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 Analysis of t he Final Significant New Use Rule f or Mercury

Containing Barometers, Manometers, Hygrometers, and Psychrometers

(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 20460This 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

sup port 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 battery

powered, motor

- aspirated psychrometers containing less than 7 grams of elemental mercury ; 1 and 3)

manometers. 2

The final SNUR applies to all manufactur ing , 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 in to
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 produ cts 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 ha ve any economic impact

.

The three mercury

- containing products subject to the final SNUR are all applications of barometers, manometers and hyg ro 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

. C urrent 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 befo re commencing the manufacture

, import, or pro cessing of elemental mercury for any significant new use as described in the SNUR

. A firm

inte nding 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 co ncerns about mercury use

. Because t he

three specified mercury

- containing products subject 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 d ata already in its possession or describe any other available data

. Because EPA does not requir e 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 cos ts

. 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

LIST 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. ADDITIONAL 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 Fe deralism

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 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 fo r 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 o f 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 (2010$)

........................... 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 f inal 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 SNU R require s persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture, import, or processing of elemental mercury fo r manometers, barometers and hygrometers /psychrometers ( excluding the specified psychrometers)

. EPA promulgates a SNUR for a s ubstance when potential uses c o uld result in increased exposure to or releases of the substance and in turn, could present an unr easonable risk to health or the

e nvironment

.

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 subst ance 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

i nformation 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 f rom 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 SNU R 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 Reducti on 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 Alternatives to Mercury

- Containing Barometers, Hygrometers /Psychrometers , and Manometers

Barometers

Barometers are instruments us ed to measure atmospheric pressure, and consist of a long cylindrical tube, typically closed at one end, with a mercury

- filled reservoir 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 weat her forecasting applications (IMERC 2008c). 7 Additional uses include

scientific demonstration in schools and non

- mercury device calibration (IMERC

, 2007, DEPA

, 2006)

. A mercury barometer contains between 400 and 620 grams of mercury ( IMERC, 2010b )

.

Alter natives to mercury

- containing barometers include aneroid barometers, electronic barometers (which use vibrating cylinder air pressure transducers, electronic resistance or capacitance), and other liquid

based (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 mit 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 which we found one

man ufacturer (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 result, 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; psychrome ters 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 /p sychrometers 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 sens ors to measure humidity changes and, when calibrated properly, provide as accurate

r esults 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, battery

powered, 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 mano meter 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 open 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 co w 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, VT Agricul tural Agency, 2001; WI DNR, 2007). 11

There are viable mercury

- free alternatives for almost all uses of manometers

. There are several mercury

free 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

Pri n co Instrum ents, t he 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) sig nificant new use rule (SNUR) requiring persons to notify EPA 90 days prior to manufacture, import, or processing of elemental mercury for natural gas manometers, except w hen 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 mercur y

- 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 m anufacturers who had reported h istorical 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 m anometers (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, s ome 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 psychrometers , 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 not 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 manufactur e , import, or processing of elemental mercury fo r use in : 1) barometers

, 2 ) manometers , a nd 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 Th erefore

, a f irm 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 th e 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 o f 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

the 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 e xpects 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 for 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 zero, b ecause 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 subject 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 costs, 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 overhe ad 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 labor 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 ( EPA, 2002b ), and the Revised Economic Analysis for the Amended Inventory Update Rule: Final Report ( EPA,

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 Familiarizatio n 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, 2009 b (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 staf f 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 a ll 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 notif

y 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
„sub mit‟ 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 ( m ailing 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

. It is 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

. In addition, 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 form, gathering the req uired 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 associated with SNUN submission and preparatio n 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 clerica l 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, t he 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 Identi fication 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 incurred 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 Completion 0.00 $0.00 74.2 $4,579 18 .00 $1,255 92.2 $5,834

Source : BLS, 201 1a (labor rates) ; EPA, 2009 b (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 b usiness submitters and $ 5,934 for small business submitters.

Table 5 : Industry Cost Estimate to Complete and Submit the SNUN Form

Reporting Population Labor Cost Submission Fee Total Cost ( 2010 $ ) Large Business Submitters $5,834 $2,500 $8,334

Small Business Submitters $5,834 $100 $5,934

Source : EPA, 2009 b

.



### 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 Elect ronic 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 t he 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 famil iarization 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 requirement 20 per destination c ountry 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, E PA 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

. It is also important to note that the Merc ury 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, manometers and/or hygrometer s /psychrometers

.

Most underlying data in this section come from t he 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 exp ort 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 imports 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 mak es 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 compan ies 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 co sts 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 yea rs, 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 numbe r of products exported by the company and the 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 for 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 outgo ing shipments against the list of their products 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 number 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
Compile 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 a n 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 a bove.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 Chemical (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 on 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 c ost per company will vary

. First time submitters will incur $ 184 for CDX registration and associated activities.

2. Decide not to manufacture, import, 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, al though 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 SNU R, 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 unr easonable risk of injury to human health or the environment

. It is 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 surr ounding 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 section s, EPA‟s costs to review and process SNUN submissions are

assumed to be the same as EPA costs to review PMNs

.

4.1 Labor Rates for 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 equival ent (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 mult iplied 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 multipl ication factor)

. The multiplication fa ctor 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

% wage 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 The 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 CIU2010000120000I )

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 In 2006, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index (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 Index News Rel ease Text: Employment Cost Index, March 2006 (BLS, 2006). The Consumer Price Index (CPI) was not rebased.

2 Inflation 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 CIU2010000120000I for private industry Professional, and Related workers, instead of SA CIS2010000W00000I 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

chemicals require each review step

. For example, in the PMN process, all chemicals require Administrative Prescreening, but not all chemicals requi re the intensive scrutiny of “Standard Review.” The three types of submissions resulting from a SNUR may have weightin g 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 determine d 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 revi ew 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 step s 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 u n

- weighted Costs (EPA staff cost plus extramural costs) by the percentage of cases requiring this r eview step

. Weighted costs are then multiplied by the burden reduction of 16.5 percent to account for burden savings generated electronic submission

. Th is calculation yields total Agency costs of $ 5,049 , per SNUN, for submission review and processing , as

s hown in Table 11

.Economic Analysis of SNUR for Three 17 U.S. EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

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 Extramural Cost 2 Unweighted

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 Review 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

Review 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 We ighted costs were calculated using unrounded unit cost estimates, so results may differ from calculations using the rounded v alues shown in this table.

4 Electronic submission is expected to generate a cost savings of 16.5% to the Agency (EPA 2009 b , p. 28 ).

Sources: FTEs per review step, 1993 extramural costs, and percent ages 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 inten d to export one of the chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) (EPA, 2009 c )

. In the second task, EPA staff prepares separate notification letters t hat are subsequently reviewed and delivered to importing countries, their embassies, 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 fro m industry and importing countries, and of handling other tasks associated 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 subject 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

. Nevertheless, 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 compan y 0.1 0.0000 48 $161,446 $0.00 $7.76

P repare and mail a

notification to an importing countr y 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 prepar e 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 Rev iew 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 S NURs, 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 expecte d 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 governments 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

- 15 38).

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, un less it has been approved by OMB and displays a currently valid OMB

control number

. The OMB control numbers for certain 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 relate d 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 b urden 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 m andates, 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 th e 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 Feder al 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 hea lth 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 Federalism (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 significant ly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments , and does not involve or impose any requirements that affect

Indian Tribes

. Thus, Executive Order 13175 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, Distri bution, 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. REFERENCES

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 Substances , Code of Federal Regulations

, Part 721, Title 40, July 1, 2003.

59 FR 7629, Federal A ctions 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 Reporting Requirements, Final Rule, Federal Register

, Volume 71, November 14, 2006. Available in docket E PA

- 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: P rofessional and Related Private Industry, Not Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: CIU2010000120000I (B)), extracted June 16, 2011. Available at: http:/data.bls.gov/cgi

- bin/srgate. CMA, 1991. Chemical Manufacturers Association. Responses to Questions on Burde n 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. M ay 24, 2010.

Dynisco Instruments. 2010. Phone conversation between Jacob Grindal (Abt Associates) and Brady Davison (Regional Manager, Dynisco Instruments). June 23, 2010.

EPA, 1992. U.S. EPA, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Instructions for Pr eparing 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, Consen t Orders, Test Rule Exemptions, and Voluntary Test Data Submissions: Supporting Statement for Request for OMB 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.

Econ omic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 65 Chemical Substances

. Washington, DC, 2003. Available in docket EPA

- HQ

- OPPTS

- 2002

- 0078 at http://www.regulations.gov

.

EPA, 2005

. Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analy sis 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, 20 07

.

EPA, 2007b . U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

, ICR No. 0574.14. [Information Collection Request for] Pre

- Manufacture Review Reporting and Exemption Requirements for New Chemical Substances and Significant New Use Reporting Requirement s 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 Final Rule

. (EPA

- HQ

- OPPT

- 2008

- 0296) . July 13, 2009

.

EPA, 2009c

. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. ICR No.: 0795.13 [Informat ion Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports

- TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request 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 Protecti on Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules 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 Reducti on 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: C ommercial Products: Measuring Devices.” Available at: http://www.newmoa.org/prevention/mercury/projects/legacy/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 Cat herine; 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 Managemen t, 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 K imberly 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 Sma ll Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes. Available at: http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_hom epage/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

.