tion is apparent. Therefore, Osborn's unsupported claim that the Region's interpretation of its log data is erroneous does not provide grounds for review of the permit denials. Third, Osborn maintains that, although the shale overlying the injection zones is of varying thickness, even the thinnest sections are sufficiently impermeable to provide adequate confinement of injected fluid. It argues that "the geological community considers shales to be impermeable,” and characterizes the Region's position that shale layers can be sufficiently permeable to permit vertical migration of injected and/or formation fluid as "rare" and "discouraging." Petition for Review, p. 2. Osborn's assertion that shale is impermeable regardless of its thickness is not persuasive. Osborn has not demonstrated that the Region's conclusion that the shale in the vicinity of Osborn's wells may thin out to such an extent as to preclude adequate confinement is erroneous. Therefore, it is not entitled to review of this issue. Finally, Osborn claims that each of the two wells at issue is the only salt water disposal facility available to Osborn in the area, and therefore, that the denial of the permits will place an economic burden on the company and will cause the loss of oil resources. While economic considerations may be relevant to the development of UIC regulations, 12 the rules do not authorize the Agency to take such factors into account in deciding whether to issue a permit. Therefore, based on the foregoing reasons, I am denying the Petition for Review. So ordered. 12 See 42 U.S.C. §300h(b)(2) (regulations may not interfere with or impede underground injection of brine unless such requirements are essential to assure that USDWs are not endangered). SUBJECT INDEX This subject index contains references to key words, phrases, and topics in reported decisions appearing in volumes 1, 2 and 3. All references are to volume and page numbers; 2:113, for instance, indicates page 113 of volume 2. Acronyms are cross-referenced to their full titles, but are used in subheadings. issuance of permit without resolution of significant questions of fact ....... 1:941-946 3:802-815 motion for, issues raised in ............. Accelerated decisions, registration procedures under FIFRA administrative relief prior to final agency action, avenues of 1:543-564 nonparties' exceptions...... 2:591-592 settlement leading to cancellation of registration and restricted use of existing stocks of dinoseb.................... 2:584-593 authority of RA to grant as to some issues and deny as to others....... 1:431-435; 1:515-516 ................. 3:642-647 delay between hearing and initial decision justifying remand under 1:90-95; 1:129-134 3:290-292 guidelines, failure to give hearing on permit conditions imposed in absence of .......... 2:556 ..... 2:612; 3:496-497 public comment period or public hearing on draft permit, failure to raise objections during reconsideration of decision based on remand to rectify deficiencies in reopening to include noncompliance evidence standard of review requirements 2:31 2:852-853 3:88-92 1:117 inspection and entry requirements (See Inspection and entry requirements) maintenance foreman's evidence in PCB recordkeeping violations case, validity of .................. 3:742-743 prejudicial nature of information 2:7-8 Presiding Officer's decision, ability of Administrators to overrule. 1:118 2:332-334 relevance of admitted evidence to issues.......... settlements, evidence relating to 1:865-867 Adverse effects on the environment, unreasonable (See Unreasonable adverse effects on the penalties affecting ability to continue in business (See Penalty determinations, subhead |