1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 

## Economic A **nal ys**  **is of t he**  **Containing Barometers, Manometers, Hy grometers, and Ps**  **yc hrometers**  **(EPA Docket**  

## he **Final Significant New Use Rule f**  **Containing Barometers, Manometers, Hy grometers, and Ps**  **yc hrometers**  **(EPA Docket**  **EPA -**  **HQ -**  **OPPT -**  **2010 -**  **0630 )** 

Final - March 26 , 2012



## —**Does not contain TSCA CBI**

**RIN 2070 -**  **AJ71** Prepared by: Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Economics, Exposure and Technology Division Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20460 

## Final Significant New

**Use Rule f or**  **Mercury**   ** Containing Barometers, Manometers, Hy** **grometers, and Ps yc**  **hrometers**

**Does not contain TSCA CBI —** 

Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Economics, Exposure and Technology Division Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Environmental Protection Agency**This Page was Intentionally Left Blank** .Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products i Economic and Policy Analysis Branch **CONTRIBUTORS** The EPA analyst responsible for this report was Timothy Lehman . Analytical and draft preparation support was provided by Abt Associates Inc. under EPA Contract No. EP -W - 08 - 010 .Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products ii Economic and Policy Analysis Branch **ABSTRACT** This report estimates the costs of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s final Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) that applies to the significant new use of elemental mercury (CAS 7439 - 97 - 6) in three mercury- containing product s : 1 ) barometers ; 2 ) hygrometers /psychrometers , except batterypowered, motor - aspirated psychrometers containing less than 7 grams of elemental mercury ; 1 and 3) manometers. 2 The final SNUR applies to all manufacturing , import, and processing of elemental mercury for use in the se three mercury- containing products ( excluding th e specified psychrometers ) . The three mercury containing products subject to the SNUR are b elieved to no longer b e manufactured in or imported into the United States and are considered “l egacy p roducts” by the Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC) , with the exception of battery-powered, motor - aspirated psychrometers containing less than 7 grams of elemental mercury , which are still manufactured in the United States . Legacy products are defined by IMERC as products that are not sold as new, but may still be in use, resold as used or antique, or stored in homes or businesses. 3 All three products currently have viable and cost - effective mercury - free substitutes . Because the three mercury - containing products subject to the SNUR are not manufactured, and feasible mercury - free alternatives are widely available , the final SNUR is not expected to have any economic impact . The three mercury - containing products subject to the final SNUR are all applications of barometers, manometers and hygro meters /psychrometers ( excluding the specified psychrometers ) . All three products subject to the SNUR currently have effective and economically feasible mercury - free substitutes , and are no longer manufactured in Unit ed States . 4 Man ometers are used to measure air, gas, and liquid pressure, in the automotive, dairy, and heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVA C) industries . There are viable mercury - free alternatives for almost all uses of manometers, including digital manometers, bourdon tube manometers, aneroid manometers, and hydrostatic gauges . Barometers are instruments used to measure atmospheric pressure . Current mercury- free alternatives for barometers include aneroid barometers, electronic barometers, and other liquid-based barometers . Hygrometers /psychrometers are used to measure the moisture content, or humidity, of air or gas . There are two available and widely used alternatives to mercury - filled hygrometers/psychrometers : spirit - filled product s and digital product s . The final SNUR require s persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture , import, or pro cessing of elemental mercury for any significant new use as described in the SNUR . A firm intending to engage in these activities is required to submit a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) . EPA is promulgating the SNUR because of health and environmental concerns about mercury use . Because the three specified mercury- containing products subj ect to the SNUR are not currently manufactured in the United States , it is important that EPA is notified if a company chooses to produce, import, or process elemental mercury for use in any of the se products . The SNUN provides EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs . To submit this SNUN, a firm incurs a modest submission cost of $ 8,334 and potentially other minor costs . However, because no firm s are currently importing, manufacturing , or processing elemental 1 Psychrometers are the most common type of hygrometer; while they function similarly, they have historically been used in different applications and so have different naming conventions. See Section 2 for more details. 2 Because EPA cannot regulate articles containing a chemical under TSCA Section 5, the SNUR applies to elemental mercury used in these products. EPA will not be notified if there is import of mercury - c ontaining barometers, hygrometers, or manometers. 3 These devices may still be in use, resold in the aftermarket, or stored in homes and businesses. 4 Portable, battery-powered, motor - aspirated psychrometers containing less than 7 grams of elemental mercu ry continue to be manufactured in the United States, and are not subject to the SNUR.Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products iii Economic and Policy Analysis Branch mercury for any significant new uses, it is highly unlikely that any firm will incur this cost . EPA does not require the development of test data for submission of a SNUN, although a firm may submit test data already in its possession or describe any other available data . Because EPA does not require the development of test data , EPA assumes that no firms will incur testing costs as a result of the SNUR. In addition to the firms that make a SNUN submission, the final SNUR may also impact firms that do not make a submission . By avoiding a significant new use , a firm can avo id submission costs but may incur other compliance costs . However, this may not be a concern given that there are no current manufacturers of these three products . C osts are estimated at the firm level and reflect the burden of a SNUR on the firms that make a submission .Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products iv Economic and Policy Analysis Branch **TABLE OF CONTENTS** CONTRIBUTORS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... i ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. ii LI ST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ v 1. INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 1 1.1 Statutory Authority ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 1 1.2 Summary of Methodology ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 1 1.3 Organization of this Report ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 1 2. POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ENTITIES ................................ ................................ ............................ 2 2.1 Historic Uses of and Alternatives to Mercury- Containing Barometers, Hygrometers/Psychrometers, and Manometers ................................ ................................ .......... 2 Barometers ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 2 Hygrometers/Psychromet ers ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 2 Manometers ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 3 2.2 Potentially Affected Entities ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 3 Barometers ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 Hygrometers/Psychromet ers ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4 Manometers ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 4 3. INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE COSTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5 3.1 Wage Rates ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 6 3.2 Unit Industry Compliance Costs ................................ ................................ ................................ . 6 3.2.1 Rule Familiarization ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 6 3.2.2 CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup ................ 7 3.2.3 Form Completion and Submission Fee ................................ ................................ .......... 8 3.2.4 Import Certification ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 9 3.2.5 Export Notification ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10 3.3 Industry Costs of SNUR, by Option (per Submission) ................................ ............................. 12 3.4 Likelihood of a SNUN Submission ................................ ................................ .......................... 13 3.5 Potential for Subsequent Regulatory Action ................................ ................................ ............ 13 4. AGENCY COSTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 14 4.1 Labor Rates for EPA Staff ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 14 4.2 SNUN Processing Costs ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 15 4.3 Export Notification Cost ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 18 5. ADDIT IONAL ANALYSES ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 19 5.1 Small Entity Impacts ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 19 5.2 Unfunded Mandates ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 19 5.3 Paperwork Reduction Act ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 19 5.4 Technical Standards ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 20 5.5 Regulatory Planning and Review ................................ ................................ ............................. 20 5.6 Environmental Justice ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 20 5.7 Protection of Children ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 20 5.8 Federalism ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 20 5.9 Tribal Governments ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 20 5.10 Effect on Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use ................................ ................................ ......... 20 6. REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 21Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products v Economic and Policy Analysis Branch **LIST OF TABLES** Table 1: Loaded Industry Wage Rates, December 2010 ................................ ................................ ............... 6 Table 2: Rule Familiarization Burden and Cost for SNUR Submitters ................................ ........................ 7 Table 3: CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup Burden and Cost for First - Time Submitters ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 8 Table 4: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete the SNUN Form ................................ ................................ .... 9 Table 5: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete and Submit the SNUN Form ................................ ................. 9 Table 6: Derivation of Total Mailing Cost for 12 Notices ................................ ................................ .......... 11 Table 7 : TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost per Notification ................................ ................................ 12 Table 8 : Compliance Options and Associated Costs Incurred by a Firm Due to the Final SNUR ............. 13 Table 9: Derivation of Loaded Agency Wage Rates ................................ ................................ .................. 15 Table 10: Derivation of Inflation Factors for Agency Extramural Costs ................................ .................... 16 Table 11: Agency Costs for SNUN and Other Submission Review and Processing ................................ .. 17 Table 12: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost: Agency Burden per Activity (2009$) ........................... 18Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products 1 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

### 1. **INTRODUCTION** This report presents the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics’ (OPPT’s) analysis of the potential costs incurred as a result a final Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) that addresses the use of elemental mercury (CAS 7439 - 97 - 6) in three products : 1 ) barometers , 2) hygrometers /psychrometers , and 3) manometers . Portable, battery -powered, motor - aspirated psychrometers containing less than 7 grams of elemental mercury continue to be manufactured in the United States, and are not subject to the final SNUR . SNURs are promulgated by EPA under the authority granted by Section 5(a)(2) of the Toxic Substances Control Act ( TSCA) . The final SNUR require s persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture, import, or processing of elemental mercury for manometers, barometers and hygrometers/psychrometers ( excluding the specified psychrometers) . EPA promulgates a SNUR for a substance when potential uses c ould result in increased exposure to or releases of the substance and in turn, could present an unreasonable risk to health or the environment . **1.1 Statutory Authority**  Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authorizes EPA to determine that a use of a chemical substance is a “significant new use.” EPA must make this determination by rule after considering all relevant factors, including those listed in TSCA section 5(a)(2) . Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA section 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a Significant New Use Notice ( SNUN) to EPA at least 90 days before manufacturing, importing, or processing the chemical substance for that use (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)). The general SNUR provisions are found at 40 CFR Part 721, Subpart A. **1.2 Summary of Methodology**  This analysis quantifies, to the extent possible, the costs to society of the final rule by identifying the costs to industry associated with performing the required reporting and recordkeeping, and the costs to EPA of administering the rule . Industry costs consist of rule familiarization; registration with the Central Data Exchange (CDX) electronic reporting tool; collection, compilation, and submission of required informati on for significant new uses of the subject chemicals; export notification; and recordkeeping. Agency costs include reviewing and processing the data received as a result of the rule . Data sources for this analysis include burden estimates derived from previous information collection requests and economic analyses for related rules, compensation data acquired from government publications, and supplementary market research. **1.3 Organization of this Report**  The remainder of this report provides EPA’s economic analysis in support of the final rule . The chemical substances and industry sectors potentially affected are characterized in Chapter 2 . Chapter 3 contains estimates of the industry cost of complying with the final rule, and Chapter 4 shows estimates of the government costs associated with the administration of the final rule . Chapter 5 presents additional impact analyses . Note that dollar amounts in this analysis are reported in 20 10 dollars for industry costs and for agency costs .Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products 2 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

### 2. **POTENTIALLY AFFECTED E**  **NTITIES** The final SNUR applies to all manufacturing, import, and processing of elemental mercury for use in mercury - containing barometers, manometers, and hygrometers /psychrometers ( excluding portable, battery-powered, motor - aspirated psychrometers containing less than 7 grams of elemental mercury) . N one of the three mercury - containing products subject to the SNUR are b elieved to be manufactured , import ed , or process in the United States , 5 and are considered “l egacy p roducts” by the Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC). 6 Legacy products are defined by IMERC as products that are not sold as new, but may still be in use, resold as used or antique, or stored in homes or businesses . The following sections describe the specific historic uses of each of the three specified mercury containing products , the substitutes for each product , and the potentially affected industry sectors . Because the manufacture of the three mercury- containing products subject to the SNUR has ceased in the United States, we assume that there is no import of elemental mercury for these uses . **2.1 Historic Uses**  **of and Alter**  **natives to Mercury** **- Containing Barometers,**  **Hygrometers /Psychrometers**  **, and Manometers** Barometers Barometers are instruments used to measure atmospheric pressure, and consist of a long cylindrical tube, typically closed at one end, with a mercury- filled reser voir at the base . The weight of mercury creates a vacuum at the top of the tube, and the mercury adjusts until the pressure inside the reservoir equals atmospheric pressure . Rising mercury indicates increasing air pressure while dropping mercury indicates decreasing air pressure ( IMERC, 2010b , 2009 b and Maine DEP , 2003) . Historically, barometers have primarily been used in weather forecasting applications (IMERC 2008c). 7 Additional uses include scientific demonstration in schools and non - mercury device cal ibration (IMERC , 2007, DEPA , 2006) . A mercury barometer contains between 400 and 620 grams of mercury ( IMERC, 2010b ) . Alternatives to mercury- containing barometers include aneroid barometers, electronic barometers (which use vibrating cylinder air pressure transducers, electronic resistance or capacitance), and other liquidbased (water or eco - celli) barometers. 8 Hygrometers

/Psychrometers Hygrometers are used to measure the moisture content, or humidity, of air or gas . A p sychrometer, the most common type of hygrometer, use s two mercury - added thermometers, one with a wetted base, and 5 However, it is possible that these three may still be in use, resold as used or antique, or stored in homes or businesses . 6 IMERC requires that all companies planning to sell mercury - containing products under the jurisdiction of its member states ( California, Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) sub mi t a notification to the clearinghouse every three years . However, because IMERC does not cover all state s , its totals may not represent the entire universe . The only exception to this finding is mercury - containing psychrometers for w hich we found one manufacturer (Belfort, 2010). 7 Electronic instruments connected are now commonly used to take barometric readings (Columbia Encyclopedia 2010). 8 Since water is lighter than mercury, it moves a greater distance in response to a given pressure change. As a re sult, the water barometers are large, bulky, and thus, seldom used (Maine DEP, 2003). Eco - celli barometers use a non toxic silicon -based fluid in conjunction with a gas, and leverage the compressibility of gas in relation to gravity. Since changes in temperature can cause the liquid to expand, a thermometer is attached so that the necessary adjustments can be made to the scale (IMERC, 2007).Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products 3 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch one with a dry base . Hygrometers and psychrometers function similarly but have historically been used in different applications: hygrometers are used for cigar and tobacco humidors, or in residential settings where humidity is monitored to prevent the growth of mildew or dust mites; psychrometers are used by atmospheric scientists and weather enthusiasts ( IMERC, 2010a) . Mercury - added hygrometers /psychrometers contain between 3 and 7 grams of mercury (Environment Canada , 2004) . There are two types of alternatives to mercury - added hygrometers /psychrometers that are readily available and widely used: spirit - filled product s, which use methyl alcohol or citrus oil thermometers and provide results with comparable accuracy to mercury- added thermometers ; and digital product s, which use electronic sensors to measure humidity changes and, when calibrated properly, provide as accurate results as mercury product s (Maine DEP , 2003 , IMERC , 2010b ). EPA found sufficient information to conclude that only one type of mercury- containing hygrometer/psychrometer is manufactured in or imported into the United States . Portable, batterypowered, motor - aspirated psychrometers containing less than 7 grams of elemental mercury continue to be manufactured in the United States. 9 EPA is considering whether risk management or other actions would be appropriate for the one type of psychrometer that is still in use . Manometers Manometers are used to measure air, gas, and liquid pressure . While these instruments come in a variety of shapes and sizes, the most common mercury manometer design is a U - shaped tube . One end is left open to the atmosphere; the other is exposed or connected to the source being measured . If the pressure measured is higher than atmospheric pressure, the liquid moves toward the open end of the tube . If the pressure measured is lower, it moves away from the op en end . The difference between the levels of mercury provides a reading relative to atmospheric pressure . Historical manometer uses include vacuum pressure measurement in natural gas pipelines, 10 dairy cow milking systems (“dairy manometers”), the automotive industry, and the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) industry . Depending on the application, the amount of mercury in a manometer may range from 30 to 525 grams (IMERC, 2010b, V T Agricultural Agency, 2001; WI DNR, 2007). 11 There are viable mercury- free alternatives for almost all uses of manometers . There are several mercuryfree technologies in the dairy industry (digital manometers, bourdon tube manometers, and aneroid manometers), automobile industry (hydrostatic gauges) and the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) industry (hydrostatic gauges and bourdon tube manometers). **2.2 Potentially Affected Entities**  Because the three mercury- containing product s subject to the SNUR are b elieved to no longer be manufactured in or imported into the United States , there are likely to be no entities affected by the final SNUR . The following summarizes the research undertaken as part of this decision- making process. Barometers Prin co In struments, the sole barometer manufacturer reporting use of mercury to IMERC in 2001 and 2 004, phased - out manufacturing mercury- added measuring product s in January, 2007 ( IMERC, 2010b ) . 9 A phone conversation with a customer service representative at the Belfort Instrument Company on April 27, 2010 confirmed the manufacture of at least one model of mercury - containing psychrometer (Belfort, 2010). 10 Based on information that use of mercury in natural gas manometers has ceased, on July 21, 2010, promulgated a TSCA §5(a)(2) significant new use rule (SNUR) requiring persons to notify EPA 90 days prior to manufacture, im port, or processing of elemental mercury for natural gas manometers, except when the articles are in service as of the effective date of the final rule . 75 FR 42330, July 21, 2010. 11 Natural gas manometers may contain several kilograms of mercury (Schleifstein, 2007).Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products 4 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Internet queries did not identify any current manufacturer of mercury- added barometers . This research suggests that the manufacture of mercury- containing barometers has been phased out. 12 Hygrometers

/Psychrometers IMERC reports that the quantity of mercury sold in hygrometers/psychrometers decreased from 0.0018 metric tons in 2001 to 0.00 09 metric tons in 200 7 ; however, the 2007 value actually equals zero because IMERC categorizes “other measuring equipment” with hygrometers/psychrometers , and b oth manufacturers who reported sales of mercury- containing hygrometers/psychrometers to IMERC in either 2001 or 2004 (Princo Instruments, Inc. and Taylor Precision Products L.P.) have reported that they have phased out the use of mercury ( IMERC, 2010b ) . 13 Manometers All manufacturers who had reported historical manufacture of mercury - containing manometers to IMERC in either 2001 or 2004 have since phased out use of mercury in their products (IMERC, 2010b). 14 P hone conversations with five additional companies (Ashcroft Inc., Dwyer Instrument s, Dynisco Ins truments, S J Electro Systems, Inc., and McMaster - Carr) identified through 1) online queries for pressure measurement devices, and 2) a search of Dun & Bradstreet database under the relevant NAICS code 15 indicated that none made or sold mercury - containing manometers (Ashcroft Inc., 2010; Dwyer Instruments , 2010 ; Dynisco Instruments, 2010; S J Electro Systems, Inc.; and McMaster- Carr, 2010) . As a result, EPA believes that manufacturing of mercury - containing manometers have been phased- out.

12 Barometers may still be found in secondary markets; in fact, some state bans provide exemptions for antique barometers. 13 A phone conversation with a customer service representative at the Belfort Instrument Company on April 27, 2010 confirmed the manufacture of at least one model of mercury - containing psychromete rs, therefore these were excluded from the SNUR (Belfort, 2010). 13 14 Scientific Glass & Instruments, which reported the sale of mercury - containing manometers to IMERC in 2001 and 2004, reported to IMERC that they only produce the glass component and do no t fill the manometer with mercury. 15 NAICS 33451 2: Automatic Environmental Control Manufacturing for Residential, Commercial, and Appliance Use .Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products 5 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

### 3. **INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE COSTS**  The final SNUR discussed in this report specifies that significant new use s of mercury that require reporting under section 5(a)( 2 )(A) of TSCA include the manufacture , import, or processing of elemental mercury fo r use in : 1) barometers , 2 ) manometers , and 3) hygrometers/psychrometers . Not included in this SNUR is mercury use in portable, battery-powered, motor - aspirated psychrometers containing less than 7 grams of elemental mercury because they are currently manufactured. 16 Therefore , a firm intending to manufacture, import, and/or process elemental mercury fo r the previously specified product s , m ust submit a SNUN . Alternatively, a firm can decide not to manufacture, import, and/or process the chemical for a significant new use . The firm , therefore , has two options:  **Option 1: Submit a SNUN**  . A SNUN indicates to EPA that the firm would like to manufacture, import, and/or process the chemical for a significant new use , which, in this case, means any manufacture, importing, and/or processing of this chemical or articles containing the chemicals . The firm must submit the SNUN to EPA at least 90 days before it plans to commence the manufacture, import, and/or processing of the substance; the SNUN provides EPA with the opportunity to evaluate th e intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs . If EPA allows the manufacture, import, or processing of mercury for use in the three products subject to the SNUR , then the costs associated with this option are the costs of submitting the SNUN (including a user fee) plus , if there is any export of these products , the export notification costs that result from TSCA Section 12(b) requirements that are automatically triggered for chemicals regulated under TSCA Section 5 (see Section 3.2.5 for details) . Because the three products subject to the SNUR are not currently manufactured or imported into the United States , EPA expects that no firms will choose this option.

 **Option 2: Decide not to manu facture, import, and/or process**  **the chemical .**  The firm may simply decide to not manufacture, import, or process mercury for use in the three products subject to the final SNUR . While this option avoids the costs of sub mitting a SNUN, it entails the “hidden ” cost of the foregone profit as a result of not engaging in the commercial activity originally planned . Similarly, if the firm would have used a given amount of mercury f or use in the production of one of the three products subject to the SNUR, it may substitute mercury with a more costly substance and will incur those additional “hidden ” costs of production . However, these hidden costs are expected to be minimal , if not z ero, because the manufacture of the mercury - containing products subject to the SNUR has phased out, and firms have begun to produce substitutes for the products prior to the SNUR . If the firm elects to produce mercury for use in the three products subject to the SNUR for research and development (R&D) purposes only ( an exemption for R&D purposes is provided in 40 CFR §721.47), it may have costs associated with R&D recordkeeping . In addition, if the firm exports any existing stockpiles of the specified mercury- containing products , it will incur the export notification costs (see Section 3.2.5 for details) . Since the products subj ect to the SNUR are not currently manufactured in the United States , EPA does not expect there to be compliance cost s associated with either of the options . The remainder of this chapter estimates the quantified portion of costs associated with the final SNUR for these us es of the elemental mercury . Section 3.1 summarizes the wage rates used in this chapter . Section 3.2 provides the unit industry compliance c osts, including the costs of rule familiarization, registration with the Central Data Exchange ( CDX ) electronic reporting tool, completing the SNUN form, submission fee, import certification, and export notification . Total costs under each option are presented in Section 3.3 .

16 A phone conversation with a customer service representative at the Belfort Instrument Company on April 27, 2010 confirmed the manufacture of at least one model of mercury - containing psychrometer (Belfort, 2010).Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products 6 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch **3.1 Wage Rates**  The final rule involves activities that may require efforts by employees in three labor classifications: managerial, technical, and clerical . Costs for each activity are calculated by estimating the labor hours required in each labor category and multiplying those burdens by the wage rate for each labor category. This section presents the estimated wage rate in each labor category. Loaded wage rates for managerial, technical, and clerical personnel are derived by combining data on wages and fringe benefits with estimates of overhead rates, following the methodology described in “Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program” ( EPA, 2002b ) . Wage data for each labor category in December 2010 are provided by the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) Supplemental Tables available on the BLS website (BLS, 2011a) . The loaded wage rate for managerial labo r is $ 69.74 ; for technical labor, $ 61.71 ; and for clerical labor, $ 28.98 . Table 1 presents the basic data used to calculate the loaded wage rates for all three categories of labor. **Table 1**  **: Loaded Industry Wage Rates, December 20 10**  **Labor Category**  **Data Sources Date**  **Wage (2010$)**  **Fringe**

**Benefit (2010$)**  **Fringes**

**as % wage**  **Over**   ** head %** **wage 2**  **Fringe +**

**overhead factor**  **Loaded**

**Wages 1**  **( 2010**  **$)** (a) (b) (c)

=(b)/(a) (d) (e)=(c)+

(d)+1 (f)=(a) x

(e) **Managerial** BLS ECEC, Private

Manufacturing industries, “Mgt, Business, and Financial” 3 12/10 $42.82 $19.64 45.87% 17% 1.63 $69.74 **Professional/ Technical**  BLS ECEC, Private

Manufacturing industries , “Professional and related“ 3 12/10 $36.93 $18.50 50.09% 17% 1.67 $61.71 **Clerical** BLS ECEC, Private

Manufacturing industries, “Office and Administrative Support” 3 12/10 $17.36 $8.67 49.94% 17% 1.67 $28.98 1 Wage data are rounded to the closest pennies in this table. 2 An overhead rate of 17% was used based on assumptions in Wage Rates for Economic Analyses of the Toxics Release Inventory Program (EP A, 2002b ), and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report ( EP A, 2002a). 3 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 2010, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 9, 2011 (BLS, 2011a). **3.2 Unit Industry Compliance Costs**  

### 3.2.1 Rule Familiarization The final rule requires submitters and their staff to become familiar with the SNUR and its various requirements . The per company burden associated with r ule familiarization is approximately 0.55 hours of technical labor and 0.27 hours of managerial labor, as described in the Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009 b ) . As shown in Table 2 the total labor cost associated with rule familiarization by a first -time reporter is $ 52.54 .Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products 7 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch

**Table 2**  **: Rule Familiarization Burden and Cost for SNUR Submitters Reporting Activity**  **Clerical Labor (at $**  **28.98 /hour)**  **Technical Labor (at**

**$ 61.71**  **/hour) Managerial Labor** 

**(at $ 69.74**  **/hour) Total Labor Cost**  **Burden (hours)**  **Cost**

**( 2010**  **$) Burden** 

**(hours) Cost** 

**( 2010**  **$) Burden** 

**(hours) Cost** 

**( 2010**  **$) Burden** 

**(hours) Cost** 

**( 2010**  **$)** Rule Familiarization 0.00 $0.00 0.55 $33.94 0.27 $18.60 0.82 $52.54 **Total 0.00**  **$0.00 0.55**  **$33.94 0.27**  **$18.60 0.82**  **$52.54 Source**  : BLS, 2011a (labor rates) ; EPA, 2009b (burden hours) 

### 3.2.2 CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup The final SNUR requires first -time submitters (that is, those companies who have not submitted information to EPA through CDX before) to register their company and key users with the CDX reporting tool, deliver a CDX electronic signature to EPA, and establish and use a Pay.gov E -payment account . 17 . The se activities are only required of first -time submitters (companies already registered with CDX do not need to re -register for the purposes of complying with the final SNUR) . The burdens associated with these activities were estimated in the Economic Analy sis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009 b ) and are described in more detail below :  CDX registration: EPA estimates that companies will spend approximately 0.18 hours per employee to register with CDX, and that an average of four technical staff members and one manager will need to register for each company, totaling approximately 0.92 hours of burden per company.  CDX electronic signature: EPA estimates that companies will spend 0.25 hours preparing, submitting, and filing an electronic signature agreement (Authentication of Identity) form to EPA per employee . This burden will apply to four technical staff members and one manager per company, totaling to 1.25 hours of burden per company . In addition, EPA estimates that a manager will spend an additional 0.50 hours accessing, preparing, and submitting verification forms (Verification of Authorization) for all authorized submitters to EPA . The total burden incurred by companies submitting and then verifying electronic signature agreements is 1.75 hours . Note that this burden does not include any additional time required to contact EPA’s CDX help desk to notify a change of submitter status, should one occur. Filing the electronic signature agreement requires an additional mailing cost of $2.30 per company (including five $0.44 stamps and five $0.02 business envelopes) (USPS, 2010) .  Payment via Pay.gov account: EPA estimates that one manager per company will spend approximately 0.13 hours setting up a Pay.gov ID account, logging into the system, finding the appropriate form, and filling it out . This burden does not include the time required to click ‘submit’ on the form and wait for payment processing. As shown in Table 3 , the cost associated with CDX registration, CDX electronic signature, and Pay.gov account setup is $ 184 , and this cost is only incurred by a first -time submitter.

17 Although the proposed rule does not specifically require submitters to establish and use a Pay.gov account, the burden estimates in this analysis are conservative insofar as to include the use of Pay.gov as a required activity .Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products 8 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch **Table 3**  **: CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup Burden and Cost for First**  **- Time Submitters**  **Reporting Activity Clerical Labor (at**  **$ 29.98**  **/hour) Technical Labor (at** 

**$ 61.71**  **/hour) Managerial Labor** 

**(at $ 69.74**  **/hour) Total Cost**  **Burden (hours)**  **Cost**

**( 2010**  **$) Burden** 

**(hours) Cost** 

**( 2010**  **$) Burden** 

**(hours) Cost** 

**( 2010**  **$) Burden** 

**(hours) Cost** 

**( 2010**  **$)** CDX Registration 0.00 $0.00 0.73 $45.25 0.18 $12.78 0.92 $58.03 CDX Electronic Signature 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $61.71 0.75 $52.30 1.75 $114 Mailing Cost $2.30 E - Payment ( Pay .gov ID) 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.13 $9.30 0.13 $9.30 **Total 0.00**  **$0.00 1.73**  **$107 1.07**  **$74.38 2.80**  **$184 Source**  : BLS, 2011a (labor rates) ; EPA, 2009b (burden hours); USPS, 2010 (mailing c ost) 

### 3.2.3 Form Completion and Submission Fee Respondents are required to gather and submit information regarding the data elements identified in the applicable SNUN reporting form . The methodology and calculations used in this analysis assume that the employee responsible for collecting, filling out, and submitting the requested information has a reasonable level of familiarity with the company and knowledge of operations at the site . Itis assumed that for most entities these tasks are similar to other employee duties that require familiarity with EPA, State, and other Federal agency requests for chemical information and do not require additional familiarization or training beyond the basic rule familiarization described above . Inaddition, this analysis focuses on the marginal costs of submitting information for the final rule and not the total costs for the company to comply with a range of other Federal and State environmental, health, and safety regulations or accounting requirements that rely on this type of information. Estimates of the costs of completing a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) form are based on the costs of completing a Premanufacture Notification ( PMN) submission, since the data requirements are the same and the same form is used for both . The PMN submission costs are based on EPA's 1994 Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for T SCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications and the updates to th ese estimates in 2009 ( EPA, 2009 b) . The original 1994 estimates relied on industry estimates of the effort needed to collect and compile all data required for a PMN submission, prepare the form, submit the form and data to EPA, and maintain a file of the submission (EPA , 1994, Table III - 2 and pages III - 11, - 12, and - 1 3) . The 1994 estimates were based on a survey conducted by the Chemical Manufacturers Association ( CMA, 1991 ), which became the American Chemistry Council . These burdens “ include the time spent reading and becoming familiar with the f orm, gathering the required information and preparing the report, producing sanitized responses for items claimed as confidential business information, and maintaining a file of the submission” ( EPA, 1994. p. III 11 - 13 ) . The burden as sociated with SNUN submission and preparation has been adjusted to reflect burden reductions resulting from the 2009 final PMN Electronic Reporting (ePMN) Rule that requires the electronic submission of all TSCA section 5 notices . Electronic submission of SNUN forms is expected to remove all clerical burden associated with preparing a SNUN and reduce the recordkeeping burden associated with SNUN submissions (EPA, 2009b, p.7 ). Because, the recordkeeping burden for PMNs was not estimatedEconomic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products 9 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch separately, for the purposes of this report we assume this burden reduction is captured in the removal of all clerical burden. 18 The 1994 RIA estimates that the burden to prepare , keep and maintain records, and submit a PMN is between 95 and 114 hours. Once the clerical burden is removed as a result of the ePMN rule, the total burden associated with preparing and submitting a PMN is reduced to 83 to 100 hours (EPA, 2009b). For this analysis, the midpoint burden is used. An additional 0.18 hours of technical time is added for the completion of the User Fee Payment Identification Number and email address data element s on the electronic SNUN form (EPA, 2009b), therefore the total burden of completing an electronic SNUN form is approximately 92.2 hours. Table 4 combines the estimated reporting burden and loaded wage rates for all three labor categories to estimate the per- SNUN cost of form completion . The labor cost incur red by a SNUN submission for both large and small business submitters is $ 5,834 .

**Table 4**  **: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete the SNUN Form Reporting**  **Activity Clerical Labor (at**  **$ 28.98**  **/hour) Technical Labor (at** 

**$ 61.71**  **/hour) Managerial Labor** 

**(at $ 69.74**  **/hour) Total Labor Cost**  **Burden (hours)**  **Cost**

**( 2010**  **$) Burden** 

**(hours) Cost** 

**( 2010**  **$) Burden** 

**(hours) Cost** 

**( 2010**  **$) Burden** 

**(hours) Cost** 

**( 2010**  **$)** Form Com pletion 0.00 $0.00 74.2 $4,579 18 .00 $1,255 **92.2 $5,834**  **Source** : BLS, 201 1a (labor rates) ; EPA, 2009b (burden hours) In addition, each submitting large business must pay a $2,500 per- SNUN submission fee, and each submitting small business must pay a $100 per- SNUN submission fee . Table 5 adds the labor cost and submission fee to estimate the total cost of a SNUN submission . The total cost of a SNUN submission is $ 8,334 for large business submitters and $ 5,934 for small busine ss submitters.

**Table 5**  **: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete and Submit the SNUN Form Reporting Population**  **Labor Cost Subm** **ission Fee Total Cost**  **( 2010**  **$ )**  Large Business Submitters $5,834 $2,500 **$8,334** Small Business Submitters $5,834 $100 **$5,934 Source**  : EPA, 2009b . 

### 3.2.4 Import Certification In general, promulgation of a final SNUR triggers a TSCA Section 13 import certification requirement and the corresponding regulations at 19 CFR 12.118 to 12.127 and 19 CFR 127.28 for all imports of the relevant chemical substances . Thus, any U.S. manufacturer, importer, or processor receiving an imported shipment of chemicals subject to the final SNUR will have to certify that all chemical substances in the shipment either comply with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA or that all chemical substances in

18 The Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009 b ) estimates a 0.5 hour clerical and a 0.5 hour technical burden associated with recordkeeping in addition to the burden estimates from the 1994 RIA, which include the burden for recordkeeping ( EPA, 1994 , p. III - 14) . T h ese burden estimates are based on the recordkeeping burden for polymer exceptions and not the recordkeeping burden associated with PMN submissions. Therefore , for this analysis we assume that any reduction in recordkeeping burden is captured in the reducti on of the clerical burden, and we do not consider the one hour recordkeeping burden from the ePMN EA in order to avoid double counting.Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products 10 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch the shipment are not subject to TSCA. 19 The statement must be on or attached to a commercial invoice or entry document belonging to the imported shipment. In practice, import certification is fulfilled by checking a box on an invoice or entry document and generally imposes no additional burden or cost on the importer ( EPA, 2009c ) . Any potential burden associated with a submitter’s familiarization with this requirement is assumed to be included in the more general SNUR familiarization burden discussed above. 

### 3.2.5 Export Notification Under Section 12(b) of TSCA, exporters must notify EPA if they export or intend to export a chemical or an article subject to various TSCA sections ( 40 CFR §707.60 through 75 ) . For TSCA 5(a)(2) (the section under which EPA promulgates significant new use rules) and certain other TSCA sections, this is a one time notification requirement20 per destination country for each exporter of a chemical substance . After receiving a notification from a firm, EPA notifies the importing country and the United States State Department ( 40 CFR §707.70 ) . To calculate the burden associated with making export notifications, EPA first estimated the average annual number of export notifications made by an exporter . EPA then derived the annual and per notification burden associated with preparing and submitting an export notification. EPA estimated the average burden associated with making a single notification, but did not estimate the total number of exporters of elemental mercury for the uses subject to the SNUR, or the number of notifications per specified mercury - containing product . Itis also important to note that the Mercury Export Ban Act of 2008 will forbid export of elemental mercury from the United States beginning in 2013 . Therefore, beyond 2013, there will be no export notification costs related to export of elemental mercury for these uses; the only cost will be if there is import of mercury - containing barometers, mano meters and/or hygrometer s /psychrometers . Most underlying data in this section come from the 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR, ICR No.: 0795.13 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Chemica l Exports - TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (EPA, 2009 c ), with updating for inflation. Exporter Costs The 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR ( EPA, 2009 c , page 11, Table 3 ), estimated the annual export notification cost for an exporter under the one -time export notification requirement . These costs include the cost to the exporter of compiling a list of their products that are subject to TSCA Section 12(b) requirements, writing or revising an export notification letter to EPA, checking the outgoing shipments, and sending the notification letters with the associated shipping costs .

19 The exact statements are as follows: For imports of chemical substances subject to TSCA, “I certify that all chemical substances in this shipment comply with all applicable rules or orders under TSCA and that I am not offering a chemical substance for entry in violation of TSCA or any applicable rule or order under TSCA.” For im ports of chemical substances not subject to TSCA (e.g., pesticides), “I certify that all chemicals in this shipment are not subject to TSCA.” ( 40 CFR 707.20 ) 20 On November 14, 2006, EPA revised the export notification requirement for chemicals subject to TSCA §5(a)(2), 5(b), 5(e)(1) and 5(e)(2) from an annual to a one - time requirement per destination country for each exporter (November 14, 2006, 71 FR 66234 ).Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products 11 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

### The per -notification cost was calculated based on the assumption that the average exporter makes 12 notifications per year. 21 Exporters making more notifications per year may benefit from economies of scale and have lower costs per notification; those making fewer notifications may have higher costs per notification. Estimated Submission (Mailing) Costs . Regulated companies will incur mailing costs for export notifications delivered to EPA . Notifications are assumed shipped via the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) as first - class registered mail with a return receipt (USPS, 20 10 ) . The estimated per - shipment and annual mailing costs incurred by individual submitters are detailed in Table 6 .

**Table 6**  **: Derivation of Total Mailing Cost for 12 Notices** Dates that the rates were verified on United States Postal Service web site: **April 2010** Postal services costs Registered mail, regular, with $0 declared value $10.60 Return receipt, requested at time of mailing (receive by mail) $2.30 Postage, regular First Class, up to 1 ounce $0.44 **Cost per export notice –**  **Subtotal $13.34**  **Source** : Mailing rates are from the US Postal Service web site as of April 2010 (http://www.usps.com/prices/) . The mailing method comes from the Economic Analysis of the Proposed Change to TSCA Section 12(b) Export Notification Requirements , November 2005 (EPA, 2005), as clarified in a later SNUR economic analysis ( EPA, 2007 a , Table 8 ). Compile and Maintain the List of Products . Since TSCA §12(b) information collection activity has been in place for twenty years, most respondents will have already developed a list of their products subject to TSCA §12(b) export notification . Respondents need only check for new regulations promulgated and any new products exported by the company . Updating the list is estimated to take an average of one hour of technical time, which may also include some proportion of legal time (EPA, 2009c ) . The total burden can vary from two hours per year up to two hours per mont h, depending on the number of products exported by the company and th e number of their products subject to TSCA §12(b) ( EPA, 2009 c ). Write or Revise Export Notification . Companies that export chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) reporting must prepare an export notification to send to EPA when export shipments are made . Time fo r initial preparation of the export notice may vary depending on whether the company has prior experience with this requirement . This step is estimated to take an average of one hour of technical time (which may also include some proportion of legal time) per firm per year for 12 notifications per year , or 0.08 hours per notification ( EPA, 2009c ). Check Orders and Send Notifications . Companies that export chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) reporting must check outgoing shipments against the list of their prod ucts described above . A form letter notifying EPA and providing the required data must be printed and mailed within the required time period . This process is estimated to take an average one half hour of clerical time per export notification (EPA, 2009 c ). The burdens and associated costs for each notification activity are provided in Table 7 below.

21 EPA calculated the average num ber of export notifications per exporter in the 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR (EPA, 2009d) by dividing the estimated number of submitted notifications (3,500) by the estimated number of exporters (300 ).Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products 12 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch

**Table 7**  **: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost per Notification** 

**Technical Clerical**  **Total $/Hr**  **Hours 2010**  **$ $/Hr**  **Hours 2010**  **$ 2010**  **$ Hours**  Com pile list $61.71 0.78 $ 47.82 -- -- -- $ 47.82 0.78 Write letter $61.71 0.08 $ 5.14 -- -- -- $ 5.14 0.08 Check order and send notice -- -- -- $28.98 0.50 $ 14.49 $ 14.49 0.50 Mailing cost 1

-- -- -- $ 13.34 - **Total per n otification**  $0.86 $ 52.97 0.50 $14.49 1.36 $80.80 **Notes:** 1 Mailing costs reflect April 20 10 USPS rates and can be found in Table 6 . 2 Per notification costs are based on an average facility submitting notifications that is assumed to submit 12 export notifications per year. **Source:** ICR No.: 0795.13 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (EPA, 2009 c , p.10) , and are updated to 2010 dollars. **3.3 Industry Costs of SNUR, by**  **Option (per Submission)** The number of firms affected by not making submissions to EPA is not known; therefore, costs are not aggregated across the affected entities . Table 8 summarizes the costs to comply with the final rule, as described in more detail in section 3.2 above.Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products 13 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch **Table 8**  **: Compliance Options and Associated Costs Incurred by a Firm Due to the**  **Final SNUR**  **Option** 1 **Costs Quantified Costs per Che**  **mi cal (2008$)**  2

1. Submit a SNUN. Costs of submitting a SNUN,

including rule familiarization, CDX registration (for companies that are first - time submitters), form completion , user fee, export notification, and any test costs, $ 52.54 rule familiarization cost; $ 8,334 submission cost (including SNUN recordkeeping and $2,500 fee) . EPA usually receives well under ten SNUNs per year . Based o n review of recent SNUNs, it appears that firms rarely conduct toxicity or fate testing to support a SNUN (such testing would be voluntary). 3 E xport notifications costs are estimated at $ 80.80 per notification; total cost per company will vary . First time submitters will incur $ 184 for CDX registration and associated activities. 2. Decide not to manufacture, im port, or process the chemical. Cost of the profit foregone as

a result of not engaging in the commercial activity originally planned, and recordkeeping costs only if manufacturing for research and development. Costs not quantified . Rule familiarization and export notification costs may apply . **Notes:** 1 Firms may be subject to both options at once since submission of a SNUN results in profits foregone as a result of not manufacturing, importing, or processing the chemical. 2 Quantified costs are attributable to the SNUR only if a firm does not otherwise follow the specified practices . Costs are detailed in Section 3.2 . 3 EPA does not require the development of test data for submission of a SNUN, although a firm may submit test data already in its possession and/or describe any other available data . Because EPA does not require the development of test data, EPA assumes that no firms will incur testing costs as a result of the SNUR. **3.4 Likelihood of**  **a SNUN Submission** EPA believes that the use of elemental mercury for manufacturing the specified mercury - containing products has been phased out in the United States (see section 2.2 ) . 22 Therefore, very few , if any, entities are expected to submit a SNUN. **3.5 Potential for Subsequent Regulatory Action**  EPA recognizes that if submission of a SNUN does result from the final SNUR, the Agency may take a dditional regulatory actions under TSCA . These additional regulatory actions might be necessary to further evaluate an intended new use and associated activities, or to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs to prevent unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment . Itis not known what specific subsequent regulatory actions, if any, the Agency may determine are necessary after reviewing a SNUN . Any such actions are highly dependent on the circumstances surrounding the individual SNU N (e.g., available information and scientific understanding of the chemical and its risks at the time the SNUN is being reviewed). Should EPA’s review of the SNUN result in further regulatory actions, the Agency will initiate and follow the appropriate procedures for taking those actions . Included in those procedures would be an assessment of the costs and benefits of those actions.

22 These products may still be in use, resold in the aftermarket, or stored in homes and businesses, but these activities are not subject to the SNUR.Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products 14 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

### 4. **AGENCY COSTS** As described in the following sections, EPA’s costs to review and process SNUN submiss ions are assumed to be the same as EPA costs to review PMNs . **4.1 Labor**  **Rates fo**  **r EPA Staff** Agency labor costs are calculated based on annual Federal salaries for the Washington - Baltimore area published by the Office of Personnel Management effective January 2010 (OPM, 20 10) . EPA assumes that, on average, a federal GS - 13, Step 5 full -time equivalent (FTE) will conduct its collection and administrative activities under the final rule. 23 The average salary for a GS - 13 Step 5 employee was $100,904 in 2010 without fringe benefits and overhead costs . In order to derive the fully loaded salary, EPA multiplied the annual salary by an assumed loading factor of 1.6 to reflect federal fringe benefits and overhead, which results in a fully loaded annual salary of $161,446 (see Table 9 ) . Divi ding the fully loaded annual salary by 2,080 hours (i.e., the number of hours in a work year) yields an hourly FTE compensation wage rate of $77.62 . The Agency loading factor of 1.6 is from an EPA guide entitled Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) ( EPA, 1992, page 30, footnote 9 ) . The 60 percent assumption was labeled “the benefits multiplication factor” in the EPA guide, but has been used in many EPA OPPT ICRs to reflect both fringe benefits and overhead for federal staff . For example, it was used in a document supporting EPA ICR No. 1139.06 ( EPA, 2000 ), with the following explanation: The annual costs per FTE are derived by multiplying the annual pay rate by 1.6 (the benefits multiplication factor) . The multiplication factor used is recommended in EPA’ s Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation’s Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (June 1, 1992) . An EPA internal phone call between Carol Rawie (OPPT/EETD/RIB) and Carl Koch (OPPE/RMD/IMB) on May 3, 1994, indicated that the 1.6 factor included not only benefits but also overhead . Fully loaded costs for Agency labor are shown in Table 9 .

23 The GS - 13 Step 5 is consistent with ICR No. 0574.14 (12/18 /2007) (EPA, 2007b), which covers PMN SNURs. Use of this grade level follows the approach introduced in EPA, 2007b. That report represented a change from an earlier PMN SNUR economic analysis ( EPA, 2003 ), which used an average of GS - 12 Step 1 and GS - 12 Step 10 salaries.Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products 15 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch **Table 9**  **: Derivation of Loaded Agency Wage Rates**  **Labor Category**  **Data Source for Wage**

**Information Date**  **Wage Fringe**  **Benefit Fringes as** 

**% w age**  **Overhead**

**as % wage**  **Fringe +**

**overhead factor**  **Loaded**

**Wages** (a) (b) (c)=(b)/(a) (d) (e)=(c)+(d)+1 (f)=(a) * (e) EPA staff FTE Annual federal staff

cost: OPM Washington Baltimore -Northern Virginia, DC - MD PA - VA - WV, area, GS - 13 Step 1 pay rates a Jan 2010 $100,904 (annual)

-- [Included

in 60% overhead] 60% b 1.60 $161,446 (annual) $48.51 (hourly) $77.62 (hourly)

**Notes** : a The Agency salary is the unloaded federal GS - 13 Step 5 salary ($ 100,904 for 2009), from the OPM salary table for the Washington - Baltimore -Northern Virginia Locality Pay Area ( OPM, 2010 ) . Hourly rates are based on annual salary divided by 2,080 hours. b Th e 60% fringes - and - overhead rate is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) ( EPA, 1992 , page 30, footnote 9). **4.2 SNUN Processing Costs**  The list of review steps, estimates of extramural costs, and the percent of chemicals requiring a particular review step are derived from the costs for processing PMN submissions in Table VII - 1 of a 1994 EPA report, Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications ( EPA, 1994 ) . The Agency burden associated with processing a PMN has been adjusted to reflect burden reductions resulting from the 2009 final PMN Electronic Reporting (ePMN) Rule that requires the electronic submission of all TSCA section 5 notices . Electronic submission of SNUN forms is expected reduce Agency burden by 16.5 percent (EPA, 2009 b , p.28 ) . For each review step, the “EPA staff” cost is calculated by multiplying the number of FTEs (in the first column) by the fully loaded hourly salary . This shows EPA staff cost for chemicals requiring the selected review step. The Extramural Cost column shows costs for contractor support and other outside purchases for chemicals requiring the selecte d review step is inflated from 1993 prices using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index (ECI) data (BLS, 2011b ) . T he not seasonally adjusted E CI for total compensation of private industry professional and related workers (Series ID CIU2 010000120000I) is used because it is the only series with continuous data since 1985 , and that includes professional and technical labor, which perform the majority of Agency extramural activities . Table 10 , below contains the derivation of inflation factors for Agency extramural costs.Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products 16 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch

**Table 10**  **: Derivation of**  **Inflation Factors for Agency Extramural Costs**  **Item Inflation**  **index source 1**  **Starting year**  **Index for**

**starting year**  (a) **Index**

**for 2010**  (b) **Inflation factor**  (b)/(a) 2 Agency Extramural costs White collar labor; equipment; supplies BLS ECI, Total comp, Private industry, **Professional and related** , 4 th Q [BLS 201 1b ] 3 1993 67.0 113 1.69 **Notes :**  1 In2006, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost I ndex (ECI) series “were rebased to December 2005 = 100 from June 1 989 = 100.” The change is reflected in the indices in this table and explained on the BLS website, Employment Cost I ndex News Rel ease Text: Employment Cost I

ndex, March 2006 (BLS, 2006). The Consumer Price I ndex (CPI) was not rebased. 2 In flation factors are rounded; unrounded values were used in calculations. 3 Beginning with the report Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 25 Chemical Substances: EPA Docket OPPT 2009 - 0922 (EPA 2011b), we began to use the not - seasonally adjusted CI U2010000120000I

for private industry Professional, and Related workers, instead of SA CI S2010000W00000I for private industry whi te collar workers because BLS retired the “white - collar” series. **Source:** (BLS 2011b) Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index

– Total Compensation: Professional and Related Private Industry, Not Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: CIU2010000120000I (B)), extracted June 16, 2011. The Percent of Cases column in Table 11 is a weighting factor applied to reflect the fact that not all chemic als require each review step . For example, in the PMN process, all chemicals require Administrative Prescreening, but not all chemicals require the intensive scrutiny of “Standard Review.” The three types of submissions resulting from a SNUR may have weighting factors that differ from each other and from the weighting factors for PMNs . Changes in weighting factors could cause actual review costs to be higher or lo wer than calculated here . For example, some SNUNs require little review because they are determined to be “invalid”

– i.e. not required in the first place . However, often a SNUN may take more Agency time than a typical PMN because of factors such as the need to retrieve old PMN records from archives, and the likelihood that more data requiring EPA review is submitted with a SNUN than would be submitted on average with a PMN . Resources were not available to update the review hours to reflect the current review process or to tailor the cost estimates to SNUNs . Therefore, for this analysis, the review steps and weighting factors are assumed to be the same as those derived in 1994 for PMNs. The Weighted Cost column is calculated by multiplying the un -weighted Costs (EPA staff cost plus extramural costs) by the percentage of cases requiring this review step . Weighted costs are then multiplied by the burden reduction of 16.5 percent to account for burden savings generated electronic submission . This calculation yields total Agency costs of $ 5,049 , per SNUN, for submission review and processing , as shown in Table 11 .Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three 17 U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxic s

Mercury Legacy Products Economic and Policy Analysis Branch **Table 11**  **: Agency Costs for SNUN and Other Submission Review and Processing**  **Review Steps**  **EPA staff (FTE) Cost Extram** **ural Cost 2**  **Unw eighted**  **Cost Pct. of** 

**Cases Weighted** 

**Cost 3**  **ePMN**

**Burden Reduction**  **4 Weighted Cost** 

**with ePMN Burden Reduction**  **FTE fraction**  **Cost per**

**FTE 1**  **FTE Total**

**($ 2010**  **) 1993** 

**dollars 2010** 

**dollars** (a) (b) (c)=(a)*(b) (d) (e) (f)=(c)+(e) (g) (h)=(f)*(g) (i) (j)=(h)* (1 - (i)) Pre - notice consultation 0.0024 $161,446 $387 $4.00 $6.78 $394 41% $162 0.165 $135 Administrative prescreen/ notice receipt/user fee 0.0024 $161,446 $387 $92.00 $156 $543 100% $543 0.165 $454 CRSS (Chemical Review and Search Strategy) 0.0025 $161,446 $404 $268 $454 $858 100% $858 0.165 $716 SAT (Structure Activity Team) 0.0006 $161,446 $96.87 $14.00 $23.72 $121 100% $121 0.165 $101 Engineering/Exposure 0.0015 $161,446 $242 $56.00 $94.87 $337 100% $337 0.165 $281 Exposure/Fate 0.0008 $161,446 $129 $0.00 $0.00 $129 100% $129 0.165 $108 Focus 0.0009 $161,446 $145 $23.00 $38.96 $184 100% $184 0.165 $154 Standard Revie w Functions 0.0219 $161,446 $3,536 $511 $866 $4,401 29% $1,276 0.165 $1,066 Division Directors Meeting 0.0129 $161,446 $2,083 $113 $191 $2,274 15% $341 0.165 $285 Order Development/Negotiation Revie w 0.0171 $161,446 $2,761 $22.00 $37.27 $2,798 3% $83.94 0.165 $70 Post Order Data Review 0.0886 $161,446 $14,304 $0.00 $0.00 $14,304 3% $429 0.165 $358 Order Modification 0.2167 $161,446 $34,985 $0.00 $0.00 $34,985 3% $1,049 0.165 $876 New Chemical SNUR Development 0.0277 $161,446 $4,472 $85.00 $144 $4,616 7% $323 0.165 $270 Notices of Commencement 0.0012 $161,446 $193 $40.00 $67.76 $261 31% $81.06 0.165 $68 FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) Requests 0.0333 $161,446 $5,376 $287 $486 $5,862 1% $58.62 0.165 $49 CBI (Confidential Business Information) Substantiation 0.0004 $161,446 $64.58 $3.00 $5.08 $70 100% $69.66 0.165 $58 **TOTAL $6,046**  **0.165 $5,049**  **Notes:** 1 GS - 13 Step 5 salaries loaded with benefits and overhead. See Table 9 for derivation. 2 Extramural costs consist of contracting support and other purchases directly attributable to the PMN review process inflated from 1993 prices using {insert reference]. 3 Weighted costs were calculated using unrounded unit cost estimates, so results may differ from calculations using the rounded values shown in this table. 4 Electronic submission is expected to generate a cost savings of 16.5% to the Agency (EPA 2009b , p. 28). **Sources:** FTEs per review step, 1993 extramural costs, and percentages of cases are from EPA, 1994 Table VII - 1, GS - 13 salaries are from OPM, 2010 .Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three 18 U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products Economic and Policy Analysis Branch **4.3 Export Notification Cost**  The Agency burden and cost due to TSCA §12(b) export notification result from three tasks . In the first task, EPA receives export notifications from companies that intend to export one of the chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) (EPA, 2009 c ) . In the second task, EPA staff prepares separate notification letters that are subsequently reviewed and delivered to importing countries, their emb assies, or representatives, and to the importing country’s US embassies (EPA, 2009 c ) . (See Table 6 for the cost of mailing one notification) . The third task is comprised of EPA staff responses to public inquiries and other TSCA 12(b) activities . The work of responding to non -routine requests for information and clarification from industry and importing countries, and of handling other tasks associ ated with the TSCA §12(b) program, was esti mated to require roughly 400 hours per year ( EPA, 2009c ) . Since the current rulemaking covers only one chemical subj ect to TSCA 12(b) reporting for a minimal number of uses , a very small percent of such activity will be attributable to the current rulemaking. Because the manufacture of mercury - containing products subject to the final SNUR is phased out, EPA does not expect to receive or send any export notifications . Nevert heless, should there be any notifications as a result of the current rulemaking, the costs to the Agency are presented per activity . The burden for the first two Agency activities is provided in Table 12 below . To estimate the Agency cost, hourly burdens are multiplied by the loaded wage rate of a GS - 13, Step 5, which is derived in Table 9 . **Table 12**  **: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost: Agency Burden per Activity ( 2010**  **$) Agency Activity**  **Hours per Activity**  **FTE per**

**Activity 1**  **Loaded Mailing**  **Cost Total Agency Cost**  **per**

**Activity GS**  **- 13, Step 5 FTE**  **Wage Rate** (a) (b) = (a)/2,080 (c) (d) (e) = ((b)* (c))+(d) Process an incoming notification from an exporting com

pany 0.1 0.0000 48 $161,446 $0.00 $7.76 P repare and mail a notification to an im porting country 0.5 0.00024 0 $161,446 $13.34 $52.15 **Notes** : 1 The burden associated with an Agency activity is the burden for the Agency to process one incoming notification, or to prepare and mail an outgoing notification Source: Table 9 of this report derives Agency labor costs . Mailing costs are from Table 6 of this report . Other burdens are from ICR No.: 0795.13 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (EPA 2009 c ), updated for inflation.Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three 19 U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

### 5. **ADDITIONAL ANALYSES** This section presents additional analysis of other potential impacts of this rulemaking, as required under various statutes and executive orders. **5.1 Small Entity Impacts**  Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq .), the Agency hereby certifies that promulgation of this SNUR will not have a significant adverse economic impact on a substantial number of small entities . The rationale supporting this conclusion is as follows. A SNUR applies to any person (including small or large entities) who intends to engage in any activity described in the rule as a "significant new use." By definition of the word "new," and based on all information currently available to EPA, it appears that no small or large entities pres ently engage in such activity . Since this final SNUR require s a person who intends to engage in such activity in the future to first notify EPA by submitting a SNUN, no economic impact will occur unless someone files a SNUN to pursue a significant new use in the future or forgoes profits by avoiding or delaying the significant new use . Although some small entities may decide to conduct such activities in the future, EPA cannot presently determine how many, if any, there may be . However, EPA's experience to date is that, in response to the promulgation of over 1,000 SNURs, the Agency receives on average only 5 notices per year . Of those SNUNs submitted, only one appears to be from a small entity in response to any SNUR . Therefore, EPA believes that the potential economic impact of complying with a SNUR is not expected to be significant or adversely impact a substantial number of small entities . In a SNUR that published as a final rule on August 8, 1997 (62 FR 42690)(FRL - 5735 - 4 ), the Agency presented its general determination that proposed and final SNURs are not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, which was provided to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. **5.2 Unfunded Mandates**  Based on EPA's experience with proposing and finalizing SNURs, State, local, and Tribal governments have not been impacted by these rulemakings, and EPA does not have any reason to believe that any State, local, or Tribal government will be impacted by this rulemaking . As such, EPA has determined that this regulatory action will not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on small g overnments subject to the requirements of sections 202, 203, 204, or 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531 - 1538). **5.3 Paperwork Reduction Act**  According to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq ., an Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information that requires OMB approval under the PRA, unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB control number . The OMB control numbers for cer tain EPA regulations in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the **Federal Register** , are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and included on the related collection instrument, or form, if applicable . The information collection requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number 2070 - 0038 (EPA ICR No. 1188) . This action does not impose any burden requiring additional OMB approval . If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average 97 hours per response . This burden estimate includes the time needed to review instructions, search existing data sources, gather and maintain the data needed, and complete, review, and submit the required SNUN.Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three 20 U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products Economic and Policy Analysis Branch **5.4 Technical Standards**  Because this action does not involve any technical standards; section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104 - 113, S ection 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note), does not apply to this action. **5.5 Regulatory Planning**  **and Review** Under Executive Order 12866, entitled Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this action is a "significant regulatory action," because it may raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President’s priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order . Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866 and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for this action as required by section 6(a)(3)(E) of the Executive Order . **5.6 Environmental Justice**  This action does not entail special considerations of environmental justice related issues as delineated by Executive Order 12898, entitled Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-

Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). **5.7 Protection of Children**  This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because this is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, and this action does not address environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children. **5.8 Federalism**  This action will not have federalism implications because it is not expected to have a substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, entitled Federali

sm (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). **5.9 Tribal Governments**  This action will not have t ribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (65 FR 67249, November 9 , 2000) . This action is not expected to have substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes , will not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments , and does not involve or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes . Thus, Executive Order 13 175 does not apply to this action. **5.10 Effect on**  **Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use** This action is not a “significant energy action” as defined in Executive Order 13211 , entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not likely to have a significant adverse e ffect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy.Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three 21 U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

### 6. **REFER ENCES**  15 U.S.C. 272, National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104

– 113, Section 12(d). 19 CFR 12 , Customs Duties: Special Classes of Merchandise, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 12, Title 19, August 1, 1983 . 40 CFR 707, Chemical Imports and Exports , Code of Federal Regulations, Part 707, Title 40, July 1, 2003. 40 CFR 720 , Premanufacture Notification , Code of Federal Regulations, Part 720, Title 40, July 1, 2003. 40 CFR 721, Significant New Use of Chemical S ubstances , Code of Federal Regulations, Part 721, Title 40, July 1, 2003. 59 FR 7629, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations , Federal Register, Volume 59, February 16, 1994. 59 FR 22951, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments , Federal Register, Volume 59, November 6, 2000. 62 FR 19885, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks, Federal Register , Volume 62, April 23, 1997. 6 4 FR 43255, Federalism , Federal Register, Volume 65, August 10, 1999. 66 FR 28355, Actions Concerning Regulations that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use , Federal Register, Volume 66, May 22, 2001. 71 FR 66234 , Export Notification; Change to Re porting Requirements, Final Rule, Federal Register , Volume 71, November 14, 2006. Available in docket EPA - HQ - OPPT - 2005 - 0058 at http://www.regulations.gov . Ashcroft Inc. 2010. Phone conversation between Jacob Grindal (Abt Associates) and Customer Service Representative (Ashcroft Inc.). June 23, 2010. Belfort, 2010. Phone conversation between Jacob Grindal (Abt Associates) and Customer Service Representative (Belfort Instrument Company). April 27, 2010. BLS, 2006 . U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index News Release Text: Employment Cost Index, March 2006 (April 28, 2006), at http://www.bls.gov. BLS, 2011a. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 2010.” Accessed March 9, 2011. http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsuptc17.pdf . (Note: The BLS report title and content is updated periodically to include more recent data, on the same website.)Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three 22 U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products Economic and Policy Analysis Branch BLS, 2011b. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index

– Total Compensation: Professional and Related Private Industry, Not Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: CIU2010000120000I (B)), extracted Jun e 16, 2011. Available at: http:/data.bls.gov/cgi -bin/srgate. CMA, 1991. Chemical Manufacturers Association. Responses to Questions on Burden Associated with PMN Submissions . Distributed by the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Washington, DC. Columbia Encyclopedia. 2010. “Barometer.” Available at: http://www.answers.com/topic/barometer DEPA, 2006 . Danish Environmental Protection Agency “Alternatives to Mercury - Containing Measuring Devices.” 2006 Available at: http://www2.mst.dk/common/Udgivramme/Frame.asp?http://www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publications/20 06/87 - 7052 - 133 - 6/html/helepubl_eng.htm Dwyer Instruments. 2010. Phone conversation between Tulika Narayan (Abt Associates) and two Technical Representatives. May 24, 2010. Dynisco Instruments. 2010. Phone conversation between Jacob Grindal (Abt Associates) and Brady Davi son (Regional Manager, Dynisco Instruments). June 23, 2010. EPA, 1992. U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs). Washington, DC, June 1, 1992. EPA, 1994. US EPA, Office of Toxic Substances, Regulatory Impacts Branch. Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications . Washington, DC: U.S. EPA/OPPT/EETD/RIB, September 9, 1994. (OTS/RIB later became OPPTS/EPAB.) EPA, 200 0 . U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, ICR No. 1139.06. [Information Collection Request for] TSCA Existing Chemical Test Rules, Consent Orders, Test Rule Exemptions, and Voluntary Test Data Submissions: Supporting Statement for Request for OM B Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act . Attachment 5, Wage Rates Estimation, August 29, 2000. EPA, 2002 a U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report. Washington, DC. August 2002 . EPA, 2002 b . U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Inventory Program. Washington, DC , June 10 , 2002 . EPA, 2003 . U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 65 Chemical Substances . Washington, DC, 2003. Available in docket EPA - HQ - OPPTS - 2002 - 0 078 at http://www.regulations.gov . EPA, 2005 . Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of the Proposed Change to TSCA Section 12(b) Export Notification Requirements, November 2005, available from the Federal Docket Management System as EPA - HQ - OPPT 2005 - 005 8 - 0017 at http://www.regulations.gov .Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three 23 U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products Economic and Policy Analysis Branch EPA, 2007 a . U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 38 Chemical Substances (EPA Docket OPPT - 2006 - 0898

), August 17, 2007 . EPA, 2007b . U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, ICR No. 0574.14. [Information Collection Request for] Pre-Manufacture Review R eporting and Exemption Requirements for New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Reporting Requirements for Chemical Substances: Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under The Paperwork Reduction Act , December 6, 2007. EPA 2009 a . U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers (PBDEs) Action Plan . December 30, 2009 at http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/pbdes_ap_2009_1230_final.pdf . EPA, 2009b . U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch . Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting F inal Rule . (EPA - HQ - OPPT - 2008 - 0296) . July 13, 2009 . EPA, 2009c . U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. ICR No.: 0795.13 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports - TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Reques t for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act . March 6, 2009 at http://www.regulations.gov . EPA, 2010 . U.S. EPA, U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch . Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 25 Chemical Substances. (EPA - HQ - OPPT - 2009 - 0922) . EPA, 201 1 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Ru les for 25 Chemical Substances , (EPA Docket OPPT 2009 - 0922) August 2011. Environment Canada , 2004. “Mercury and the Environment: Sources of Mercury: Mercury- containing Products.” Available at: http://www.ec.gc.ca/MERCURY/SM/EN/ sm - mcp.cfm#HD . IMERC , 2007. Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse. “Mercury Use in School Classrooms: Summary and Assessment of Non - Mercury Alternatives.” 2007 Available at: http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/schools/MercuryAlternativesReport.pdf IMERC , 2008 a Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse “Trends in Mercury Use in Products: Summary of the Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC) Mercury-Added Products Database.” 2008. Available at: http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/pubs/reports.cfm IMERC, 2010a Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC). 2010 a . “Mercury Legacy Products: Commercial Products: Measuring Devices.” Available at: http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/projects/le gacy/measdev.cfm . IMERC , 2010b Interstate Mercury Education and Reduction Clearinghouse (IMERC). . “IMERC Fact Sheet: Mercury Use in Mea suring Devices.” 2010. Available at: http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/imerc/factsheets/measuring_devices.cfm . Maine DEP, 2003. Maine Department of Environmental Protection. “An Investigation of Alternatives to Mercury- Containing Products.” Lowell Center for Sustainable Production. Prepared by Galligan,Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three 24 U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

Mercury Legacy Products Economic and Policy Analysis Branch Catherine; Morose, Gregory; and Jim Giordani . 2003. Available at: http://www.su stainableproduction.org/downloads/An%20Investigation%20Hg.pdf . McMaster - Carr. Phone conversation between Jacob Grindal (Abt Associates) and Customer Service Representative (S J Electro Systems, Inc.). June 23, 2010. OPM, 2010. Office of Personnel Management, Salary Table 2010 - DCB, Washington BaltimoreNorthern Virginia, DC - MD - PA -VA - WV. Accessed from http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/pdf/DCB.pdf. Rawie, Carol . 2009. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics . Personal communication with Tulika Narayan and Kimberly Wilson of Abt Associates via e - mail . February 5 , 2009. S J Electro Systems, Inc. Phone conversation between Jacob Grindal (Abt Associates) and Customer Service Representative (S J Electro Systems, Inc.). June 23, 2010. U.S. SBA. 2010. Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes. Available at: http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/serv_sstd_tablepdf.pdf USPS, 2010 . U.S. Postal Service Mailing and postage rates. <http://www.usps.com /prices >. (Accessed 23 April 20 10 ) . Vermont Agriculture Agency . 2001. Mercury Manometer Replacement Program Update . Available at: http://www.vermontagriculture.com/2001report.htm . Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WI DNR) . 2007 . Mercury Reduction Program: Dairy Farms . Available at: 

### http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cea/mercury/program.htm .