[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 11, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76282-76292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-31243]



[[Page 76281]]

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

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





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



Sustainable Futures -- Voluntary Pilot Project Under the TSCA New 
Chemicals Program; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 67 , No. 238 / Wednesday, December 11, 2002 / 
Notices  

[[Page 76282]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[OPPT-2002-0011; FRL-7198-6]
RIN 2070-AD60


Sustainable Futures -- Voluntary Pilot Project Under the TSCA New 
Chemicals Program; Notice

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a voluntary pilot project by EPA, 
entitled Sustainable Futures, to encourage the application of pollution 
prevention principles during the development of new chemicals submitted 
as premanufacture notices (PMNs) under section 5 of the Toxic 
Substances Control Act (TSCA). Certain expedited review under section 5 
of TSCA is proposed as an incentive to PMN submitters. The goal of this 
pilot project is to encourage pollution prevention and the development 
of inherently low hazard chemicals. Furthermore, the Agency seeks to 
gain additional data and experience regarding the pollution prevention, 
risk reduction, and source reduction benefits of use of hazard, 
exposure, and risk screening methodologies such as EPA's Pollution 
Prevention Framework in new product development efforts.

DATES: Comments are solicited on or before June 9, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail, or 
through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as 
provided in Unit I. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information contact: 
Barbara Cunningham, Acting Director, Environmental Assistance Division 
(7408M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: (202) 554-1404; e-mail address: [email protected].
    For technical information contact: For New Chemicals Program 
regulatory information: Kenneth T. Moss, Chemical Control Division 
(7405M), Office Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number: (202) 564-9232; e-mail address: 
[email protected]. For information about P2 Framework and Training 
or Workshops: Bill Waugh or Maggie Wilson, Risk Assessment Division 
(7403M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone numbers: (202) 564-7657 or 564-8924; e-mail addresses: 
[email protected] or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are or may in 
the future be a submitter of a PMN under TSCA. Potentially affected 
entities may include, but are not limited to:
    [sbull] Chemical manufacturers or importers (NAICS 325, 32411, 28, 
2911). Anyone who plans to manufacture or import a new chemical 
substance (as defined in TSCA section 3) for a non-exempt commercial 
purpose is required to provide the EPA with a PMN at least 90 days 
prior to the activity. Any TSCA Chemical substance that is not on the 
TSCA Inventory is classified as a new chemical.
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides 
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this 
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be 
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) 
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining 
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any 
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular 
entity, consult the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this 
action under docket identification (ID) number OPPT-2002-0011. The 
official public docket consists of the documents specifically 
referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other 
information related to this action. Although a part of the official 
docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business 
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted 
by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials 
that is available for public viewing at the EPA Docket Center, Rm. 
B102-Reading Room, EPA West, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 
DC. The EPA Docket Center is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The EPA Docket Center Reading 
Room telephone number is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for 
the OPPT Docket, which is located in EPA Docket Center, is (202) 566-
0280.
    2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document 
electronically through the EPA Internet under the ``Federal Register'' 
listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may 
use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public 
comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official 
public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that 
are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be 
available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly 
available docket materials through the docket facility identified in 
Unit I.B.1. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the 
appropriate docket ID number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. 
Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public 
docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic 
public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be 
placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in 
printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent 
feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in 
EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the 
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the 
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. 
Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you 
may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through 
the docket facility identified in Unit I.B.1. EPA intends to work 
towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available 
docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, 
will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment 
contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment 
containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that 
material in the

[[Page 76283]]

version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public 
docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, 
will be available in the public docket.
    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or 
delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public 
docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the docket will 
be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where 
practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph 
will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief 
description written by the docket staff.

C. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand 
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the 
appropriate docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of 
your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the 
specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the 
comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider 
these late comments. If you wish to submit CBI or information that is 
otherwise protected by statute, please follow the instructions in Unit 
I.D. Do not use EPA Dockets or e-mail to submit CBI or information 
protected by statute.
    1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as 
prescribed in this unit, EPA recommends that you include your name, 
mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in 
the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the 
outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter 
accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be 
identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact 
you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties 
or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's 
policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or 
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included 
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, 
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot 
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you 
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to 
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for 
receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket, and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. 
Once in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in docket ID number 
OPPT-2002-0011. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact 
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
    ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by e-mail to [email protected], 
Attention: Docket ID Number OPPT-2002-0011. In contrast to EPA's 
electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an ``anonymous 
access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the docket 
without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail 
system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses 
that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as 
part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and 
made available in EPA's electronic public docket.
    iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM 
that you mail to the mailing address identified in Unit I.C.2. These 
electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect or ASCII file 
format. Avoid the use of special characters and any form of encryption.
    2. By mail. Send your comments to: Document Control Office (7407M), 
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT), Environmental 
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001.
    3. By hand delivery or courier. Deliver your comments to: OPPT 
Document Control Office (DCO) in EPA East Building Rm. 6428, 1201 
Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. Attention: Docket ID Number 
OPPT-2002-0011. The DCO is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the DCO is 
(202) 564-8930.

D. How Should I Submit CBI To the Agency?

    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 
electronically through EPA's electronic public docket or by e-mail. You 
may claim information that you submit to EPA as CBI by marking any part 
or all of that information as CBI (if you submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, 
mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify 
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that 
is CBI). Information so marked will not be disclosed except in 
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not 
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion 
in the public docket and EPA's electronic public docket. If you submit 
the copy that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside 
of the disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information 
not marked as CBI will be included in the public docket and EPA's 
electronic public docket without prior notice. If you have any 
questions about CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult 
the technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

E. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    We invite you to provide your views on the various options we 
propose, new approaches we have not considered, the potential impacts 
of the various options (including possible unintended consequences), 
and any data or information that you would like the Agency to consider 
during the development of the final action. You may find the following 
suggestions helpful for preparing your comments:
    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide copies of any technical information and/or data you used 
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you 
arrived at the estimate that you provide.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternative ways to improve the notice or collection 
activity.
    7. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, be sure to identify the docket 
ID number assigned to this action in the subject line on the first page 
of your response. You may also provide the name, date, and Federal 
Register citation.

II. Background

    Under section 5(a) of TSCA, persons must notify EPA at least 90 
days before manufacturing or importing a new chemical substance for 
non-exempt purposes. A new chemical substance, as defined in section 
3(9) of TSCA, is any chemical substance (as defined in section 3(2) of 
TSCA) that is not included on the Inventory compiled under section 8(b) 
of TSCA. EPA requires that submissions be made on EPA Form 7710-25- 
Premanufacture

[[Page 76284]]

Notice (PMN). The Agency encourages chemical manufacturers to 
incorporate health and environmental issues into product decisionmaking 
during the development of new chemical substances. EPA has several 
ongoing initiatives intended to help stakeholders better assess risk 
issues during the early stages of chemical development efforts. 
Examples include the Design for Environment Program, the Green 
Chemistry Program, and the Pollution Prevention Framework (P2 
Framework), among other programs. Of specific relevance to today's 
notice is the P2 Framework as utilized in the development of safer new 
chemicals submitted as PMNs under section 5 of TSCA.

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    The Agency seeks to gain additional data and experience regarding 
the pollution prevention, safer chemicals, risk reduction, and source 
reduction benefits of use of hazard, exposure, and risk screening 
methodologies such as the P2 Framework in new product development 
efforts. To help build this knowledge base the Agency has established 
this pilot project, entitled Sustainable Futures, to encourage 
application of pollution prevention principles during the development 
of new chemicals under TSCA, known hereafter as the ``pilot project.'' 
While EPA's major goal is development of safer new chemicals, for 
purposes of the pilot it will also consider low-moderate hazard 
chemicals for which exposure assessment indicates potentially low risk. 
This pilot project is entirely voluntary and will enable the Agency to 
develop information to support a possible future exemption under 
section 5(h)(4) of TSCA based on experience gained in Sustainable 
Futures. Under this initiative, pilot project participants would be 
encouraged to become proficient with and to apply the Pollution 
Prevention Framework (P2 Framework) or other scientifically acceptable 
hazard, exposure, and risk screening methods in new chemical 
development efforts. To encourage industry participation in this 
voluntary pilot project, the Agency will consider providing certain 
expedited review to participants in the pilot project. This notice 
provides additional detail relating to the expedited review available 
under this pilot project and discusses criteria or factors EPA will 
consider to determine eligibility for the pilot project and associated 
expedited review.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    This pilot project is entirely voluntary and will enable the Agency 
to develop information to support a possible future exemption to the 
PMN reporting requirements of section 5 of TSCA, under section 5(h)(4) 
of TSCA and based on experience gained in Sustainable Futures. See 
below for a further explanation of these requirements and general 
information on the New Chemicals Program.

C. Overview of the PMN Process

    Under section 5(a) of TSCA, persons must notify EPA at least 90 
days before manufacturing or importing a new chemical substance for 
non-exempt purposes. EPA requires that submissions be made on EPA Form 
7710-25 - Premanufacture Notice (PMN). Along with the PMN submitters 
must send in all available data on chemical identity, production 
volume, byproducts, use, environmental release, disposal practices, and 
human exposure. In addition, submitters must send in all existing 
health and environmental data in the possession of the submitter, 
parent company, or affiliates. All of this information is considered by 
Agency risk assessors to determine whether manufacture, processing, 
distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of such substance, or any 
combination of such activities, presents an unreasonable risk of injury 
to health or the environment. In some cases, EPA can require submission 
of any additional data, including development of data through testing, 
when the information included with the PMN, coupled with that available 
to its risk reviewers from internal archives is not adequate to allow 
EPA to make this determination. The Instruction Manual for 
Premanufacture Notification of New Chemical Substances explains all 
reporting requirements.
    EPA has limited or no reporting requirements for new chemical 
substances in the following cases:
    [sbull] Low Volume Exemption (LVE) -- 10,000 kilograms or less of 
the substance will be manufactured or imported each year under the 
requirements at (40 CFR 723.50). Notification required, using EPA Form 
7710-25 (the PMN Form).
    [sbull] Research and Development (R&D) -- the substance is 
manufactured in small quantities for research and development, and 
special procedural and recordkeeping requirements are met (40 CFR 
720.36 and 720.78). Notification not required.
    [sbull] Low Releases and Low Exposures (LoREX) Exemptions -- the 
substance is expected to have low release and exposure under the 
requirements at 40 CFR 723.50. Notification required, using the PMN 
Form.
    [sbull] Test Marketing Exemption (TME) -- the substance is being 
manufactured or imported for TME, under the requirements at 40 CFR 
720.38. Notification required, using the PMN Form.
    [sbull] Polymer Exemption -- the substance is a polymer that meets 
certain specified criteria where the substance is not considered 
chemically active or bioavailable under the requirements at 40 CFR 
723.250. Annual report to the Agency is required for those exempt 
polymers commenced for the first time in the preceding calendar year.
    Section 5 of TSCA gives EPA 90 days to review a PMN (also referred 
to as a ``section 5 notice''). The PMN program has evolved into an 
efficient mechanism to identify new chemicals which are of greatest 
concern during the early stages of the 90-day review process and focus 
detailed analysis on these cases with the ultimate goal of identifying 
and controlling unreasonable risks. EPA utilizes an integrated approach 
that draws on knowledge and experience across scientific and 
organizational lines to identify and evaluate concerns regarding health 
and environmental effects, exposure and release and economic impacts. 
PMNs and exemption notices share the early stages of the 90-day PMN 
review process; LVE and LoREX applications conclude review by day 30 
and TME applications by day 45.
    A large majority of PMN submissions are reviewed, evaluated and 
dropped from further consideration during the early stages, i.e., first 
30 days, of the PMN review period. The early stages of the PMN review 
period include:
    1. The Chemical Review and Search Strategy Meeting;
    2. The Structure Activity Team Meeting;
    3. Development of the Exposure and Release Profile; and
    4. The Focus Meeting.
    The Chemical Review and Search Strategy (CRSS) meeting (day 8-12) 
examines chemical identity; structure/chemical nomenclature; structural 
analogs/TSCA Inventory Status; synthesis (including byproducts and 
impurities); use/TSCA jurisdiction as provided by the PMN submitter, 
open literature, or as identified by EPA for similar chemical 
substances; physical/chemical properties (physical state, molecular 
weight, melting and boiling point, vapor pressure, solubility, octanol 
water partition co-efficient, pH); and

[[Page 76285]]

pollution prevention aspects, using information provided by the PMN 
submitter. EPA also may make suggestions for alternate synthetic 
pathways. Decisions at this meeting include notice completeness, 
validity, reportability, eligibility for exemption, candidacy for 
exposure-based review (PMN has potential for substantial production 
volume and substantial or significant human exposure or substantial 
environmental release), and whether the notice meets certain CRSS drop 
criteria.
    The Structure Activity Team meeting (day 9-13) is an 
interdisciplinary meeting of scientists, including chemists, 
biologists, toxicologists, and information specialists, which evaluates 
potential environmental fate, health effects and environmental hazard 
through the use of structure activity relationships (SAR), test data on 
the new chemical substance, data on structural analogs, and expert 
judgment.
    The Initial Exposure and Release Assessments are developed by Day 
10-19 and examine occupational exposure, environmental releases, and 
environmental, general population and consumer exposures.
    The Focus meeting (Day 15-20) is the earliest risk management 
meeting in the section 5 notice review period; representatives from all 
PMN technical disciplines are involved in this assessment. Initial 
decisions are developed at this meeting. For Exemption notices, the 
initial decisions are to grant or deny the notice, with or without 
certain conditions of use specified in the notice, to which the 
submitter is legally bound. Focus meeting decisions for PMNs can range 
from identifying the need to consider a ban or section 5(e) of TSCA 
regulation of the new chemical to a ``drop'' from further Agency 
review. A PMN can also continue on to a more detailed review which 
occupies much of the remainder of the 90-day period. Regardless of 
whether the Agency drops a PMN submission during the early stages of 
review at the Focus meeting or near the end of the statutorily mandated 
90-day PMN review period, the PMN submitter is nonetheless not allowed 
to commence manufacture before day 90 of the review period.
    The review period can be extended under section 5(c) of TSCA for 
good cause; it may also be suspended voluntarily by the mutual consent 
of EPA and the PMN submitter. During the review period for PMNs, EPA 
may take action under section 5(e) or (f) of TSCA to prohibit or limit 
the production, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal 
of new chemical substances that raise health or environmental concerns. 
If EPA has not taken action under section 5(e) or (f) of TSCA, the PMN 
submitter may manufacture or import the new chemical substance when the 
review period expires (i.e., day 90) and need merely notify the agency 
of commencement of manufacture or import. Similarly, during the review 
period for PMN exemption notices, EPA may take action to prohibit or 
limit the production, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and 
disposal of new chemical substances that raise health or environmental 
concerns. If EPA has not taken action to deny the exemption 
application, under section 5(h)(1) for TMEs or section 5(h)(4) of TSCA 
for LVE and LoREX notices, the notice submitter may manufacture or 
import the new chemical substance when the respective review period for 
those notices expires (i.e., day 45 for TME or day 30 LVE and LoREX).
    No later than 30 days after the PMN submitter initiates manufacture 
or import of the PMN substance, it must provide EPA with a notice of 
commencement of manufacture or import (NOC). Section 8(b) of TSCA 
provides that, upon receipt of such a notice, EPA must add the 
substance to the TSCA Inventory. Thereafter, other manufacturers and 
importers may engage in activities involving the new substance without 
submitting a PMN, unless the Agency has used its Significant New Use 
Rule (SNUR) authority under section 5(a)(2) of TSCA to designate a use 
of a chemical substance as a ``significant new use.'' Section 
5(a)(1)(B) of TSCA would then require persons to submit a Significant 
New Use Notice (SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before they manufacture, 
import, or process the substance for the use designated as significant. 
The required SNUN provides EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the 
intended use, and if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity 
before it occurs.

D. History

    EPA has over 20 years experience in reviewing PMNs and exemption 
notices under TSCA on a wide variety of classes or categories of 
chemicals. During this period the Agency has reviewed over 38,000 PMNs 
and section 5 of TSCA exemption notices.
    Historically, it has been EPA's policy to not allow simultaneous 
submission of section 5 exemption notices and PMNs for the same 
substance. For LVEs, EPA restricts submission of a PMN until nine 
months after the date on which a LVE is approved by EPA (i.e., 90 days 
before termination of the one year low volume period) and restricts a 
LVE when a pending PMN estimates a production volume greater than 
10,000 kilograms per year. This policy, in interpreting the intent of 
the rule, places emphasis on the rule's use of the words 10,000 
kilograms ``per year,'' rather than per any lesser time period. 
Accordingly, EPA has denied a LVE because a PMN simultaneously 
submitted by the same company on the same chemical estimated the 
production volume to be over 10,000 kilograms per year.
    Test Market Exemption (TME) applications have been allowed in 
combination with Premanufacture Notices (PMNs) only if the submitter's 
description clearly distinguishes the test marketing activity from 
full-scale commercial production or research and development. EPA's New 
Chemical Information Bulletin Exemptions for Research and Development 
and Test Marketing (USEPA, 1986, see Unit XV.1.) describes how the 
Agency, in order to discourage the use of simultaneous submissions to 
simply obtain PMN review of a chemical substance in 45 days, closely 
examines such submissions to determine if genuine test marketing 
activity is involved; if it is not, the application has been denied. 
The suggested mechanism for such a combination submission has been 
that, following the submission of a TME application, the same company 
may not submit a PMN for the same chemical until 90 days before the end 
of the test marketing period specified by the company in its TME 
application pursuant to 40 CFR 720.38(b)(5).

III. What is the P2 Framework?

    The P2 Framework (USEPA, 2000, see Unit XV.2.) is a set of computer 
models that predict hazards and exposures of chemicals using structure 
activity relationships (SARs), exposure assessment models and 
databases, and standard (default) scenarios. These models have been 
developed over a 20-year period by EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention 
and Toxics, and others in the scientific and technical community, to 
screen new chemicals in the presence of limited data. Annually, EPA 
evaluates over 2,000 new chemicals submitted under section 5 of TSCA. 
TSCA requires that EPA evaluate the chemicals within 90 days. Although 
the law does not generally require that the submitter conduct 
laboratory tests to evaluate potential hazards of the chemicals, PMN 
submissions must include all available existing information on exposure 
and environmental release on new chemicals and the Agency will use this 
information or, in absence of supplied information, professional 
judgment to

[[Page 76286]]

evaluated exposures and releases. Operating under this time limitation, 
and often a lack of data, EPA developed methods to quickly screen 
chemicals to assess human and environmental hazards, physical/chemical 
properties, environmental fate, human and environmental exposures, and 
risks.
    The P2 Framework models listed in the table in this unit, capture 
the expertise of multiple EPA scientists, grantees, support 
contractors, and others in the scientific community working for over 20 
years screening chemicals in the presence of limited data. The P2 
Framework project presents these models to industry with the hope that 
the models will be useful in identifying potential problem chemicals 
and processes early in the research and development process. EPA 
believes that application of hazard screening methodologies early in 
new chemicals research and development will lead to commercialization 
of safer new chemical substances. In other instances where chemicals 
are projected to present a low-moderate hazard concern, exposure and 
risk screening methodologies can be used early in the research and 
development process to identify lower risk chemical alternatives. The 
table also provides information regarding the availability of the 
models.

                                               P2 Framework Models
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Model                    Endpoints addressed         Inputs needed             Availability
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Models to Estimate Physical-Chemical Properties
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPI Suite\TM\                          Melting and Boiling      Chemical Abstract        Download at no cost
                                        Points, Vapor            Service Registry         from http://
                                        Pressure; Octanol/       Number (CAS RN), if in   www.epa.gov/oppt/
                                        water partition          Smilecas database -      exposure/docs/
                                        coefficient (Kow);       CAS database of          episuitedl.htm
                                        Water solubility from    Simplified Molecular
                                        log Kow; Soil organic    Input Line Entry
                                        carbon partition         System (SMILES) - or
                                        coefficient (Koc);       Chemical Structure in
                                        Henry's law constant:    SMILES notation
                                        vapor pressure/water
                                        solubility; Fish
                                        bioconcentration
                                        factor
--------------------------------------
                                      Models to Estimate Environmental Fate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPI Suite\TM\                          Atmospheric oxidation    Chemical Abstract        Download at no cost
                                        potential;               Service Registry         from http://
                                        Biodegradation rate;     Number (CAS RN), if in   www.epa.gov/oppt/
                                        Hydrolysis rate;         Smilecas database -      exposure/docs/
                                        Percent removal in       CAS database of          episuitedl.htm
                                        POTW (Publicly Owned     Simplified Molecular
                                        Treatment Works)         Input Line Entry
                                                                 System (SMILES) - or
                                                                 Chemical Structure in
                                                                 SMILES notation
--------------------------------------
                            Models to Estimate Human Health and Environmental Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OncoLogic                              Cancer hazard potential  Chemical structure       Developed by USEPA,
                                                                                          OPPT and LogiChem
                                                                                          under a cooperative
                                                                                          agreement. Information
                                                                                          http://logichem.com/
--------------------------------------
ECOSAR\TM\                             Acute and chronic        CAS RN (if in Smilecas   Download at no cost
                                        toxicity to fish,        db) or Chemical          from http://
                                        invertebrates, algae     Structure in SMILES      www.epa.gov/oppt/
                                                                 notation                 newchems/21ecosar.htm
--------------------------------------
                                           Models to Estimate Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-FAST                                 Surface water            Physical/chem            Download at no cost
                                        ingestion, fish          properties, fate         from http://
                                        ingestion, ground        properties, release      www.epa.gov/oppt/
                                        water ingestion,         amounts, release         exposure/docs/
                                        ambient air              medium, release          efast.htm
                                        inhalation, indoor air   location, aquatic
                                        inhalation, dermal       concentration of
                                        exposure, aquatic        concern, National
                                        environment exposure/    Pollutant Discharge
                                        risk                     Elimination System
                                                                 (NPDES) number.
--------------------------------------
ReachScan                              Impact of surface water  Facility location        EPA is updating
                                        discharges on drinking   (NPDES), release data    ReachScan and will
                                        water facilities,                                 make information
                                        chemical concentration                            available on its use
                                        downstream at drinking                            in this and other
                                        water intake point                                programs at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/exposure/docs/reachscan.htm
--------------------------------------
ChemSTEER                              Occupational inhalation  Molecular weight, vapor  Download at no cost
                                        and dermal exposure      pressure, density;       from http://
                                        during industrial and    production or use        www.epa.gov/oppt/
                                        commercial               volume, fractions        exposure/docs/
                                        manufacturing,           devoted to multiple      chemsteer.htm
                                        processing, and use      uses; weight
                                        operations; industrial   fractions, physical
                                        & commercial             state. Numbers of
                                        manufacturing, &         sites & workers, batch
                                        processing releases to   amounts & times,
                                        air, water, and land     release sources,
                                                                 worker activities;
                                                                 workplace
                                                                 concentrations,
                                                                 release amounts &
                                                                 media.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 76287]]

IV. How Has the Agency Worked to Educate Industry About the P2 
Framework?

    Over the last several years the Agency has gained considerable 
experience in working with stakeholders (e.g., chemical manufacturers, 
formulators, users, consulting firms, etc.) in the application of the 
P2 Framework during new product development. EPA has conducted detailed 
P2 Framework workshops and training exercises, including workshops in 
California, Texas, Illinois, New Hampshire, and Virginia. These 
workshops were designed to introduce stakeholders to the P2 Framework 
and to help stakeholders develop experience in the use, interpretation, 
limitations and applicability of the P2 Framework methodologies in 
chemical hazard and exposure screening. The workshops also discussed 
use of the P2 Framework outputs in risk screening analyses. 
Approximately 100 companies, among other stakeholders, have 
participated in the P2 Framework workshops and training. In addition to 
providing workshops and training sessions, the Agency has worked with 
individual companies, and other stakeholders, regarding opportunities 
to apply the P2 Framework in the development of environmentally 
preferable new chemical products and other activities designed to 
identify and implement pollution prevention opportunities.

V. What Is the Potential Benefit Derived from Use of the P2 Framework?

    Companies that develop new chemical substances often have 
alternative chemical structures that could become the subject of a PMN. 
Chemical manufacturers and users often lack hazard- and exposure-
related information on new chemical alternatives and, as a result, 
sometimes choose among new chemical product alternatives without an 
understanding of the potential hazard and risk trade-offs of product 
alternatives under consideration. Many companies that have used the P2 
Framework indicate that the P2 Framework generates screening-level 
information about human and environmental hazards and exposures, and 
that this information helps further differentiate among product 
alternatives, leading to identification of alternatives which are 
potentially safer or present lower potential risks or, in other cases, 
the development of environmentally preferable products and processes 
and other pollution prevention outcomes. It is hoped that the P2 
Framework will enable PMN submitters to design safer products and 
conduct an analysis similar to that done by EPA for each new chemical 
submitted, and to identify and develop products and processes that can 
be sustained both environmentally and economically.
    Chemical companies, consultants, research and development 
laboratories, etc. which have applied the P2 Framework during new 
chemical and product development activities have indicated that the P2 
Framework:
    1. Generates chemical specific hazard and exposure related 
information previously unavailable;
    2. Helps compare new chemical product alternatives based on hazard, 
exposure, and risk considerations early in the product development 
process, when change is most cost effective;
    3. Helps identify environmentally preferable new products and 
processes;
    4. Reduces the generation of hazardous waste that typically occurs 
during product development; and
    5. Results in potentially significant financial and business 
benefits, among other benefits (Tellus Institute, 1999, see Unit XV.3; 
Eastman Kodak, 1996, see Unit XV.4).

VI. What Is the Regulatory Incentive for Chemical Manufacturers under 
this Sustainable Futures Pilot Project?

    For purposes of this voluntary pilot project, EPA will implement a 
program leading to the opportunity for simultaneous submissions of TME 
applications and PMNs on chemical substances for which the submitter 
demonstrates the application and use of the P2 Framework or other 
scientifically acceptable hazard and exposure screening methodologies. 
While EPA's major goal is the development of safer chemicals, it will 
also consider, for the purposes of this pilot, low-moderate hazard 
chemicals for which exposure assessment indicates potentially low risk. 
Thus, under the pilot, the submitter, following approval of the TME by 
the Agency, can begin manufacture of the chemical substance for test 
marketing purposes, in accordance with the TME after 45 days. They must 
continue to meet the exemption requirements for an additional 45 days, 
at which time the 90-day PMN review may be satisfactorily completed and 
they may then submit the NOC and begin manufacture for PMN purposes.
    Under the voluntary pilot project, qualifying simultaneous PMN/TME 
submitters may begin manufacture of those chemical substances at 45 
days in accordance with the TME. As described in Unit II.A., most 
decisions on PMNs or TMEs are made before day 30 of their review 
periods, which in the case of simultaneous submissions would run 
concurrently. Chemicals qualifying for this option will be restricted 
to those PMN/TME chemical substances that the Agency, in the case of a 
PMN, drops from review and, in the case of a TME, grants by the Focus 
meeting which occurs by day 30 of the 90- or 45-day review period, 
respectively, and which satisfy certain criteria described below (see 
Unit IX.). In granting a TME, the chemical substance (and its 
associated uses and exposures) must be judged by EPA to meet the 
requirement that it ``will not present an unreasonable risk of injury 
to human health and the environment,'' after which the submitter can 
commence TME activities at 45 days. EPA will also review the 
simultaneously submitted PMN and, provided the TME is granted and the 
PMN is dropped during the first 30 days of the 90-day review period, 
the submitter may then commence full commercialization on or after day 
90 of PMN review and file the NOC. All TME requirements must, however, 
be met until such time as commencement of manufacture occurs and the 
NOC is filed, at which point the substance becomes an existing chemical 
and is placed on the TSCA Inventory. If EPA grants the TME, but does 
not drop the PMN during the first 30 days of review, the submitter will 
be notified that the submitter must choose, by letter within 15 days of 
being notified of the Agency's decision, to continue only one of the 
two notification procedures (i.e., withdraw the TME and continue with 
the PMN, or continue with the TME and withdraw the PMN).

VII. How Could EPA Decide to Approve a TME but Identify Concerns with a 
PMN on the Same Chemical?

    As mentioned in Unit II.B., a TME submitter's description must 
clearly distinguish the test marketing activity from full-scale 
commercial production or research and development. When EPA approves 
the TME, it has determined that test marketing the new chemical 
substance, under terms and conditions set out in the TME application 
and any additional controls stipulated in an accompanying Federal 
Register notice announcing Agency approval of the TME, will not present 
an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Such 
specific conditions of approval include the test market time period, 
production volume, number of customers, and use. Upon review of the 
same chemical when submitted as a PMN, the Agency could determine that 
a higher production volume or distribution and use of the

[[Page 76288]]

chemical without the limitations imposed under the TME may present an 
unreasonable risk to human health or the environment, and therefore 
take regulatory action under section 5(e) of TSCA. The Agency also 
reserves the right to rescind approval or modify the conditions and 
restrictions of a TME during the TME period should any new information 
that comes to its attention cast significant doubt on its finding that 
the test marketing activities will not present an unreasonable risk of 
injury to human health or the environment.

VIII. How Will Accepting Simultaneous PMN/TME Submissions for P2 
Screened Chemicals Benefit the Agency and the Public?

    This voluntary pilot project to accept simultaneous PMN/TME 
submissions will enable the Agency to develop information to support a 
possible future exemption under section 5(h)(4) of TSCA based on 
experience gained in Sustainable Futures. This would include 
information on the adequacy and effectiveness of companies' use of 
Agency tools and models to improve the environmental health and safety 
attributes of the new chemicals notified to EPA under section 5 of 
TSCA. It is hoped that this modification in the Agency's policy under 
section 5 of TSCA ultimately results in fewer section 5 notices 
requiring extensive Agency review or negotiation of necessary risk 
controls with submitters, and in safer chemicals being introduced to 
market.

IX. What Are EPA's Suggested Approach and Criteria for Participation in 
the Voluntary Sustainable Futures Pilot Project?

    The Agency solicits participation on the part of chemical 
companies, and other stakeholders, in this voluntary pilot project. In 
order to qualify for this pilot project, and associated expedited 
review, companies subject to section 5 of TSCA reporting requirements 
must demonstrate experience and competence with the P2 Framework or 
other scientifically acceptable approaches to chemical risk screening. 
Typically, EPA expects that the following will be necessary:

A. Training

    Companies interested in participating in this pilot project must 
demonstrate an understanding of the scope, applicability, 
interpretation, and limitations of pollution prevention and chemical 
hazard and exposure screening tools, such as the P2 Framework, that can 
be used to conduct screening level assessments of chemicals based on an 
analysis of chemical structure or other considerations. EPA will offer 
P2 Framework risk screening software to participating companies and 
other interested stakeholders. The Agency will also offer detailed 
training workshops to those interested in learning more about the P2 
Framework models. EPA conducts workshops and presentations that provide 
an overview of the P2 Framework models to industry and other 
stakeholders (see Unit IV.). P2 Framework workshops are 2-3 days in 
length, involve hands-on training in the use, interpretation, and 
limitations of P2 Framework methodologies. Attendees of the P2 
Framework workshops are encouraged to bring to the workshop the CAS 
Registry Numbers or structures of the types of chemicals of specific 
interest to them so that the attendee may use these as examples when 
that attendee runs the models during the workshop. Attendees should not 
bring any CBI chemicals to the workshops. P2 Framework workshops are 
particularly well suited for participants with a strong background in 
chemistry and familiarity with issues associated with human health and 
environmental hazard, exposure, and risk assessment. Those interested 
in learning about dates and times for upcoming training, whether given 
by EPA or other qualified individuals, should contact the persons 
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or check the New Chemicals 
Program web site www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/.

B. Apply Hazard and Exposure Screening Tools

    Companies must apply hazard and exposure screening tools to gain 
hazard-, exposure-, and risk-related information on chemical 
alternatives under consideration in the R&D and product development 
stages and demonstrate to EPA that this information has been used to 
inform decisionmaking to select safer new chemical alternatives to 
submit as the subject of a new chemical notification, and, where 
appropriate, to identify opportunities to eliminate or control 
exposures through process controls.
    The Agency is interested in learning if, how, and when hazard and 
exposure screening tools are of value to participants in the pilot as 
they choose among chemical alternatives that may become the subject of 
a PMN notice. This type of information will be considered in the 
development, if deemed appropriate, of a new exemption under section 
5(h)(4) of TSCA based on experience gained in Sustainable Futures. In 
order to help determine if a new exemption is appropriate, participants 
in this pilot project may be asked to provide either summary or 
detailed information to EPA, described below, that demonstrates that 
the submitter has used information gained using the hazard and exposure 
screening tools to inform their decisionmaking to select safer new 
chemical alternatives that became the subject of the submission. Pilot 
project participants should provide this information on or as an 
attachment to page 11 (``Optional Pollution Prevention Information'') 
of the PMN form. Submitters should be aware that EPA may request 
additional information where warranted in support of the goal of this 
pilot project. The goal of this project is to encourage pollution 
prevention and the development of inherently low hazard chemicals. The 
Agency solicits comments on the type of information to submit to EPA 
that (a) captures an increase in proficiency in a company's use of 
these assessment tools or (b) discusses hazard or risk reduction in 
PMNs ultimately submitted to the Agency, in contrast to those chemicals 
not submitted because of concerns raised through the use of the tools.
    Summary level information should include:
    1. The number of chemical alternatives (if more than one) 
evaluated,
    2. The screening models used,
    3. Factors on which decisions were based, such as vapor pressure, 
PBT characteristics, aquatic toxicity, potential human exposure, etc., 
and
    4. The submitter's perspective on the extent to which the P2 
Framework, or similar methodologies, helped in the understanding of 
hazard-, exposure-, and risk-related issues of the PMN chemical. In 
addition, information is solicited regarding the extent to which the 
methodologies helped the submitter compare or contrast product or 
process alternatives based on hazard-, exposure-, and risk-related 
information.
    Three different examples of summary level information are provided 
below:
    [sbull] Due to a number of factors, only one chemical substance was 
identified as having necessary product performance characteristics. As 
a result, there were no product alternatives to evaluate. Our company 
used the P2 Framework models on the single chemical meeting product 
performance characteristics. This analysis indicated low hazard 
potential for both human health and ecological effects. In addition, 
the material showed low persistence and low bioconcentration potential. 
As a result, we concluded the material presents low hazard/low risk.
    [sbull] Five alternatives were evaluated for environmental fate and 
persistence,

[[Page 76289]]

bioconcentration potential, aquatic toxicity, and health effects using 
XYZ methodologies (e.g., the P2 Framework). While the aquatic toxicity 
and human health hazard profiles of all five were equivalent (i.e., 
low), two compounds were seen as persistent and with bioconcentration 
potential much higher than the other three alternatives. The PMN 
substance was selected from among these three alternatives having lower 
persistence and bioconcentration potential. In addition, application of 
exposure models indicated that exposure controls on specific areas, 
e.g., environmental release, occupational etc., were warranted. These 
controls have been identified and their effectiveness has been 
sufficiently described in the PMN submission.
    [sbull] The results of the P2 Framework model runs helped to 
differentiate among product alternatives based on hazard and exposure 
issues. It helped our company identify a product that is the most 
environmentally preferable based on its hazard (e.g., low aquatic 
toxicity and low concern for adverse effects to human health) and 
exposure (e.g., less persistent) properties. The P2 Framework software 
package helped us think about chemical design options and exposure 
issues, including manufacturing controls to choose among product 
alternatives. These controls have been identified and their 
effectiveness has been sufficiently described in the PMN submission.
    More detailed information may also be provided, for example, the 
actual outputs from the methodologies used, or screening level hazard 
assessments for low hazard chemicals and, for low-moderate hazard 
chemicals, submission of a screening-level exposure and risk 
assessment. EPA's P2 Framework, as well as other hazard, exposure, and 
risk screening methods, can be used to assist in many, although not 
all, components of such an assessment. This screening level assessment 
could include:
    1. Physical/chemical properties, potential environmental transport, 
and environmental fate;
    2. Human health effects such as cancer hazard potential, organ 
toxicity, reproductive and/or developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity or 
other health endpoints of potential concern;
    3. Toxicity to the aquatic environment, i.e., aquatic vertebrates, 
invertebrates and plants;
    4. As appropriate, environmental releases, exposure to the general 
population, consumer exposure, occupational exposure, and environmental 
exposure;
    5. Descriptions of exposure and release mitigation steps, such as 
personal protective equipment and engineering controls information; and
    6. Summary conclusions regarding the hazards, exposure, and risks 
of product alternatives including a determination if alternatives under 
consideration exceed EPA new chemicals program criteria for PBT 
(Persistent, Bioaccumulative and Toxic) chemical substances (64 FR 
60194, November 4, 1999), or ecotoxicity concern levels described in 
the P2 Framework Manual (see http://www.epa.gov/pbt/P2 -- Manual --6-
00.pdf - ``ECOSAR to Estimate Aquatic Toxicity'').
    Assessments need not include every factor listed in this unit, 
depending on the specific chemical submitted, intended uses, etc. For 
example, toxicity to aquatic organisms would not need to be evaluated 
if no environmental releases are anticipated under expected conditions 
of manufacture, processing, and use of the new chemical. Additional 
guidance regarding preparation of screening-level assessments, 
including examples of screening-level assessments, and other technical 
assistance, will be provided during P2 Framework training workshops, 
discussed above.

C. Submit 5-10 Successful PMNs or PMN Exemption Notices

    Companies will need to submit 5-10 successful (i.e., not regulated 
by EPA) PMNs or PMN exemption notices which have been developed using 
chemical hazard and exposure screening tools, and which had, as part of 
the submission, documentation (summary or detailed) of chemicals 
evaluated, models used, endpoints on which decisions were based, and 
the submitter's perspectives on the extent to which the screening tools 
provided useful information to compare alternatives and select safer 
chemicals.
    Pilot project participants' PMN submissions will be evaluated by 
EPA consistent with the normal PMN review process. Participants will 
typically be eligible for the expedited review described in Unit VI. of 
this notice after 5-10 new chemical cases (PMNs or PMN exemption 
notices) have been successfully screened by the company, as described 
above, submitted to EPA, and determined to be low hazard and/or low 
risk by EPA. The Agency will, at its discretion, consider requests for 
expedited review before completion of this 5-10 case experience base. 
Participants requesting relief before completion of the 5-10 case 
experience base will need to demonstrate that their approach to hazard, 
exposure, and risk screening is the functional equivalent of a 5-10 
case experience base. The Agency may also make an exception with 
regards to the definition of ``successful'' for PMNs regulated only 
under TSCA section 5 exposure-based authority.
    The Agency considered several factors when determining the number 
of successful new chemical cases needed to qualify for expedited review 
under this pilot project. Some stakeholders submit relatively few PMNs 
or exemption notices, e.g., some stakeholders submit one PMN every two 
to three years. Setting the number of successful new chemical cases at 
a level greater than 5-10 would mean that infrequent submittters of 
PMNs might take many years to reach the 5-10 PMN or exemption notice 
experience base. Some stakeholders submit many PMNs annually, e.g. 20 
PMNs per year or more. In this case of a stakeholder submitting 20 PMNs 
or exemption notices per year, the experience base could be achieved in 
approximately six months. The Agency believes that 5-10 successful PMNs 
or exemption notices, or the functional equivalent, is a reasonable 
experience base to qualify for expedited review under this pilot 
project. The Agency will use its discretion when determining if and 
when a company has sufficient experience. For example, for a company 
whose PMN submissions have historically been limited in scope, e.g., 
PMNs submissions only for surfactants, 5 successful PMN submissions 
might be considered adequate for the Agency to judge that the submitter 
has effectively used the screening methodologies. On the other hand, a 
company with PMNs covering a wide spectrum of industrial chemistry 
might need to submit 10 successful PMNs to qualify. The Agency solicits 
comment on this issue.
    If a pilot project participant's PMN or exemption submission is 
determined by EPA to be low hazard or low risk (meaning the submission 
is dropped from further review during the early stages of the PMN 
review process, i.e., first 30 days), and the participant submits 
descriptive information to demonstrate that chemical hazard and 
exposure screening models contributed to their decisions regarding the 
new chemical substance, this will likely be judged sufficient to 
demonstrate an ability (for that particular PMN or exemption 
submission) to effectively use the screening methodologies. All such 
decisions under the pilot are within the sole discretion of the Agency 
and no rights are extended by this pilot.

[[Page 76290]]

X. How Can Chemical Manufacturers Demonstrate Their Proficiency in 
Effective Use of Hazard and Exposure Screening Tools and Thereby 
Qualify for Expedited Review Under Section 5 of TSCA?

    As mentioned in the previous section, in order to demonstrate 
proficiency in the use of the P2 Framework or other comparable hazard 
and exposure screening tools, companies would, following formal 
training, submit 5-10 PMNs, or functional equivalent, which were 
developed via application of these tools, and that EPA determines to be 
low hazard and/or low risk. This number of PMN cases are considered a 
sufficient sample to judge the adequacy and effectiveness of a 
company's use of the P2 Framework in the evaluation of PMNs prior to 
their submission to the Agency. Companies submitting PMNs under this 
pilot project (either as part of the initial qualifying process or in 
conjunction with TMEs upon successful completion of that process) may 
be asked to supplement their submissions, using page 11 (``Optional 
Pollution Prevention Information'') of the PMN form, with additional 
information which demonstrates the application of the P2 Framework and 
provide a basis for EPA to judge the application of the P2 Framework. 
See Unit IX. for more details on training and ``additional 
information.''
    A chemical manufacturer, formulator, or import who has submitted 5-
10 successful (i.e., not regulated by EPA) PMNs that EPA determines to 
be low hazard and/or low risk, or the functional equivalent and who is 
interested in participating in the pilot project should approach the 
Agency to request the expedited review under section 5 of TSCA 
described in Unit VI. This should be done by submitting in writing to 
the Director of the Chemical Control Division (address below), 
documentation of the following:
    [sbull] The date of training completed in accordance with Unit 
IX.A.,
    [sbull] A list of the PMNs which were submitted and the outcome of 
Agency review, i.e., the chemicals were not regulated,
    [sbull] A summary table presenting the hazard and exposure 
screening tools used to evaluate each PMN substance, including 
identification of methods and models/tools used in the assessment, and
    [sbull] An overall qualitative or quantitative assessment of the 
value of the use of hazard and exposure screening tools to evaluate 
these PMN substances (see Unit IX.B.).
    Submitters are encouraged to submit nonconfidential reports to the 
extent possible. If necessary, check http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/cbi.html for information on properly transmitting CBI material to EPA. 
A non-CBI or sanitized version of the information described above 
should be submitted to: Charles M. Auer, Acting Director, Chemical 
Control Division (7405M), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
    Upon review of this information, EPA will respond in writing to 
notify candidates of their eligibility for expedited review (i.e., 
being allowed to submit simultaneous TMEs and PMNs). Following EPA 
review of the PMNs submitted under the pilot during an approximately 2 
year period starting from the date of this notice, the Agency can at 
its discretion extend the time period of this pilot project to gain 
additional experience, or conclude the pilot. EPA solicits comments on 
this overall approach.

XI. Will EPA Allow the Use of Other Hazard and Risk Screening Tools 
Besides the P2 Framework?

    EPA understands that the P2 Framework is just one example of 
pollution prevention and chemical hazard, exposure, and risk screening 
tools that could be used to evaluate chemicals, in general and under 
this pilot project in particular. Although the Agency is aware that 
other assessment methodologies are widely available and that use of 
these other methods may be of value in identifying less risky or 
environmentally preferable alternatives, the Agency lacks experience 
with their use. The Agency will consider the applicability of other 
pollution prevention and chemical hazard, exposure, and risk screening 
tools, but PMN submissions for consideration under this pilot project 
should describe the alternate methodology used and the results 
obtained. To assist and improve EPA's understanding of other tools, the 
Agency may ask, where evaluations resulting from the P2 Framework and 
alternative methodologies differ in conclusions, that additional detail 
on the basis and underlying assumptions for these conclusions be 
provided.

XII. How Will the Agency Incorporate Other Information on Risk 
Reduction, Such as Control Technology, into this Pilot Project?

    Although the Agency's primary goal in this pilot project is 
encouraging the use of chemical hazard identification and risk 
screening methods at R&D and the development of inherently low hazard 
chemicals, it is expected that for low-moderate hazard chemicals the 
information generated through use of the P2 Framework, and other 
methods, can also contribute to identification of exposure and risk 
reduction steps, through use of control technologies or other measures 
that can mitigate potential risks. Pilot project participants could 
apply the hazard and exposure screening tools and demonstrate the 
ability to use the information generated by the P2 Framework to 
identify opportunities to eliminate or control exposures through 
process controls, recycling, or reuse. Companies are encouraged under 
the pilot project to identify and apply control technology or other 
mitigation steps which results in low risk outcomes and to include 
discussion of this aspect in their PMN submissions.

XIII. What is the Relationship of Sustainable Futures to Project XL?

    On September 14, 2000, the Agency signed Final Project Agreements 
(FPAs) with Eastman Kodak (Kodak, 2000; see Unit XV.5.) and PPG 
Industries (PPG 2000; see Unit XV.6.) under the Agency's XL Program, 
based on application of hazard and exposure screening tools in new 
product development. Project XL, which stands for ``eXcellence and 
Leadership,'' is a national program that allows state and local 
governments, businesses and federal facilities to develop with EPA 
innovative strategies to test better or more cost-effective ways of 
achieving environmental and public health protection. Under the FPAs, 
the Agency allows Kodak and PPG to simultaneously submit a TME and a 
PMN on a new chemical substance, thus enabling each company to begin 
manufacture of that new chemical substance in accordance with the TME 
after 45 days, provided the TME is granted and the PMN is dropped from 
further review during the first 30 days of the review period. Under 
both FPAs the companies propose to take other actions that go beyond 
compliance. See the Kodak or PPG FPAs at the Project XL web site for 
additional details: http://www.epa.gov/projectxl/. The Agency has 
worked very closely with both Kodak and PPG regarding use and 
interpretation of the P2 Framework in new product development. Both 
Kodak and PPG have participated in P2 Framework workshops, seminars and 
other training and outreach efforts. Both Kodak and PPG have used the 
P2 Framework to evaluate product alternatives and to inform their 
judgement regarding commercialization of environmentally preferable 
products.

[[Page 76291]]

 Both PPG and Kodak have submitted well over 10 PMNs or PMN exemption 
notices that were developed using the P2 Framework. The Agency has 
dropped these PMNs because they either present a low inherent human 
health and environmental hazard, or in those cases where potential 
risks were identified, the companies were able to develop mitigation 
strategies which adequately reduced those potential risks. Because of 
these companies' demonstrated experience in the use of the P2 Framework 
in new product development, and their contribution to advancing 
excellence in environmental protection, as evidenced by their project 
XL proposals, Kodak and PPG will not need to submit the minimum ten 
PMNs (see Unit IX.) for review under the pilot project. Kodak and PPG 
have been eligible for the requested expedited review with the first 
complying new chemical submission received after signature of their 
respective FPAs.

XIV. What's Next After Completion of this Pilot Program?

    As mentioned in Unit II., EPA will use the data and experience 
gained though this Sustainable Futures pilot project, and through 
related Project XL initiatives, to improve Agency understanding of how 
early hazard, exposure, and risk screening can lead to development of 
environmentally preferable products and processes, among other 
pollution prevention outcomes. Based on this experience, EPA may 
develop an exemption under section 5(h)(4) of TSCA to provide expedited 
review for low hazard/low risk PMNs that have been the subject of early 
hazard, exposure, and risk screening. Section 5(h)(4) of TSCA 
authorizes EPA, upon application and by rule to exempt the manufacturer 
or importer of new chemical substance from some or all of the 
provisions of section 5 of TSCA, if the Agency determines that the 
manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, or disposal of 
the substance will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health 
or the environment. As described in Unit II., EPA has implemented other 
exemptions under section 5(h)(4) of TSCA and these may provide a model 
for any such future exemption.

XV. References

    1. USEPA. 1986. New Chemical Information Bulletin: Exemptions for 
Research and Development and Test Marketing. Office of Toxic 
Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (November, 1986) and 
at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/newchems/tmeranddbulletin.pdf.
    2. USEPA. 2000. Pollution Prevention (P2) Framework. Office of 
Pollution Prevention and Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA-748-B-00-001; June, 2000) and at http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/p2framework/
    3. Tellus Institute. 1999. Design for Competitive Advantage: The 
Business Benefits of the EPA Pollution Prevention Assessment Framework 
in New Product Development, by Thomas J. Votta and Allen L. White, 
Ph.D. Boston, MA; http://www.tellus.org (September 28, 1999).
    4. Eastman Kodak Company. 1996. EPA-Developed Methodologies for 
Assessing the Fate and Hazards of Industrial Chemicals: A Summary of 
Eastman Kodak Company's Experience with Their Use and Applicability in 
Risk Assessment. Kodak Technology Transfer Team, Health and Environment 
Laboratories, Rochester, NY. (May 13, 1996).
    5. Eastman Kodak Company. 2000. Kodak Pollution Prevention 
Framework Final Project Agreement (Draft, July, 2000) http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL/kodak/fpakd7-21.pdf (http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL/groupfrn.pdf for Federal Register notice of September 14, 
2000 signing).
    6. PPG Industries, Inc. 2000. PPG Industries, Inc. Pollution 
Prevention Framework Final Project Agreement, Project XL, September 14, 
2000 http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL/ppg/913fpa.pdf (http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL/groupfrn.pdf for Federal Register notice of September 14, 
2000 signing).

XVI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This notice announces a voluntary pilot project to encourage the 
application of Pollution Prevention principles during the development 
of new chemicals under TSCA. Since this voluntary project does not 
include a regulation or otherwise require notice and comment and does 
not impose any new binding requirements, it is not subject to review by 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866, 
entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), 
Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), or Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning 
Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or 
Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). For the same reason, the requirements 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) do not 
apply.
    Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501et 
seq., an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 
required to respond to, an information collection request as defined by 
the PRA, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The 
OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations, after appearing in the 
Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the 
related collection instrument or form, if applicable.
    This document does not contain any new information collection 
requirements that would require additional OMB review and approval 
under the PRA. The information collection activities related to the 
submission of information pursuant to TSCA section 5 are already 
approved by OMB under OMB control number 2070-0012 (EPA ICR No. 574). 
The hours for respondent reporting burden for a full PMN submission is 
estimated to range between 95 and 114 hours, with an average respondent 
burden of 105 hours. This burden applies also to the submission of 
SNUN, LVE, and LoREX submissions since each of these notices requires 
the submission of a complete PMN form. The respondent burden for 
submission of a test market exemption is estimated to average 98 hours.
    As defined by the PRA and 5 CFR 1320.3(b), ``burden'' means the 
total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to 
generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or 
for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review 
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and 
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying 
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and 
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any 
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to 
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; 
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or 
otherwise disclose the information.
    This action will not have substantial direct effects on State or 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government 
and States or Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities between the Federal government and States or Indian 
tribes. As a result, no action is required under Executive Order 13132, 
entitled Federalism(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), or under Executive 
Order 13175,

[[Page 76292]]

entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments 
(65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000). Nor does it impose any enforceable 
duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Public Law 104-4).
    Nor does it require special considerations under Executive Order 
12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in 
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 
16, 1994); or Executive Order 12630, entitled Governmental Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights (53 FR 
8859, March 15, 1988).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would 
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant 
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 
note).

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Chemical substances, Hazardous 
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.


    Dated: November 27, 2002.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic 
Substances.

[FR Doc. 02-31243 Filed 12-10-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-S