-2 

revealed that 3 manufacturers out of 30 in the smallest size category could have incremental 

compliance costs greater than one percent of their annual sales. No manufacturers could have 

incremental costs that exceed three percent of annual sales. Given that the remaining 27

smallest businesses would fall under the one-percent threshold, EPA believes that the proposed 

revisions to Subpart J regulations will not cause a significant economic impact on a substantial 

number of small manufacturers (SISNOSE), that manufacture products on the June 28, 2011

Schedule. 

In addition to the analysis in Exhibit 7-2, EPA also conducted a sensitivity analysis using 

5 years as a substitute for 20 years, as discussed in Sections 2.1 and 5.4. The sensitivity 

analysis is in Appendix C of this report and replicates Exhibit 7-1 B with 5 years for the time 

horizon. The substitution of 5 years for 20 years increases the annualized costs and the 

annualized cost to annual sales revenue ratio. For example, the incremental annualized costs

for dispersants—the most expensive product—increase from $1,344 to $3,473 for existing 

facilities. For new facilities, the annualized costs increase from $1,841 to $4,757. The 

annualized costs to annual sales revenue ratio increases for each small business category. 

However, Appendix C indicates that these ratios do not, on average, approach the 1% and 3% 

thresholds in EPA’s small business guidance (EPA 2006). 

There are further considerations that would suggest that manufacturers of Subpart J 

products would not incur and absorb the full costs of additional requirements. Subpart J 

products may be in demand to respond to oil spills, often on an emergency basis. In those 

cases, manufacturers may be asked to provide products manufactured on a short turn around 

basis. For these conditions, the manufacturer may charge a higher price thus passing through 

the costs for additional testing and for additional information about the product. The ability to 

pass costs through depends on the elasticity of demand for the specific product.

In the case of a SONS for example, an inelastic demand could be imposed on the 

market for dispersants because of increased demand for the product. In these situations, to 

respond to the demand the product manufacturer may face the potential market conditions that 

would allow them to impose a higher price for the product. This may be necessary to change the 

production and supply function in order to produce a product and make it available when and 

where it is needed. The higher price could increase the manufacturer’s annual sales revenues, 

reducing the impacts of the costs of efficacy and toxicity test requirements. These changes in 

market and price equilibrium ensure that products are made available where they are needed 

most.

All Subpart J products may not be used in emergency responses. These products are 

sold for general oil spill cleanups such as small local spills. For these products, the capability to 

pass through prices to their customers is not so clear. Generally, we would conclude that cost 

pass through may be more likely for products used in oil spill cleanup in emergency responses.

May 22December 3, 2014 77
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Exhibit 7-2

Potential Impacts Associated with the Proposed Revisions to NCP Subpart J for

Existing Very Small NCP Product June 2011 Schedule Manufacturers (1 to 9 Employees)

Company1

Number of 

Employees

Annual 

Revenue

(2011$) Product Type

Annualized Cost 

of Revisions2

Impact 

(Annualized 

Cost to 

Revenue)

1 1 62,000.00 Solidifiers, etc. (2) $1,130 1.8227%

2 1 1,000,000.00 Surface Washing Agent $555 0.0555%

3 1 160,000.00 Surface Washing Agent $555 0.35%

4 2 2,500,000.00 Bioremediation Agent $1,325 0.0530%

5 2 120,000.00 Solidifier, etc. $565 0.4709%

6 2 200,000.00 Solidifier, etc. $565 0.2825%

7 2 30,000.00 Solidifier, etc. $565 1.8835%

8 2 10,000,000.00 Solidifier, etc. $565 0.0057%

9 2 120,000.00 Surface Washing Agent $555 0.4625%

10 3 280,000.00 Surface Washing Agent $555 0.1982%

11 3 1,300,000.00 Surface Washing Agent $555 0.0427%

12 3 150,000.00 Surface Washing Agent (2) $1,110 0.7400%

13 3 5,000,000.00 Surface Washing Agent $555 0.0111%

14 4 559,000.00 Bioremediation Agent $1,325 0.2371%

15 4 1,000,000.00 Dispersant (2) & Surface Washing 

Agent (1) $3,243 0.3243%

16 4 730,000.00 Solidifier, etc. $565 0.0774%

17 4 500,000.00 Surface Washing Agent $555 0.1110%

18 4 187,000.00 Surface Washing Agent $555 0.2968%

19 4 350,000.00 Surface Washing Agent (2) $1,110 0.3172%

20 5 5,000,000.00 Bioremediation Agent $1,325 0.0265%

21 5 290,000.00 Bioremediation Agent $1,325 0.4571%

22 6 120,000.00 Bioremediation Agent $1,325 1.1046%

23 6 15,000,000.00 Dispersant (1) & Surface Washing 

Agent $1,899 0.0127%

24 6 500,000.00 Surface Washing Agent $555 0.1110%

25 6 5,000,000.00 Surface Washing Agent $555 0.0111%

26 7 660,000.00 Surface Washing Agent $555 0.0841%

27 8 3,054,214.00 Bioremediation Agent $1,325 0.0434%

28 8 2,500,000.00 Surface Washing Agent $555 0.0222%

29 8 1,500,000.00 Surface Washing Agent $555 0.0370%

30 9 2,500,000.00 Surface Washing Agent $555 0.0222%

Notes:

a Company names withheld to avoid disclosure of sensitive business information. Thirty manufacturers of products currently on the June 28, 

2011 Schedule were categorized as very small businesses (1 to 9 employees) and are considered based on the availability of sufficient D&B 

data (i.e., annual revenue and number of employees) and SBA company size definitions.

b These estimates are based on average incremental cost estimates per manufacturer for existing manufacturers presented in Exhibit 7-1. 

Accordingly, the estimate for the average cost of revisions for a company producing one product is $1,325. Two of the very small companies 

each currently produce two products that are on the Schedule; for these companies, the estimate of $1,325 is multiplied by two. 

Note: Products in red have incremental costs to annual sales revenue over 31%.

May 22December 3, 2014 78
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

8.0 Key Limitations of the Analysis

This RIA involves several sources of uncertainty that may lead analyses to differ from 

actual compliance costs and benefits.. The Agency is projecting the impacts of the proposed

rule. The values of variables that support the analysis may be different in the future than are at 

the time of analysis. For example, compliance costs will depend on the types of oil spill 

mitigating agents manufacturers seek to add to the NCP Product Schedule. EPA has based its 

assumptions on historical Subpart J product submissions to the Schedule, but future trends 

might be affected by market conditions, field experience, and testing costs. For example, for 

bioremediation agents, EPA does not know the extent to which manufacturers would conduct 

freshwater and/or saltwater efficacy testing; for this reason, the analysis presents a range of 

potential costs associated with bioremediation efficacy testing.

Many of the cost estimates used in the regulatory analysis are based on a limited 

number of consultations with commercial laboratories and manufacturers. The data provided by 

these consultations represent, in most cases, anecdotal information and may not capture the full 

range of costs faced by manufacturers and laboratories. In addition, labor hours and wage rates 

estimated for each information collection activity may vary across manufacturers. Nevertheless, 

they represent a reasonable average for the purposes of the analysis. 

This RIA estimates the addition of labor hours (6,369 over 20 years) and labor costs 

faced by the regulated sector to comply with this rule, but does not include a complete analysis 

of labor market effects. Neither the data nor methods were available to conduct such an 

analysis. In general, an environmental regulation can be understood as an increase in demand 

for a particular output: environmental quality. Meeting this new demand can result in increased 

demand for the various factors of production (including labor). However, the regulated sector 

generally has to rely on revenues generated by their market outputs (e.g., dispersants) to cover 

the costs of satisfying society’s demand for environmental quality (e.g., cleaner water). This can 

lead to reduced demand for labor and other factors of production. In general, the net effect of an 

environmental regulation on employment in regulated sectors and the overall economy is 

indeterminate. See Berman and Bui (2001) for a theoretical model of employment effects of 

environmental regulation.

Finally, there are uncertainties in the small business analysis conducted in this 

regulatory impact analysis. For example, D&B data were not available for 21 of the 86

manufacturers that currently have products on the June 2011 Schedule. These manufacturers 

may or may not follow the size distribution of manufacturers that reported data to D&B. In 

addition, the analysis assumes that manufacturers will submit 10 new products for listing each 

year for the next twenty years. To the extent that there are more or less than 10 new products 

each year and that the manufacturers of these products will follow the size distribution of 

existing manufacturers, small business impacts will be similar to those estimated in the analysis.

If the size distribution is different from historical trends, the impacts may be different.

May 22December 3, 2014 79
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Appendix A: NCP Subpart J Schedule June 28, 2011

Exhibit A-1

NCP Subpart J Product Schedule, June 28, 2011

Product 

Number Product Type Product Name Name of Manufacturer City State

B61 BA/MC/NA SOIL RX (aka BIO-REGEN HYDROCARBON) 3 Tier Technologies LLC Orlando FL

M26 M ELASTOL (aka SEPARATE, LIQUID ELASTOL) Action Additives, Inc. Ducktown NJ

SW42 SWA MARINE GREEN CLEANTM AGS Solutions, Inc. Houston TX

SW43 SWA MARINE GREEN CLEAN PLUSTM AGS Solutions, Inc. Houston TX

D10 Dispersant SEA BRAT #4 Alabaster Corp. Pasadena TX 

SW23 SWA PETRO-CLEAN Alabaster Corporation Pasadena TX

SW54 SWA SAFE-KLEEN Anti Slip Solution Ltd Worcestershire UK

B43 BA/MC STEP ONE (aka B&S INDUSTRIAL) B & S Research, Inc. Embarrass MN

D15 Dispersant SUPERSPERSETM WAO2500 Baker Petrolite Corporation Sugar Land TX

B48 BA/MC BET BIOPETRO (formerly BET BIOPETRO HEAVY)

BioEnviroTech Tomball TX

SW32 SWA BG-CLEANTM 401 BioGenesis Enterprises, Inc Oak Creek WI

B42 BA/NA VB591 TM, VB997 TM, BINUTRIX® (formerly MYCOBAC 

TX-20)

BioNutraTech Inc. Branson MO

B59 BA/MC BIOWORLD BIOREMEDIATION HYDROCARBON 

TREATMENT PRODUCTS (BioWorld BHTP)

BioWorld Products Visalia CA

M28 M OPFLEX® THE GREEN STUFFTM Cellect Plastics, LLC West Hyannisport MA

May 22December 3, 2014 80
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Exhibit A-1

NCP Subpart J Product Schedule, June 28, 2011

Product 

Number Product Type Product Name Name of Manufacturer City State

SW9 SWA CN-110 (formerly D-37) Chemex, Inc. Broussard LA 

M17 M-Solidifier CIAGENT (formerly CHEAP INSURANCE and PETROCAPTURE

CIAGENT Solutions, LLC Louisville KY

B63 BA/MC BIOREM-2000 OIL DIGESTERTM (aka BIOREM-2000 SC) Clift Industries, Inc. Charlotte NC

SW55 SWA CORIBA 700 SR (aka, CORIBA 700ER, CORIBA 700OS) Coriba Technologies, LLC North Little Rock AR

SW56 SWA CORIBA 713 SR (aka, CORIBA 713ER, CORIBA 713OS) Coriba Technologies, LLC North Little Rock AR

SW19 SWA CYTOSOL CytoCulture International, Inc. Point Richmond CA

B64 MC DRYLETTM MB BIOREMEDIATION DryLet Technologies, Inc. Prosper TX

SW31 SWA EnviroClean (formerly Enviro Clean 165) Enviro Clean Products, LLC Oklahoma City OK

M19 M-Solidifier WASTE-SET 3200 ® Environmental & Fire Technology, LLC Grand Rapids MI

M20 M-Solidifier WASTE-SET 3400 ® Environmental & Fire Technology, LLC Grand Rapids MI

B45 BA/MC SYSTEM E.T. 20 (formerly MCW.B 20) Environmental Restoration Services Windsor CA

M22 M PX700TM Enviro-Tech Cape Coral FL

SW50 SWA EO ALL PURPOSE SOAP-LAVENDER EO Product/Small World Trading 

Company

Corte Madera CA

SW35 SWA PROCLEANS Eximco International, Inc. Houston TX

B54 BA/MC PRISTINE SEA II (formerly MicroPro D)

No longer manufactured

Fluid Tech, Inc. Las Vegas NV

May 22December 3, 2014 81
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Exhibit A-1

NCP Subpart J Product Schedule, June 28, 2011

Product 

Number Product Type Product Name Name of Manufacturer City State

SW25 SWA SC-1000 TM GEMTEK® Products Pheonix AZ

D6 Dispersant JD-109 GlobeMark Resources Ltd Atlanta GA

D7 Dispersant JD-2000 TM GlobeMark Resources Ltd Atlanta GA

M24 M-Solidifier RAPIDGRAB 2000TM GlobeMark Resources Ltd Atlanta GA

SW12 SWA PREMIER 99 (formerly D-41) Gold Coast Chemical Products Pembroke Park FL

SW26 SWA GOLD CREW SW (AKA ECP RESPONDER - SW) Gold Crew Products & Services, LLC

Environmental Chemical Solutions (ECS)

Orange

Gig Harbor

CA

WA

SW40 SWA GREEN BEASTTM OIL SPILL & ODOR REMEDIATOR (aka 

GREEN BEAST WASHING AGENT)

Green Bridge Industries, Inc. Ridgewood NJ

SW39 SWA G-MARINE OSC-1809 (aka OIL SPILL CLEANUP) Green Earth Technologies Celebration FL

SW41 SWA TULXA Grupo Arthuriana S.A. de C.V. Delegación 

Cuauhtémec

Mexico

SW30 SWA F-500 Hazard Control Technologies, Inc Fayetteville GA

SW18

B56

SWA

BA/NA

NATURE'S WAY HS (aka NATURE'S WAY PC; POWERCLEAN, 

MICRO CLEAN)

S-200 (aka S-200C, SHEENCLEAN, BILGE CLEAR)

Integra Environmental, Ltd. Houston TX

International Environmental Products, LLC

RBI Environmental, LLC

Villanova PA

SW47 SWA ENVIRONMENTAL 1 CRUDE OIL CLEANER (aka 

ENVIRONMENTAL 1 WASHING AGENT)

J and J Technology, LLC Nashville TN

B58 BA/NA JE1058BS Japan Energy Corporation Saitama Japan

B66 NA REMEDIADETM (aka, SP 7010) JDMV Holdings, LP Houston TX

May 22December 3, 2014 82
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Exhibit A-1

NCP Subpart J Product Schedule, June 28, 2011

Product 

Number Product Type Product Name Name of Manufacturer City State

B55 BA/NA LAND AND SEA RESTORATION PRODUCT 001 (VELITE) Land and Sea Restoration LLC San Antonio TX

B65 MC DUALZORB® (aka, WHITZORB, TRAILZORB) LBI Renewable Buffalo WY

SW16 SWA AQUACLEAN (formerly D-52) Madison Chemical Company, Inc. Madison IN

SW58 SWA ETHOS CLEAN MAG7 Venture Group, LLC Rochester NY

SW59 SWA OSR-10 MAG7 Venture Group, LLC Rochester NY

SW22 SWA SPLIT DECISION SC (aka DUO-SPLIT; CLEAN SPLIT; formerly 

SPLIT DECISION)

Mantek

Division of NCH Corporation

Dallas TX

D14 Dispersant NOKOMIS 3-AA Mar-Len Supply Inc Hayward CA

D8 Dispersant NOKOMIS 3-F4 Mar-Len Supply Inc Hayward CA

SW38 SWA NOKOMIS 5-W Mar-Len Supply Inc Hayward CA

SW48 SWA SANDKLENE 950 MDEChem, Inc. Floresville TX

SW53 SWA NATURAMA G3 A-5 Merlin-Tao, Ltd Tel Aviv Israel

D1 Dispersant COREXIT EC9527A (formerly COREXIT 9527) Nalco Energy Services, LP Sugar Land TX 

D4 Dispersant COREXIT EC9500A (formerly COREXIT 9500) Nalco Energy Services, LP Sugar Land TX 

SW1 SWA COREXIT EC7664A (formerly COREXIT 7664, formerly D-4) Nalco Energy Services, LP Sugar Land TX 

SW10 SWA COREXIT EC9580A (formerly COREXIT 9580 

SHORELINE CLEANER, formerly D-38)

Nalco Energy Services, LP Sugar Land TX 

May 22December 3, 2014 83
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Exhibit A-1

NCP Subpart J Product Schedule, June 28, 2011

Product 

Number Product Type Product Name Name of Manufacturer City State

D2 Dispersant NEOS AB 3000 NEOS Company Limited Chuo-ku, Kobe JAPAN

SW57 SWA JEP-MARINE CLEAN (aka, ECOVOOM-MARINE) Nuance Solutions Chicago IL

SW45 SWA SOC 10 (SURFACE OIL CLEANER) Oil Treatment International AG Zug Switzerland

B36 BA/MC OPPENHEIMER FORMULA (aka THE OPPENHEIMER 

FORMULA 1, NATURAL ENVIRO 8000, MIGHTY MIKE 

BPT) 

Oppenheimer Biotechnology, Inc. Austin TX

SW11 SWA DE-SOLV-IT INDUSTRIAL CLEANER Orange-Sol Packaging and Blending Gilbert AZ

SW49 SWA DE-SOLV-IT CLEAN AWAY APC SUPER 

CONCENTRATE

Orange-Sol Packaging and Blending Gilbert AZ

B53 BA/EA OIL SPILL EATER II (OSEI II) OSEI Corporation (Formerly Sky Blue 

Chems)

Dallas TX

B60 BA/MC MUNOX SR® Osprey Biotechnics Sarasota FL

D9 Dispersant BIODISPERS (Formerly PETROBIODISPERS) Petrobiotech LLC Newport NH

SW17 SWA PETRO-GREEN ADP-7 (formerly D-14) Petro-Green, Inc. Dallas TX

SW21 SWA PETROTECH 25 Petrotech America Corporation Newport NH

SW33 SWA E-SAFE© PLUTUS Environmental Technologies, 

Inc.

Sevierville TN

SW34 SWA SHEEN-MAGIC© PLUTUS Environmental Technologies, 

Inc.

Sevierville TN

M12 M PES-51 Practical Environmental Solutions 

(formerly Petroleum Environmental 

San Antonio TX

May 22December 3, 2014 84
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Exhibit A-1

NCP Subpart J Product Schedule, June 28, 2011

Product 

Number Product Type Product Name Name of Manufacturer City State

B62 BA/MC/NA PRO-ACT (aka OILCLEAN w/ACTIVATOR) Pro-Act Microbial, Inc. Warren RI

SW46 SWA BIOGRASS® EXTRA Química del Desierto S. de R.L. de C.V. Chihuahua City, 

Chihuahua

Mexico

SW24 SWA DO-ALL #18 Radcob Solutions, Inc. Lauderdale Lakes FL

M23 M-Solidifier ALSOCUP REVCOM Associates Corona CA

M25 M-Solidifier AQUA N-CAPTM POLYMER (aka OIL SOLUTIONS 

POWDER, SPILL GREEN LS)

RTA Systems, Inc. Oklahoma City OK

B57 BA/MC SPILLREMED (MARINE)® Sarva Bio Remed, LLC Trenton NJ

B10 BA/NA INIPOL EAP 22

No longer manufactured

Société CECA S.A. 92062 Paris-laDéfenseFrance

M27 M-Solidifier OIL BOND® Solidification Products International, Inc. Northford CT

SW28 SWA NALE-IT SPL Control LLC Elemore City OK

SW2 SWA TOPSALL #30 (formerly D-20; AKA SUPERALL #38) Stutton North Corporation

Superall Products LLP

Mandeville

Tomball

LA

TX

SW15 SWA SIMPLE GREEN® (formerly D-46) Sunshine Makers, Inc Huntington Harbor CA

SW36 SWA SPILLCLEAN OR SPILLCLEAN ["CONCENTRATE"] (aka 

FIREMAN'S BRAND SPILLCLEAN)

Super Sat Ventures, Inc. Thiensville WI

D12 Dispersant Saf-Ron Gold (aka SF-GOLD DISPERSANT) Sustainable Environmental Technologies, 

Inc.

Mesa AZ

D3 Dispersant MARE CLEAN 200 (formerly MARE CLEAN 505) Taiho Industries Co. Ltd. Minatoku, Tokyo JAPAN

SW37 SWA TXCHEM HE-1000TM Texas EnviroChem, Inc. Houston TX

May 22December 3, 2014 85
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Exhibit A-1

NCP Subpart J Product Schedule, June 28, 2011

Product 

Number Product Type Product Name Name of Manufacturer City State

SW20 SWA BIOSOLVE ® HYDROCARBON MITIGATION 

TECHNOLOGYTM

The BioSolve® Company Lexington MA

D11 Dispersant FINASOL® OSR 52 (aka SEACARE ECOSPERSE 52) TOTAL FLUIDES Paris-LaDevenseDefenseFRANCE

SW44 SWA CLEAN GREEN (aka CLEANGREEN® PLANET WASH) U.S. AG, LLC Luthersville GA

D5 Dispersant DISPERSIT SPC 1000 TM (aka SEACARE E.P.A. 

(EcosperseECOSPERSETM Pollution Abatement))

U.S. Polychemical Corp. Chestnut Ridge NY

M29 M-Solidifier GELCO 200 UESS, Ltd Drayton Valley, AB Canada

M18 M ZYME-FLOW (aka ZYME-TREAT; MARI-ZYME; UNITED

658 PETRO-ZYME)

United Laboratories, Inc. St. Charles IL

B41 BA/MC MICRO-BLAZE® Verde Environmental, Inc. Houston TX

SW52 SWA VERU-SOLVETM 200 HP VeruTEK® Technologies Bloomfield CT

SW51 SWA DYNAMIC GREENTM Wechem, Inc. Harahan LA

B19 BA/MC WMI-2000 WMI International, Inc. Houston TX

D13 Dispersant ZI-400 (aka ZI-400 OIL SPILL DISPERSANT) ZI Chemicals Los Angeles CA

Note: Exhibit A-1 is organized alphabetically by product manufacturer.

May 22December 3, 2014 86
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Appendix B: North American Industrial Classification System

Exhibit B-1

Subpart J NAICS Codes and Descriptions

NAICS (Three 

Digit Codes)

Number of 

Manufacturers NAICS Descriptions

213 2 Support Activities for Mining

237 1 Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction

325 26 Chemical Manufacturing

333 2 Machinery Manufacturing

336 1 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing

423 3 Merchant Wholesalers, Durable Goods

424 9 Merchant Wholesalers, Nondurable Goods

453 1 Miscellaneous Store Retailers

541 9 Professional, Scientific and Technical 

Services

561 2 Administrative and Support Services

562 7 Waste Management and Remediation 

Services

Other 2 Invalid codes

Sources: Dun and Bradstreet (D&B), SRA International and EPA. D&B had NAICS 

codes for 65 of 86 manufacturers on the June 28, 2011 Schedule. Two of the 65 

manufacturers reported invalid NAICS codes.

May 22December 3, 2014 87
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Exhibit B-2

Subpart J NAICS Codes, Descriptions and Small Business Criteria

NAICS Codes 

(Six Digit 

Level)

Number of 

Manufacturers

Small Business 

Criteria ($ millions 

or employees)

NAICS Descriptions

213112 2 $7.0 Support Activities for Oil and Gas Operations

237990 1 $33.5 Other Heavy and Civil Engineering Construction

325188 5 1,000 All Other Basic Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing

325199 2 1,000 All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing

325320 1 500 Pesticide and Other Agricultural Chemical 

Manufacturing

325412 1 750 Pharmaceutical Preparation Manufacturing

325414 4 500 Biological Product (except Diagnostic) 

Manufacturing

325611 2 750 Soap and Other Detergent Manufacturing

325612 5 500 Polish and Other Sanitation Goods Manufacturing

325620 1 500 Toilet Preparation Manufacturing

325998 5 500 All Other Miscellaneous Chemical Product and 

Preparation Manufacturing

333131 1 500 Mining, Machinery and Equipment Manufacturing

333319 1 500 Other Commercial and Service Industry 

Machinery Manufacturing

336399 1 750 All Other Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing

423830 1 100 Industrial Machinery and Equipment Merchant 

Wholesalers

423840 1 100 Industrial Supplies Merchant Wholesalers

423850 1 100 Service Establishment Equipment and Supplies 

Merchant Wholesalers

424610 2 100 Plastics Materials and Basic Forms and Shapes 

Merchant Wholesalers

424690 5 100 Other Chemical and Allied Products Merchant 

Wholesalers

424990 2 100 Other Miscellaneous Nondurable Goods Merchant 

Wholesalers

453998 1 $7.0 All Other Miscellaneous Store Retailers (except 

Tobacco Stores)

541330 1 $4.5 Engineering Services

541611 1 $7.0 Administrative Management and General 

Management Consulting Service

541620 2 $7.0 Environmental Consulting Services

541711 1 500 Research and Development in Biotechnology

541712 3 500

Research and development in Physical 

Engineering and Life Science (except 

Biotechnology)

541990 1 $7.0 All Other professional, Scientific and Technical 

Services

561720 1 $16.5 Janitorial Services

561990 1 $7.0 All Other Support Services

562211 1 $12.5 Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal

May 22December 3, 2014 88
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

562219 1 $12.5 Other Nonhazardous Waste Treatment and 

Disposal

562910 5 $14.0 Bioremediation Services

Other 2 Incorrect codes

Sources: Dun and Bradstreet (D&B), SRA International, Inc., and EPA. D&B had NAICS codes for 65 of 86 

manufacturers on the June 28, 2011 Schedule. The codes for two of the 65 manufacturers were invalid.

Exhibit B-3

Offshore Oil Platforms, Responders, and Service Providers

Description NAICS Codes

Crude petroleum and natural gas extraction 211111

Petroleum refineries 324110

Petroleum and petroleum products merchants 

wholesalers

424720

Environmental consulting services 541620

Remediation services 562910

May 22December 3, 2014 89
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Appendix C: NCP Product Schedule Manufacturer Profile and Expected Impacts

Table C-1

NCP Product Schedule Manufacturer Profile and Expected Impacts

Associated with the Proposed Revisions to NCP Subpart J (40 CFR 300.900)

5 Year Annualization

Company 

Size

Manufacturer Profile Using Dun &

Bradstreet Data a Impact on Existing Manufacturers b Impact on New Manufacturers c

Number of 

Employees

Number of 

Companies

Annual Revenue 

per Company d Number

Average Annual 

Incremental Change in 

Cost per Company e

Impact (Cost 

to Revenue) Number

Average Annual 

Incremental Change in 

Cost per Company e

Impact (Cost 

to Revenue)

Small Businesses

1 to 9 35 $1,953,786 46 $3,473 0.18% 5 $4,757 0.24%

10 to 19 11 $1,699,803 15 $3,473 0.20% 2 $4,757 0.28%

20 to 99 11 $9,879,764 15 $3,473 0.04% 2 $4,757 0.05%

100 to 499 4 $50,624,645 5 $3,473 0.01% 1 $4,757 0.01%

Total 61 81 9

Large Businesses

500+ 4 $4,560,366,000 5 $3,473 0.00% 1 $4,757 0.00%

a. Manufacturers of products currently on the Product Schedule were categorized according to size based on availability of D&B data (i.e., annual 

revenue and number of employees) and SBA company size definitions.

b. Manufacturers of existing products on the Schedule total 86, based on the June 2011 NCP Product Schedule. The 21 manufacturers with products 

currently on the Schedule that were not classified according to company size due to insufficient D&B information were allocated across the five 

company size categories in proportion to the distribution of manufacturers with sufficient D&B company size information. (Note: 65 companies have 

reportable data, 21 companies did not)

c. EPA assumes the size distribution for the estimated 10 manufacturers of new products to be considered for listing on the Product Schedule will be 

similar to the size and revenue distribution of existing product manufacturers.

d. Five companies were missing revenue information in the 1 to 9 number of employees size category, and one company was missing revenue 

information in the 100 to 499 number of employees size category.

e. These estimates are based on average incremental cost estimates per manufacturer for existing and new manufacturers presented in Exhibit 7-1 A.

May 22December 3, 2014 90
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Appendix D: Estimating Per Gallon Response Cost by Discharge Size

EPA identified oil discharge data that are compiled at the federal level and maintained by 

the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of 

Transportation.13 These data have the advantage of including both the volume of each oil 

discharge and selected elements of the associated costs of cleanup. These data provide 

information on discharges originating from pipelines from 1986 to present. Beginning in 2002, 

the data contain information on the volume of discharges, along with an itemized cost of 

cleanup.14 These data include the public and private property damage, cost of emergency 

response, cost of environmental remediation, other public costs, value of product lost, value of 

operator property damage, other operator costs, and the total cost of cleanup. The PHMSA data 

provide the most comprehensive information available on responsible party cost. However, 

these costs exclude other social costs because of third party claims. The cost also excludes 

indirect costs. However, to the extent that most oil discharge responses are conducted by the 

responsible party, and also comprise the majority of the total costs, these data provide a 

reasonable estimate.15,16

The Agency notes the drawbacks associated with using the PHMSA data to estimate the 

cost of oil spills affected by the proposed revisions to Subpart J. First, the PHMSA data are 

compiled based on accident incident reports that pipeline facilities are required to submit to 

PHMSA for discharges greater than 5 gallons. Therefore, as with any database that is based on 

facility reports (e.g., NRC), the database may not capture the entire universe of pipeline 

discharges, and the values may reflect differences across facilities on how they report the 

values of the damages.17 The results suggest that there is a large amount of variability in the 

per-gallon cost estimates. Some of this variability may be explained by the fact that the 

response cost would vary significantly depending on the nature and location of the discharge: 

whether it was near an ecologically sensitive area, whether there was discharge into water, if 

private property was affected, etc. However, some of this variability might reflect the differences 

in reporting across facilities. Second, using data from pipeline discharges implicitly assumes 

that the response cost does not depend on the source of the discharge, and that the response 

cost of discharges from other sources, such as oil platforms and vessels, is similar to response 

cost of discharges from pipeline. Also like oil spills affected by the proposed revisions to Subpart 

J, pipelines are located in a variety of geographical areas, and the cost of cleanup may 

reasonable depend on the volume of the discharge, the product discharged, and the type of 

aquatic environment affected. However, pipelines are often underground and may run across 

13 Data are available at http://ops.dot.gov/stats/IA98.htm. 14 The data from 1986 to 2001 only provide information on the value of property damage resulting from the 

discharges.

15 GAO estimated that responsible parties paid between 72 and 78 percent of oil spill removal costs and 

compensation damages, respectively, for 51 spills it considered in its review (September 2007, “Major Spills Occur 

Infrequently, but Risks to the Federal Oil Spill Fund Remain,” GAO Report #GAO-07-1085). While GA focused on 

spills from vessels, responses to spills from inland facilities are also typically conducted at least in part by the 

responsible party. 

16 Douglas Helton and Tony Penn, 1999, “Putting Response and Natural Damage Assessment Cost in Perspective,” 

International Spills Conference.

17 As with any data that rely on reporting by facilities, the data on cost and total number of spills in the PHMSA 

database may not be complete, as pointed out by the National Transportation Safety Board and Charles Batten 

(Charles Batten, “PHMSA’s Data Collection – Does it Tell us Anything?” Safe Pipelines, Volume 3, Number 2, 

available at http://pstrust.org/library/docs/vol3no1/pstnewsletter vol3no1.pdf)

May 22December 3, 2014 91

 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

difficult terrain that would imply higher cost of cleanup for accessing the pipelines.18 If this is the 

case, one would expect high fixed cost of accessing the pipeline regardless of the size of the 

discharge. The per-gallon cost estimate suggests that this is true – the per-gallon cost for 

discharge ranging from 5 to 30 gallons is $747 and $723 for crude oil and gasoline discharges, 

respectively, while the discharges greater than 10,000 gallons, the per-gallon cost is as low as 

$40 and $22 for crude oil and gasoline dischargers, respectively. Finally, it is important to note 

that insofar as the data do not include the cost of environmental damage and other indirect 

costs such as higher insurance costs or decreased stock valuation, this cost is an 

underestimate of the social cost of discharge.19

The Agency used the observations on 1,857 discharges in the years 2002 to 2008 for 45 

states across the United States in the PHMSA data to estimate the average response cost per 

gallon.

20 The Agency estimates that the per-gallon average cleanup cost is $1,114 for crude oil 

and $1,414 for gasoline and other petroleum oils, including diesel and fuel oils (Exhibit).21 The 

results suggest that the per-gallon cost is as high as $19,631 and $40,615 for crude oil and 

gasoline discharges less than 5 gallons, respectively, and $447 and $244 for crude oil and 

gasoline discharges greater than 5 gallons, respectively. Within the latter category, the pergallon cost also decreases significantly by discharge size. For the purpose of this analysis, EPA 

used the per-gallon estimate for crude oil discharges greater than 10,000 gallons because 

dispersants are expected to be used only for large spills.

18 An option to correct for this could have been to deduct the cost associated with reaching the pipeline. However, 

information was not collected on this.

19 See Department of Interior (2010) for additional information on these other costs. 20 The data were accessed in April 2008 and include 64 cases for 2008.

May 22December 3, 2014 92

 
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

Exhibit D-1

Per-Gallon Response Cost by Discharge Size

Type of 

Oil

Discharge Size

Less Than 

5 Gallons

Greater than 5 Gallons

Overall 

Average 5 to 30 

Gallons

30 to 99 

Gallons

100 - 499 

Gallons

500 - 1499 

Gallons

1500-

10,000 

Gallons

>10,000 

Gallons

>5 Gallons 

(Average)

Crude Oil $19,631 $747 $750 $251 $218 $79 $40 $447 $1,114

Gasoline 

and other 

Fuels

$40,614 $723 $287 $140 $57 $41 $22 $244 $1,414

Average $29,589 $737 $504 $192 $126 $56 $30 $341 $1,270

May 22December 3, 2014 93
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

References

Antle, J. M. (1999). "Benefits and costs of food safety regulation." Food Policy 24(6): 605-623.

Batten, Charles. "PHMSA's Data Collection - Does it Tell us Anything?" Dafe Pipelines, Volume 

3, Number 2, Available at: 

http//pstrust.org/library/docs/vol3no1/pstnewsletter_vol3no1.pdf

Berman, Eli and L. Bui (2001). "Environmental Regulation and Labor Demand: Evidence from 

the South Coast Air Basin." Journal of Public Economics, February.

Boyd, James W. (2011) “The Risk of Ecosystem Service Losses, Ecological Hedging 

Strategies," Resources. Summer 2011. No. 178.

Carson, R. T., R. C. Mitchell, M. Hanemann, R. J. Kopp, S. Presser and P. A. Ruud (2003). 

"Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill." 

Environmental and Resource Economics 25(3): 257-286.

Fingas, Mervin (2011). Oil Spill Science and Technology. Gulf Professional Publishing. 

Freeman, A. Myrick.(1993) The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values, Theory 

and Methods. Resources for the Future. 

Garza-Gil, M. D., A. Prada-Blanco and M. X. Vázquez-Rodríguez (2006). "Estimating the shortterm economic damages from the Prestige oil spill in the Galician fisheries and tourism." 

Ecological Economics 58(4): 842-849.

Garza-Gil, M. D., J. C. Surís-Regueiro and M. M. Varela-Lafuente (2006). "Assessment of 

economic damages from the Prestige oil spill." Marine Policy 30(5): 544-551.

Goodlad, J. (1996). "Effects of the Braer oil spill on the Shetland seafood industry." Science of 

The Total Environment 186(1-2): 127-133.

Gunkel, W. and G. Gassmann (1980). "Oil, oil dispersants and related substances in the marine 

environment." Helgoland Marine Research 33(1): 164-181.

Helton, Douglas and Tony Penn, 1999. "Putting Response and Natural Damage Assessment 

Cost in Perspective." International Spills Conference.

International Oil Spill Conference, "A Primer on Insitu Fluorometry to Monitor Dispersed Oil." 

Charles B. Henry, Paulene O. Roberts and Edward B Overton. Louisiana State 

University. 1999.

Law, R. J. and J. Hellou (1999). "Contamination of Fish and Shellfish Following Oil Spill 

Incidents." Environmental Geosciences 6(2): 90-98.

Loureiro, M., J. Loomis and M. Vázquez (2009). "Economic Valuation of Environmental 

Damages due to the Prestige Oil Spill in Spain." Environmental and Resource 

Economics 44(4): 537-553.

May 22December 3, 2014 94
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

National Academy of Sciences (2011). "Approaches for Ecosystem Services Valuation for the 

Gulf of Mexico After the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Interim Report".

National Research Council of the National Academies (2005). Oil Spill Dispersants, Efficacy and 

Effects. 

Office of Management and Budget (2003). "Circular A-4, Regulatory Analysis". 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars a004 a-4, September 2003.

Office of Management and Budget. (1996) "Economic Analysis of Federal Regulations Under 

Executive Order 12866". http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_riaguide, January 11, 

1996.

Percin, Paul de, Albert D. Venosa, Markram T. Suidan, and George Sorial, "Analysis of 

Dispersant Effectiveness of Heavy Fuel Oils and Weathered Crude Oils at Two Different 

Temperatures Using the Baffled Flask," Final Report, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, National Risk Management Research Laboratory. March 16, 2005 - July 15, 

2005. 

Ramseur, Jonathan L. (2010) "Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: The Fate of the Oil." CRS Report 

R41531.

Small Business Administration. "Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North 

American Industry Classification System Codes." http://www.sba.gov/content/tablesmall-business-size-standards Effective November 5, 2010.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2012). "Waterborne Commerce of the United States (WCUS) 

Part 5 National Summaries, Calendar Year 2012."

http://www.ndc.iwr.usace.army.mil/wcsc/wcsc.htm 

U.S. Department of the Interior (2010), "Benefit-Cost Analysis for the Interim Final Rule on 

Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf." 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. September 30, 

2010.

U.S. Department of the Interior, (2010a). "Installations and Removals - Offshore Production 

Facilities in Federal Waters." Offshore Stats and Facts. Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM). http:www.boemre.gov/stats/PDFs/OCSPlatformActivity.pdf

U.S. Department of Transportation (2001). "OPA 90 Programmatic Regulatory Assessment 

(PRA), Benefit, Cost and Cost Effectiveness of Eleven Major Rulemakings of the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990" Research and Special Programs Administration. May 2001.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006). "EPA's Action Development Process, Final 

Guidance for EPA Rulewriters: Regulatory Flexibility Analysis as amended by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act." November 30, 2006.

U,.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2010). Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses.

Office of the Administrator. Washington, DC. (EPA 240-R-10-001).

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eed.nsf/webpages/Guidelines.html/$file/Guidelines.pdf

May 22December 3, 2014 95
***E.O. 12866 Review – Draft - Do Not Cite, Quote, or Release During Review***

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2011). "Handbook on the Benefits, Costs, and Impacts 

of Land Cleanup and Reuse." Office of Policy and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency 

Response. EPA-240-R-11-001. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2005). "Analysis of Dispersant Effectiveness of Heavy 

Fuel Oils and Weathered Crude Oils at Two Different Temperatures Using the Baffled 

Flask." National Risk Management Laboratory. Paul De Percin, Project Officer; Albert D. 

Venosa, EPA Task Manager. Submitted by Makram, Project Officer; George A. Sorial, 

Task Order Leader, University of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of 

Cincinnati. March 16, 2005 - July 15, 2005. 

U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)(2007). Major Spills Occur Infrequently, but Risks 

to the Federal Oil Spill Fund Remain, GAO Report #GAO-07-1085, page 27. September,

Van Houtven, G., J. Powers and S. K. Pattanayak (2007). "Valuing Water Quality Improvements 

in the United States Using Meta-Analysis: Is the Glass Half-Full of Half-Empty for 

National Policy Analysis?" Resource and Energy Economics 29(3): 206-228.

 

May 22December 3, 2014 96