EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

EO12866_HBCD SNUR_RIN 2070-AJ88_NPRM_EA_2011-08-09.doc 

Economic Analysis of the Proposed Significant New 

Use Rule for Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) 

EO 12866 Review DRAFT – 08/09/2011 

—Does not contain TSCA CBI—

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 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane i Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane ii Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

CONTRIBUTORS 

The EPA analyst responsible for this report was Kristen Loughery. Analytical and draft preparation 

support was provided by Abt Associates Inc. under EPA Contract No. EP-W-08-010. 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane iii Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Contributors .................................................................................................................................................. ii 

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iii 

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... iv 

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... v 

Chapter 1 – Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 

1.1 Background .................................................................................................................................. 1 

1.1.1 Use and Substitutes ............................................................................................................. 1 

1.1.2 Production ........................................................................................................................... 3 

1.2 Statutory Authority ...................................................................................................................... 4 

1.3 International Regulation .............................................................................................................. 4 

1.4 Summary of Methodology ........................................................................................................... 5 

1.5 Organization of this Report ......................................................................................................... 5 

Chapter 2 – Industry Compliance Costs ....................................................................................................... 6 

2.1 Wage Rates .................................................................................................................................. 6 

2.2 Unit Industry Compliance Costs .................................................................................................. 7 

2.2.1 Rule Familiarization ........................................................................................................... 7 

2.2.2 CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup ..................... 8 

2.2.3 Form Completion and Submission Fee ............................................................................... 9 

2.2.4 Recordkeeping .................................................................................................................. 10 

2.2.5 Import Certification .......................................................................................................... 10 

2.2.6 Export Notification ........................................................................................................... 11 

2.3 Industry Costs of SNUR, by Option .......................................................................................... 12 

2.4 Likelihood of a SNUN Submission ........................................................................................... 13 

2.5 Potential for Subsequent Regulatory Action ............................................................................. 13

Chapter 3 – Agency Costs ........................................................................................................................... 15 

3.1 Labor Rates for EPA Staff ......................................................................................................... 15 

3.2 SNUN Processing Costs ............................................................................................................ 16 

3.3 Export Notification Cost ............................................................................................................ 19 

3.4 Total Agency Cost of SNUR ..................................................................................................... 19 

Chapter 4 – Additional Analyses ................................................................................................................ 22 

4.1 Regulatory Flexibility Act ......................................................................................................... 22 

4.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act ............................................................................................... 22 

4.3 Paperwork Reduction Act .......................................................................................................... 22 

4.4 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act .............................................................. 23 

4.5 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations ................................................................................ 23 

4.6 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks .......................................................................................................................................... 23 

4.7 Executive Order 13132: Federalism .......................................................................................... 23 

4.8 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments ...... 23 

4.9 Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

 ................................................................................................................................................... 23 

Appendix – References ............................................................................................................................... 24 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane iv Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1: Industry and Agency Cost Estimate to Complete and Submit (Industry) or Review and Process 

(Agency) the SNUN Form ............................................................................................................................ v 

Table 2: Loaded Industry Wage Rates, December 2010 ............................................................................... 7 

Table 3: Rule Familiarization Burden and Cost for SNUR Submitters ........................................................ 8 

Table 4: CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup Burden and Cost for 

First-Time Submitters ................................................................................................................................... 9 

Table 5: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete the SNUN Form .................................................................. 10

Table 6: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete and Submit the SNUN Form ............................................... 10 

Table 7: Derivation of Total Mailing Cost per Notification ....................................................................... 11 

Table 8: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost per Notification ................................................................ 12 

Table 9: Compliance Options and Associated Costs Incurred by a Firm Due to the Proposed SNUR ...... 13 

Table 10: Derivation of Loaded Agency Wage Rates ................................................................................ 16 

Table 11: Derivation of Inflation Factors for Agency Extramural Costs .................................................... 16 

Table 12: Agency Costs for SNUN and Other Submission Review and Processing .................................. 18 

Table 13: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost: Agency Burden per Activity (2010$) ........................... 19 

Table 14: Total Agency Cost per SNUN (2010$) ....................................................................................... 20 

Table 15: Total Agency Burden per SNUN ................................................................................................ 21 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane v Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s analysis of the potential costs incurred as a result of a 

proposed Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for the use of hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) in 

consumer textiles. 

The HBCD use in textile applications is quite small and the majority of HBCD used in textiles is for 

flame retardancy in upholstered furniture (Morose, 2006). The HBCD textile coatings may also be used in 

carpets, vehicles, bed mattresses, furniture and home décor applications (Posner, 2006). However, EPA 

believes that the information gathered from research, industry, and consumer product organizations 

reasonably supports the proposed conclusion that HBCD is no longer used in consumer textile 

applications except for a small amount in certain products used by the automotive industry, 

predominantly as flame retardants for carpet products and headliners in automobile interiors. 

EPA is proposing a significant new use rule for HBCD which would require persons to notify EPA at 

least 90 days before commencing the manufacture, import, or processing of HBCD for use in consumer 

textiles, excluding that use in textiles in motor vehicles. EPA intends to designate the use in consumer 

textiles other than for use in motor vehicles as a significant new use. The SNUR would also remove the 

article exemption at 40 CFR section 721.45(f) and therefore require notification of the import and/or 

processing of HBCD as part of articles for use in consumer textiles except for use in motor vehicles. EPA 

has removed this exemption because consumer textiles are articles, and are a primary concern associated 

with this SNUR. A firm intending to engage in these activities would be required to submit a Significant 

New Use Notice (SNUN). The SNUN provides EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use 

and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs. 

When submitting a SNUN, a large business incurs a submission cost of $8,302 and a small business 

incurs a submission cost of $5,902. Table 1 below presents the overall industry cost ($2010) to complete 

and submit a SNUN form. However, EPA assumes HBCD is no longer being used in consumer textile 

applications, with the exception of use in motor vehicles which is excluded from the SNUR. Therefore, 

EPA does not expect that any firm will incur a cost as the result of this rule. 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 proposed SNUR. 

The total Agency cost for receiving and processing a SNUN is $5,049 and is presented in Table 1. 

However, EPA assumes HBCD is no longer manufactured or imported for use in consumer textile 

applications with the exception of use in motor vehicles which is excluded from the SNUR. Therefore, it 

does not expect to receive any SNUN submissions and does not expect to incur any costs as a result of 

this rule. 

Table 1: Industry and Agency Cost Estimate to Complete and Submit (Industry) or Review and Process 

(Agency) the SNUN Form

Reporting or Reviewing Population Labor Cost Submission Fee 

Total Submission 

Cost 

(2010$) 

Large Business Submitters1 $5,802 $2,500 $8,302 

Small Business Submitters1 $5,802 $100 $5,902 

Agency SNUN Review and Processing Cost2 $5,049 -- $5,049 

Source: 1

 EPA, 2009a; BLS, 2011 

2

 EPA, 1994; OPM, 2010. 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane vi Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

In addition to the submission cost and fee, a business may incur other minor costs including a rule 

familiarization cost ($54.81), a CDX registration cost for first-time submitters ($183.65), and an export 

notification cost if relevant ($80.80).
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 1 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 

This report is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) analysis of the potential costs 

incurred as a result of a proposed Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for the use of 

hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) in consumer textiles. EPA intends to designate the use in consumer 

textiles other than for use in motor vehicles as a significant new use. Consumer textile means any cloth, 

fabric or other article produced during the milling process (including spinning, weaving, knitting, felting, 

or finishing), consisting in whole or in part as a product that is sold to or made available to a private 

individual who uses the product in or around a permanent or temporary household or residence, during 

recreation, or for any personal use or enjoyment. Consumer textiles include but are not limited to 

upholstered household furniture, mattresses, draperies, and automobile carpeting and headliners. 

SNURs are proposed by EPA under the authority granted by Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA. The proposed 

SNUR would require persons to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacture, import, 

or processing of HBCD for use in consumer textiles, excluding that use in textiles in motor vehicles. EPA 

promulgates a SNUR for a substance after considering all relevant factors, including those listed in TSCA 

Section 5(a)(2). 

1.1 Background 

Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD), with a less than 10 percent share in the brominated flame retardants 

(BFR) market, is the third most commonly used BFR, following tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) which 

comprises approximately 50 percent of the market, and decabromodiphenyl ether (deca-BDE) which has a 

10 percent market share (Dufton, 2003). Brominated flame retardants are often used in construction 

materials, textiles and electronic applications, to prevent fires. 

HBCD is a high production volume chemical (produced or imported in the U.S. in quantities of 1 million 

pounds or more per year) that is listed on the EPA’s Inventory Update Rule (IUR) database (now known 

as the Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) rule database) with two Chemical Abstracts Services (CAS) 

Registry Numbers (RN). The first, hexabromocyclododecane CASRN 25637-99-4, designates an 

unspecified mixture of all isomers, but is predominantly 1,2,5,6,9,10-hexabromocyclododecane. The 

second CASRN (1,2,5,6,9,10 hexabromocyclododecane; CASRN 3194-55-6) is a mix of three 

diastereomers, alpha-, beta-, and gamma-HBCD, and the final distribution of these diastereomers in 

technical HBCD varies with a range of about 70-95 % γ-HBCD and 5-30 % α- and β-HBCD.

1.1.1 Use and Substitutes 

Uses 

The main use of HBCD is as an additive flame retardant in expanded polystyrene foam (EPS) and 

extruded polystyrene foam (XPS) in buildings and construction. It is also used to a minor extent in high 

impact polystyrene (HIPS) in electronic products and in textile coatings in carpets, vehicles, furniture and 

upholstery, such as draperies (Posner, 2006). This SNUR proposes to consider the use of HBCD in 

consumer textiles as a significant new use, excluding that use in textiles in motor vehicles, and upon 

finalization, would therefore require submission of a SNUN if an entity wishes to commence the 

manufacture, importation, or processing of HBCD for this use. The following explanation discusses 

EPA's understanding of the use of HBCD in consumer textiles. 

The HBCD use in textile applications is quite small and the majority of HBCD used in textiles is for 

upholstered furniture (Morose, 2006). In the 2006 IUR data, only one manufacturer/importer of HBCD 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 2 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

(CASRN 3194-55-6) reported the use of the substance under the NAICS code for textile and fabric 

finishing mills (EPA, 2006). For this use, 1 percent of the total production volume of the substance was in 

consumer and commercial products (EPA, 2006). 

EPA contacted industry to explore the use of HBCD in consumer textile applications. In March 2010, an 

expert from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) expressed his understanding that HBCD 

is no longer used in consumer textiles, but was available for institutional protective clothing (CPSC, 

2010). In April 2010, two of the manufacturers of HBCD confirmed that they sold HBCD for commercial 

use in the backcoating of upholstery (Chemtura, 2010; Albemarle, 2010). In February 2011, the American 

Chemistry Council polled three HBCD manufacturers and two confirmed they do not manufacture or 

process HBCD for use in textiles for which the end use is a consumer article (ACC, 2011a). The 

remaining company was uncertain of their customers’ end uses. The furniture manufacturer, Herman 

Miller, also confirmed that HBCD does not show up in their products (Herman Miller, 2011). In addition, 

EPA received information from a group of textile formulators that the end uses of HBCD-containing 

textiles are for military, institutional, and aviation uses only (EPP, 2011). 

EPA found that a small amount of HBCD is used in floor mats and other interior fabrics in automobiles 

made or imported to the U.S. However, some industry contacts confirmed these uses will be phased out 

by the sunset date of July 21, 2015 set forth in REACH regulations, which is further explained in Section 

1.3. The automobile industry is also taking part in declaring and restricting the use of HBCD in 

automobiles. Many automakers require suppliers to identify (declare) whether their products contain 

chemicals found on a list called the Global Automotive Declarable Substance List (GADSL), which was 

developed by stakeholders in the automotive supply chain. HBCD is a substance declarable at 0.1% by 

weight (GADSL, 2011). The GADSL covers declaration of certain information about substances relevant 

to parts and materials supplied by the supply chain to automobile manufacturers (GADSL, 2011). The 

major auto industry manufacturers have incorporated similar lists to GADSL or refer to the GADSL as 

chemicals to be included in their own restricted substance management standards (RSMS) (Chrysler, 

2006; GM, 2008). Chrysler, GM and Ford require notification of all parts and materials that have greater 

than 0.1% HBCD content to be listed (Chrysler, 2006; GM, 2008; Ford Motor Company, 2011). Ford 

also listed HBCD in their RSMS as prohibited for all vehicle interior fabrics after July 1, 2011 (Ford 

Motor Company, 2011). HBCD is listed as one of the substances that “shall be restricted in or excluded 

from parts, materials, equipment, packaging, office supplies, machinery and/or tooling” (Ford Motor 

Company, 2011). In addition, Federal Mogul is a global supplier of automotive products and in their 

RSMS, adapted from the Ford RSMS (Ford Motor Company, 2011), they designate HBCD as 

“Prohibited” (P), which means the chemical shall not be supplied in any products at a threshold greater 

than 0.1% in vehicle interior fabrics after July 1, 2011 (Federal Mogul, 2010). 

According to conversations with some of the automotive industry representatives, HBCD has been 

declared in various products in the International Material Data System (IMDS) database, primarily in 

carpeting and headliners in automobiles. The IMDS is used throughout the automotive supply chain by 

almost all automobile manufacturers. IMDS uses GADSL as the default substance list for filling out 

Material Data Sheets and determining the declarable and prohibited materials used for car manufacturing. 

The different automotive industry representatives have also confirmed having a stockpile of HBCDcontaining products that serve as replacement parts for future installation into legacy vehicles. These 

same individuals noted that the industry wide intention for compliance with the future REACH 

restrictions would be in place by the July 21, 2015 sunset date for the last use of products that contained 

HBCD, unless authorized. 

EPA believes that the information gathered from research, industry, and consumer product organizations 

reasonably supports the proposed conclusion that HBCD is no longer used in consumer textile 

applications other than those used in motor vehicles, predominantly as flame retardants for carpet 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 3 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

products and headliners in automobile interiors. 

Substitutes 

ICL-IP manufactures a product, SaFRon 9025, which is used as an alternative for HBCD in coating and 

backcoating formulations for textile fabrics (ICL, 2008). Additionally, Dow Global Technologies LLC, a 

subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Co., invented and developed a high molecular weight brominated 

polymeric flame retardant for use as a replacement for HBCD in both extruded polystyrene (XPS) and 

expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam insulation applications (Dow Chemical, 2011). 

Additionally, there are several other potential substitutes for HBCD in textile backing, which include, but 

are not limited to: 

• aluminum hydroxides (UBA, 2000) 

• ammonium polyphosphate (ECHA, 2009) 

• chloroparaffins (ECHA, 2009) 

• deca-BDE (ECHA, 2009) 

• diammonium phosphate (Posner, 2006) 

• intumescent systems (Posner, 2006) 

• nitrogen based organic flame retardants (UNECE, 2010) 

• reactive phosphorous constituents (ECHA, 2009) 

• tris(chloropropyl) phosphate (UBA, 2000) 

1.1.2 Production 

Below is a list of NAICS codes for the potential consumer textile uses of HBCD. This list was derived 

from searching the existing NAICS codes in the following applications: upholstered furniture, upholstered 

seating in transportation vehicles, draperies, wall coverings, mattress ticking, and interior textiles like 

roller blinds. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to: 

325xxx - Chemical Manufacturing 

238320 - Painting and Wall Covering Contractors 

314121 - Curtain and Drapery Mills 

314129 - Other Household Textile Product Mills 

313312 - Textile and Fabric Finishing (except Broadwoven Fabric) Mills 

314999 - All Other Miscellaneous Textile Product Mills 

336111 - Automobile Manufacturing 

336213 - Motor Home Manufacturing 

336214 - Travel Trailer and Camper Manufacturing 

336360 - Motor Vehicle Seating and Interior Trim Manufacturing 

337121 - Upholstered Household Furniture Manufacturing 

337125 - Household Furniture (except Wood and Metal) Manufacturing 

337910 - Mattress Manufacturing 

337920 - Blind and Shade Manufacturing 

423210 - Furniture Merchant Wholesalers 

423220 - Home Furnishing Merchant Wholesalers 

423990 - Other Miscellaneous Durable Goods Merchant Wholesalers 

811420 - Reupholstery and Furniture Repair 

In 2006, five facilities reported either the manufacture or importation of at least 25,000 pounds of HBCD 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 4 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

to the IUR: Albemarle (2 facilities), BASF, LG Chem America and Chemtura (EPA, 2006). In 2011, 

EPA determined that BASF is no longer a manufacturer of HBCD in the U.S. and EPA was informed that 

ICL-IP is an additional manufacturer of HBCD (ACC, 2011b). 

Two CAS numbers for HBCD were listed in the TSCA Inventory. The annual U.S. import/production 

volume of CASRN 25637-99-4 was between 10,000 and 500,000 pounds as reported to EPA in 2002; no 

import/production was reported in 2006 (EPA, 2006). The annual U.S. import/production volume of 

CASRN 3194-55-6 was 10-50 million pounds reported in 2002 and 2006 (EPA, 2006). The U.S. 

International Trade Commission reported that 380,000 pounds of HBCD (1,3,5,7,9,11-HBCD isomer) 

were imported in 2008 (US ITC, 2010). 

Based on data from past years, HBCD may still be imported into the U.S. Therefore, there is a possibility 

that HBCD-treated consumer textiles may also be imported into the U.S. However, as discussed in 

Section 1.3, the European Union and other countries are beginning to regulate HBCD, which may 

decrease the likelihood of HBCD in consumer textiles being exported to the U.S. Without further 

information, it is not possible to verify whether the currently manufactured HBCD is being imported to 

the U.S. as part of articles. This proposed rule would require notification of the import and/or processing 

of any consumer articles containing HBCD- treated textiles. Based on information gathered from 

research, industry, and consumer product organizations, EPA does not believe it will receive any 

notifications on the import of HBCD-treated consumer textiles. 

1.2 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. 

1.3 International Regulation 

HBCD has been regulated in several other nations around the world. In Japan, HBCD has been designated 

as a Type I Monitoring Chemical Substance because of its persistence and high bioaccumulation under 

the Act on the Evaluation of Chemical Substances and Regulation of Their Manufacture (commonly 

referred to as the Chemical Substances Control Law: “CSCL”). In Ukraine, HBCD is registered on the 

hazardous chemical list based on health effects (UNECE, 2010). 

In the European Union, REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and restriction of Chemical 

substances) legislation will require the registration of more than 140,000 currently marketed chemicals, 

including HBCD and all other commercial flame retardants in use (UNECE, 2010). Two legal 

obligations result from the inclusion of a substance on the candidate list, which are linked not only to the 

listed substance on its own or in preparations but also to its presence in articles. Firstly, any producer or 

importer of an article containing HBCD has to notify the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of the 

presence of HBCD by June 2011. Secondly, the inclusion of a substance in the candidate list involves a 

“duty to inform” so the producer or importer must provide sufficient information, available to them, to 

their customers. Additionally, the WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment) is a directive in the 

European Union which requires the separation of plastics containing brominated flame retardants prior to 

recycling (UNECE, 2010). 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 5 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

In May 2009, HBCD was included in the ECHA recommendation list of priority substances to be subject 

to authorization under REACH, based on its hazardous properties, the volumes used and the likelihood of 

exposure to humans or the environment. With publication in the Official Journal on February 18, 2011, 

HBCD was included in the amended Annex XIV list of substances requiring Authorization for any use 

(Official Journal, 2011). Title VII of REACH prohibits the manufacturing or importing of any chemical 

listed in Annex XIV of the regulations after the specified sunset date unless the manufacturer/importer is 

specifically authorized by ECHA. HBCD is one of the first six substances added to Annex XIV and has a 

sunset date of July 21, 2015. HBCD, formally considered a Substance of Very High Concern (SVHC) and 

meeting the criteria of a PBT (persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic) substance pursuant to Article 57(d) 

in the REACH regulation, has been effectively banned. Applications for authorization for continued use 

must be filed by January 2014 (UNECE, 2010). 

1.4 Summary of Methodology 

This analysis quantifies, to the extent possible, the costs to society of the proposed rule by identifying the 

costs to industry associated with performing the required reporting and recordkeeping, and the costs to 

EPA of administering the proposed rule. Industry costs may consist of rule familiarization; registration 

with the Central Data Exchange (CDX) electronic reporting tool; collection, compilation, and submission 

of required information 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 

proposed 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. 

1.5 Organization of this Report 

The remainder of this report provides EPA’s economic analysis in support of the proposed rule. Chapter 2 

presents estimates of the costs incurred by manufacturers, importers, and/or processors under the SNUR 

options. Chapter 3 shows estimates of the government costs associated with the administration of the 

proposed rule. Chapter 4 presents an analysis of other impacts, as required by various statutes and 

executive orders. 

Note that all dollar amounts in this analysis are reported in December 2010 dollars, the latest year with 

complete data. 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 6 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

CHAPTER 2 – INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE COSTS 

The proposed SNUR discussed in this report specifies that the significant new use of HBCD in consumer 

textiles other than for use in motor vehicles requires reporting under section 5(a)(2)(A) of TSCA 

including the manufacture, import, or processing of the chemical. Therefore, a firm intending to 

manufacture, import, or process HBCD subject to the proposed rule for any use in consumer textiles 

other than for use in motor vehicles must submit a significant new use notice (SNUN). Alternatively, 

a firm can decide not to manufacture, import, and/or process HBCD for a significant new use in consumer 

textile applications. 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(s) for a significant new use, which, in this case, means the 

manufacture, import, and/or processing of HBCD subject to the proposed rule for any use in 

consumer textiles other than for use in motor vehicles. The firm must submit the SNUN to EPA at 

least 90 days before it plans to commence these activities. 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 for a significant new use, 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 2.2.6 for details). There is evidence to 

suggest that in the U.S., HBCD is no longer used in consumer textile applications except for certain 

products used by the automotive industry, predominantly as flame retardants for carpet products and 

headliners in automobile interiors and EPA does not anticipate HBCD being used in consumer 

textiles in the future. Therefore, EPA expects no firms will choose this option. 

• Option 2: Decide not to manufacture, import, and/or process the chemical for the specified use. 

The firm may decide simply not to proceed to manufacture, import, or process HBCD for use as a 

flame retardant in consumer textile applications. While this option avoids the costs of submitting a 

SNUN, it entails the hidden cost of the profit that will be foregone as a result of not engaging in the 

commercial activity originally planned. Similarly, if the firm would have used a given amount of 

HBCD in the production of a product, and must substitute to a more costly substance, it will incur 

those additional hidden costs of production. However, these hidden costs are expected to be minimal, 

if not zero, because there is no evidence to suggest that the current domestic manufacturers, 

importers, and processors of HBCD use the chemical for consumer textile applications, except for the 

use in motor vehicles, which is excluded from the SNUR. 

Because there is no evidence to suggest that the currently manufactured HBCD is being used in the U.S. 

in consumer textiles other than for use in motor vehicles, EPA does not expect there to be compliance 

costs associated with either of the options. The remainder of this chapter estimates the quantified portion 

of costs associated with the proposed SNUR. Section 2.1 summarizes the wage rates used in this chapter. 

Section 2.2 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 2.3. 

2.1 Wage Rates 

The proposed 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 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 7 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

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 labor is $69.74; for technical labor, $61.71; and for clerical labor, $28.98. Table 

2 presents the basic data used to calculate the loaded wage rates for all three labor categories. 

Table 2: Loaded Industry Wage Rates, December 2010 

Labor 

Category Data Sources 

Wage 

(2010$) 

Fringe 

Benefit 

(2010$) 

Fringes 

as % 

wage 

Overhead % 

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

$42.82 $19.64 45.87% 17% 1.63 $69.74 

Professional/ 

Technical 

BLS ECEC, Private 

Manufacturing industries, 

“Professional and related” 3

$36.93 $18.50 50.09% 17% 1.67 $61.71 

Clerical 

BLS ECEC, Private 

Manufacturing industries, 

“Office and Administrative 

Support” 3

$17.36 $8.67 49.94% 17% 1.67 $28.98 

1 Wage data are rounded to the nearest cent 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. US Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 9, 

2011- (BLS, 2011a).

2.2 Unit Industry Compliance Costs 

2.2.1 Rule Familiarization 

The proposed rule requires submitters and their staff to become familiar with the SNUR and its various 

requirements. The per company burden associated with rule familiarization is approximately 0.27 hours 

of technical labor and 0.55 hours of managerial labor, as described in the Economic Analysis of the 

Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009a). As shown in Table 3, the 

total labor cost associated with rule familiarization by a first-time reporter is $54.81. 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 8 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

Table 3: Rule Familiarization Burden and Cost for SNUR Submitters

Reporting Activity 

Clerical Labor 

($28.98/hour) 

Technical Labor 

($61.71/hour) 

Managerial Labor 

($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 0.27 $16.46 0.55 $38.36 0.82 $54.81 

Total 0.00 $0.00 0.27 $16.46 0.55 $38.36 0.82 $54.81 

Note: Loaded wages include fringe benefits and overhead. Wage rates presented in this table are rounded values; however, 

unrounded values are used to calculate total labor costs. For this reason, total labor costs may not equal the product of 

rounded values.

Source: BLS, 2011a (labor rates); EPA, 2009a (burden hours) 

2.2.2 CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup 

The proposed 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.1

These activities are only required of first-time submitters (companies already registered with CDX would 

not need to re-register for the purposes of complying with the proposed SNUR). The burdens associated 

with these activities were estimated in the Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification 

Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA 2009a) 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 4, the cost associated with CDX registration, CDX electronic signature, and Pay.gov 

account setup is $183.65, and this cost is only incurred by a first-time submitter. 

 

1 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. 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 9 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

Table 4: CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup Burden and Cost for 

First-Time Submitters 

Reporting Activity 

Clerical Labor 

($28.98/hour) 

Technical Labor 

($61.71/hour) 

Managerial Labor 

($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 $12.79 0.92 $58.04 

CDX Electronic 

Signature 0.00 $0.00 1.00 $61.71 0.75 $52.30 1.75 $114.01 

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 $106.96 1.07 $74.39 2.80 $183.65 

Note: Loaded wages include fringe benefits and overhead. Wage rates presented in this table are rounded values; however, 

unrounded values are used to calculate total labor costs. For this reason, total labor costs may not equal the product of 

rounded values.

Source: BLS, 2011a (labor rates); EPA, 2009a (burden hours); USPS, 2010 (mailing cost) 

2.2.3 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 proposed 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 TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications and the 

updates to these estimates in 2009 (EPA, 2009a). 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). 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 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). The burden associated 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 (EPA, 2009a)2

. 

 

2

 The Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009a) 

estimates a 0.5 hour clerical burden and a 0.5 hour technical burden associated with recordkeeping in addition to the 

burden estimates from the 1994 Regulatory Impact Analysis, which include the burden for recordkeeping (EPA, 

1994). These burden estimates are based on the recordkeeping burden for polymer exceptions and not the 

recordkeeping burden associated with PMN submissions. Therefore, this analysis assumes that any reduction in 

recordkeeping burden is captured in the reduction of the clerical burden, and does not consider the one hour 

recordkeeping burden from the ePMN EA in order to avoid double counting. 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 10 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

In addition, electronic submission is expected to generate an additional 0.18 hours of technical burden, for 

the completion of the User Fee Payment Identification Number and email address data elements on the 

electronic SNUN form (EPA, 2009a). 

SNUN form completion and electronic submission is estimated to require 73.68 hours of technical labor 

and 18.00 hours of managerial labor (EPA, 1994). Table 5 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 $5,802. 

Table 5: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete the SNUN Form 

Reporting Activity 

Clerical Labor 1

($28.98/hour) 

Technical Labor 2

($61.71/hour) 

Managerial Labor 2 

($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 73.68 $4,547 18.00 $1,255 91.68 $5,802 

Notes: Loaded wages include fringe benefits and overhead. Wage rates presented in this table are rounded values; however, 

unrounded values are used to calculate total labor costs. For this reason, total labor costs may not equal the product of 

rounded values

Source: 1

 The estimate of no clerical burden is taken from the Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notice Electronic 

Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009a) 2 Technical and managerial labor burden is from the PMN Amendments RIA (EPA, 1994). 

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 6 adds the labor cost and 

submission fee to estimate the total cost of a SNUN submission, which is $8,302 for large business 

submitters and $5,902 for small business submitters. 

Table 6: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete and Submit the SNUN Form

Reporting Population Labor Cost Submission Fee Total Cost 

(2010$) 

Large Business Submitters $5,802 $2,500 $8,302 

Small Business Submitters $5,802 $100 $5,902 

Source: EPA, 2009a. 

2.2.4 Recordkeeping 

Companies submitting a SNUN must keep records under 40 CFR §721.40. Some EPA reports have 

assumed that SNUN recordkeeping hours would be five percent of SNUN submission hours, or about five 

to six hours. For this report, the SNUN recordkeeping hours were included in the SNUN submission 

hours (see Section 2.2.3) and were not separately estimated.3 

2.2.5 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 the chemical subject to the proposed SNUR would have to certify that all chemical 

 

3

 SNUN submission costs estimated in Section 2.2.3 of this report were based on PMN submission costs from a 

1994 report, Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSC Section 5 Premanufacture 

Notifications (EPA, 1994). Page III-14 of the 1994 report refers to “the normal records kept with a PMN submission 

which are included in the estimates for submission costs.” Page III-12 identifies “maintaining a file of the 

submission” as part of the labor hours for the PMN reporting form. These statements imply that the 95 to 114 total 

hours for a PMN submission (EPA, 1994) included recordkeeping hours. 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 11 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

substances in the shipment either comply with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA or that all 

chemical substances in the shipment are not subject to TSCA. 

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, 2009b). 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. 

2.2.6 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 onetime notification requirement per destination country for each exporter of a chemical substance. After 

receiving a notification from a firm, EPA notifies the importing country and the U.S. State Department 

(40 CFR §707.70). To calculate the burden associated with making export notifications, EPA used the 

annual export notification burden for an exporter under the one-time export notification requirement 

(EPA, 2009b). These burdens include the burden 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. 

EPA derived the per notification cost and burden associated with preparing and submitting an export 

notification by dividing the annual export notification burden for an exporter by the average number of 

notifications sent per exporter. 

This per-notification burden, as calculated from the total annual cost per company, was derived based on 

the assumption that the average exporter makes 12 notifications per year.

4

 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 to be shipped via the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) as first-class registered mail with a return 

receipt (USPS, 2010). The estimated per-shipment and annual mailing costs incurred by individual 

submitters are detailed in Table 7. 

Table 7: Derivation of Total Mailing Cost per Notification

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, 2007a). 

 

4

 The average number of export notifications per exporter was calculated in the 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR 

(EPA, 2009b) by dividing the estimated number of submitted notifications (3,500) by the estimated number of 

exporters (300). 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 12 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

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. Compiling and maintaining a list of products is estimated to take 9.3 hours of technical time per 

year for a company submitting 12 notices per year (EPA, 2009b). Therefore, the per-notification burden 

to compile and maintain a list of products is 0.78 hours of technical time. 

Write Letter 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, 2009b). 

Check Orders and Send Notifications

Companies that export chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) reporting must check outgoing 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 of one half hour of clerical time per export notification (EPA, 2009b). 

The burdens and associated costs for each notification activity are provided in Table 8 below. 

Table 8: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost per Notification 

Notification Activity 

Technical 2, 3 Clerical 2, 3 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 cost1 -- -- -- $13.34 - 

Total per notification 0.86 $52.97 0.50 $14.49 $80.80 1.36 

Notes: 

1 Mailing costs reflect April 2010 USPS rates and can be found in Table 7.

2 Per notification costs are derived from average annual costs of a facility assumed to submit an average of 12 export notifications 

per year (EPA, 2009b). 

3 Loaded wages include fringe benefits and overhead. Wage rates presented in this table are rounded values; however, unrounded 

values are used to calculate total labor costs. For this reason, total labor costs may not equal the product of rounded values

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, 2009b), and are updated to 2010 

dollars. 

2.3 Industry Costs of SNUR, by Option 

The number of firms affected by not making submissions to EPA is not known; therefore, costs are not 

aggregated across the affected entities. Table 9 summarizes the costs to comply with the proposed rule, as 

described in more detail in Section 2.2 above. 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 13 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

Table 9: Compliance Options and Associated Costs Incurred by a Firm Due to the Proposed SNUR

Option1 Costs Quantified Costs per Chemical (2010$)2

1. 

Electronic submission 

of a Significant New 

Use Notice (SNUN), 

indicating to EPA that 

the firm would like to 

manufacture, import, 

or process the 

chemical for a 

Significant New Use 

as defined in the 

SNUR. 

Costs of electronically submitting a 

SNUN, including rule 

familiarization, CDX registration 

(for companies that are first-time 

submitters), form completion, user 

fee, export notification cost (if 

relevant). Rarely, a firm may 

choose to conduct toxicity or fate 

testing to support the SNUN, but 

such testing is not required by law. 

$54.81 rule familiarization cost; $8,302 

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

 Export notifications costs are 

estimated at $80.80 per notification; total cost 

per company will vary based on the number of 

countries of export. Those submitting 

information electronically through CDX for the 

first time would incur $183.65 for CDX 

registration and associated activities. 

2. 

Decide not to 

manufacture, import, 

or process the 

chemical for any nonexempt uses. 

Cost of the profit foregone as a 

result of not engaging in the 

commercial activity originally 

planned (opportunity costs). Other 

costs include rule familiarization, 

and export notification costs. 

Opportunity costs are not quantified. Other 

costs including rule familiarization ($54.81), 

and export notification costs ($80.80 per 

notification if the chemical is exported only) 

would apply. 

Notes: 

1

 Firms may experience costs related to both options at once since submission of a SNUN results in profits foregone as a result of 

not manufacturing, importing, or processing HBCD subject to the proposed rule. Additionally, export notification costs are 

somewhat independent of the option because the production of HBCD subject to the proposed rule for export purposes only does 

not require notification under 40 CFR 721.25. 

2 Quantified costs are attributable to the SNUR only if a firm would not otherwise follow the specified practices. Costs are 

detailed in Section 2.2. 

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 proposed SNUR.

2.4 Likelihood of a SNUN Submission 

As described in Section 1.1.1, EPA contacted industry to explore the use of HBCD in consumer textile 

applications. Based on information from an expert from the Consumer Product Safety Commission 

(CPSC), the American Chemical Council, a furniture manufacturer, textile formulators, and HBCD 

manufacturers, EPA concluded that HBCD is no longer used in consumer textiles except for certain 

products used by the automotive industry (CPSC, 2010; ACC, 2011a; Herman Miller, 2011; EPP, 2011). 

EPA believes that the information gathered from research, industry, and consumer product organizations 

reasonably supports the proposed conclusion that HBCD is no longer used in consumer textile 

applications except for a small amount of HBCD used as a flame retardant for carpet products and 

headliners in automobile interiors. EPA intends to exclude this automotive use from the SNUR since it is 

ongoing. Based on this conclusion, EPA assumes it will not receive any SNUN submissions for HBCD 

use in consumer textile applications. 

2.5 Potential for Subsequent Regulatory Action 

EPA recognizes that if submission of a SNUN does result from the proposed SNUR, the Agency may 

take additional 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. It is not known what 

specific subsequent regulatory actions, if any, the Agency may determine are necessary after reviewing a 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 14 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

SNUN. Any such actions are highly dependent on the circumstances surrounding the individual SNUN 

(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. 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 15 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

CHAPTER 3 – AGENCY COSTS 

As described in the following sections, EPA’s costs to review and process SNUN submissions are 

assumed to be the same as EPA’s costs to review PMNs. 

3.1 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, 2010). EPA assumes 

that, on average, a federal GS-13, Step 5 full-time equivalent (FTE) will conduct its collection and 

administrative activities under the proposed rule.5

 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 10). Dividing 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). 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/EPAB) 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 10. 

 

5

 The GS-13 Step 5 is consistent with ICR No. 0574.14 (12/18/2007) (EPA, 2007b), which covers PMNs and 

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. 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 16 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

Table 10: 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 WashingtonBaltimore-Northern 

Virginia, DC-MD-PAVA-WV, area, GS-13 

Step 5 pay rates 1 

Dec10 

$100,904 

(annual) 

-- 

[Included 

in 60% 

overhead] 

60% 2

 1.60 

$161,446 

(annual) 

$48.51 

(hourly) 

$77.62 

(hourly) 

Notes: 1

 The Agency salary is the unloaded federal GS-13 Step 5 salary ($100,904 for 2010), 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. 

2

 The 60% fringes-and-overhead rate is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) 

(EPA, 1992).

3.2 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 a 1994 EPA report entitled, 

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 to reduce Agency burden by 16.5 percent (EPA, 2009a). 

For each review step, the “EPA staff” cost is calculated by multiplying the number of FTEs (in the first 

column of Table 11) 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 selected review step and is inflated from 1993 prices using the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index (ECI) data (BLS, 2011b). The ECI (not seasonally adjusted) 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 11 contains the 

derivation of inflation factors for Agency extramural costs. 

Table 11: Derivation of Inflation Factors for Agency Extramural Costs 

Item Inflation index source Starting 

year

Index for 

starting 

year 

(a) 

Index 

for 

2010 

(b) 

Inflation 

factor 

(b)/(a)

Agency Extramural costs 

White collar labor; 

equipment; supplies

BLS ECI, Total comp, Private 

industry, Professional and related, 

4th Q [BLS, 2011b]

1993 67.0 113.5 1.694 

Source: 

Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index – Total Compensation: Professional and Related Private Industry, Not 

Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: CIU2010000120000I), extracted March 9, 2011 (BLS, 2011b).

The Percent of Cases column in Table 12 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 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 17 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

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 lower 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 from electronic 

submission. As shown in Table 12, this calculation yields total Agency costs of $5,049 per SNUN for 

submission, review and processing. 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

Economic Analysis of SNUR for U.S. EPA Office oNine Benzidine Based Dyes 18 Econ

Table 12: 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 

Cost3

ePM

Burd

Reduc

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

Pre-notice consultation 0.0024 $161,446 $387 $4.00 $6.78 $394 41% $162 0.1Administrative prescreen/ notice receipt/user fee 0.0024 $161,446 $387 $92.00 $155.85 $543 100% $543 0.1CRSS (Chemical Review and Search Strategy) 0.0025 $161,446 $404 $268.00 $454.00 $858 100% $858 0.1SAT (Structure Activity Team) 0.0006 $161,446 $96.87 $14.00 $23.72 $121 100% $121 0.1Engineering/Exposure 0.0015 $161,446 $242 $56.00 $94.87 $337 100% $337 0.1Exposure/Fate 0.0008 $161,446 $129 $0.00 $0.00 $129 100% $129 0.1Focus 0.0009 $161,446 $145 $23.00 $38.96 $184 100% $184 0.1Standard Review Functions 0.0219 $161,446 $3,536 $511.00 $865.65 $4,401 29% $1,276 0.1Division Directors Meeting 0.0129 $161,446 $2,083 $113.00 $191.43 $2,274 15% $341 0.1Order Development/Negotiation Review 

0.0171 $161,446 $2,761 $22.00 $37.27 $2,798 3% $84 0.1

Post Order Data Review 0.0886 $161,446 $14,304 $0.00 $0.00 $14,304 3% $429 0.1Order Modification 0.2167 $161,446 $34,985 $0.00 $0.00 $34,985 3% $1,050 0.1New Chemical SNUR Development 0.0277 $161,446 $4,472 $85.00 $143.99 $4,616 7% $323 0.1Notices of Commencement 0.0012 $161,446 $194 $40.00 $67.76 $261 31% $81 0.1FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) Requests 0.0333 $161,446 $5,376 $287.00 $486.19 $5,862 1% $59 0.1CBI (Confidential Business Information) Substantiation 0.0004 $161,446 $64.58 $3.00 $5.08 $69.66 100% $69.66 0.1TOTAL $6,046 0.16Notes: 1 GS-13 Step 5 salaries loaded with benefits and overhead. See Table 10 for derivation.

2 Extramural costs consist of contracting support and other purchases directly attributable to the PMN/SNUR review process inflated from 1993 prices usin

Table 11. 

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).

Sources: FTEs per review step, 1993 extramural costs, and percents of cases are from (EPA, 1994), GS-13 salaries are from (OPM, 2010).
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 19 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

3.3 Export Notification Cost 

The Agency burden and cost due to TSCA §12(b) export notification results 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, 2009b). In the second task, EPA staff prepares separate 

notification letters that are subsequently reviewed and delivered to importing countries, their 

embassies, or representatives, and to the importing country’s US embassies (EPA, 2009b). 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 associated with the TSCA §12(b) 

program, was estimated to require approximately 400 hours per year for all chemicals that fall 

under the TSCA §12(b) (EPA, 2009b). Since the current rulemaking covers only one of the 

chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) reporting, a very small percent of the third task activity will be 

attributable to the current rulemaking. Therefore, the per-notification burden and cost associated 

with the work of responding to non-routine requests for information and clarification from 

industry and importing countries, and of handling other tasks associated with the TSCA §12(b) 

program were not quantified in this report. 

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 13 below. To estimate 

the Agency cost, hourly burdens are multiplied by the loaded wage rate of a GS-13, Step 5 (see 

Table 10). 

Table 13: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost: Agency Burden per Activity (2010$) 

Agency Activity 

Hours per 

Activity 

FTE per 

Activity1

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 company 

0.10 0.000048 $161,446 $0.00 $7.76 

Prepare and mail a 

notification to an 

importing country 

0.50 0.000240 $161,446 $13.34 $52.15 

Total Per 

Notification 0.60 0.00029 $13.34 $59.91 

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 10 of this report derives Agency labor costs. Mailing costs are from Table 7 of this report. Other burdens 

are from (EPA, 2009b), updated for inflation.

3.4 Total Agency Cost of SNUR 

As described in Section 2.4, EPA does not expect to receive any SNUN submissions as a result of 

this proposed rule. Therefore, the agency costs associated with this proposed rule are assumed to 

be zero. However, Table 14 summarizes the agency costs and Table 15 summarizes the agency 

burden per SNUN, as described in Section 3.2 and 3.3, if a SNUN were submitted. 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 20 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

Table 14: Total Agency Cost per SNUN (2010$)

Agency Activity Total Agency Cost per 

Activity 

SNUN Review and Processing Cost 1 $5,049 

Export Notification Cost 2 $59.91 

Total $5,109 

Note: 

Total costs per activity that are presented in this table are rounded values; 

however, unrounded values are used to calculate total costs per activity. For 

this reason, total costs per activity may not sum to the total agency cost. 

Source: 

1 Table 12 

2 Table 13 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 21 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

Table 15: Total Agency Burden per SNUN 

Agency Activity 

FTE 

Fraction1 

(a) 

Burden Hours 

(b)=(a)*2,080 

Percent 

of Cases1 

(c) 

ePMN 

Burden 

Reduction1 

(d) 

Final Agency 

Burden2,3 

(e)=(b)*(c)*(1-d) 

Review and Processing

Pre-notice consultation 0.0024 4.992 41% 0.165 1.71

Administrative 

prescreen/ notice 

receipt/user fee

0.0024 4.992 100% 0.165 4.17

CRSS (Chemical Review 

and Search Strategy) 0.0025 5.2 100% 0.165 4.34

SAT (Structure Activity 

Team) 0.0006 1.248 100% 0.165 1.04

Engineering/Exposure 0.0015 3.12 100% 0.165 2.61

Exposure/Fate 0.0008 1.664 100% 0.165 1.39

Focus 0.0009 1.872 100% 0.165 1.56

Standard Review 

Functions 0.0219 45.552 29% 0.165 11.03

Division Directors 

Meeting 0.0129 26.832 15% 0.165 3.36

Order 

Development/Negotiatio

n Review

0.0171 35.568 3% 0.165 0.89

Post Order Data Review 0.0886 184.288 3% 0.165 4.62

Order Modification 0.2167 450.736 3% 0.165 11.29

New Chemical SNUR 

Development 0.0277 57.616 7% 0.165 3.37

Notices of 

Commencement 0.0012 2.496 31% 0.165 0.65

FOIA (Freedom of 

Information Act) 

Requests

0.0333 69.264 1% 0.165 0.58

CBI (Confidential 

Business Information) 

Substantiation

0.0004 0.832 100% 0.165 0.69

Pre-notice consultation 0.0024 4.992 41% 0.165 1.71

Administrative 

prescreen/ notice 

receipt/user fee

0.0024 4.992 100% 0.165 4.17

CRSS (Chemical Review 

and Search Strategy) 0.0025 5.2 100% 0.165 4.34

Review and Processing Total 53.30 

Export Notification4 0.60 

SNUN Total 53.90 

Notes: 

1

 Taken from Table 12. 

2

 Final Agency burden reflects the total burden to EPA; however, the final Agency cost includes extramural costs, which are 

not quantified in this table. Therefore, the final Agency burden hours multiplied by the Agency wage rate will not equal the 

final Agency cost. 

3 Total burdens per activity that are presented in this table are rounded values; however, unrounded values are used to 

calculate total burdens per activity. For this reason, total burdens per activity may not sum to the total agency burden. 4

 Taken from Table 13. 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 22 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

CHAPTER 4 – ADDITIONAL ANALYSES 

This section presents additional analysis of other potential impacts of this proposed rulemaking, 

as required under various statutes and executive orders. 

4.1 Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et. seq.), as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act, requires regulators to consider the impact of regulations on 

small entities, in particular small businesses. EPA’s experience to date is that, in response to the 

promulgation of SNURs covering over 1,000 chemicals, the Agency receives only a handful of 

notices per year. For example, the number of SNUNs was four in Federal FY2005, eight in 

FY2006, six in FY2007, eight in FY2008, and seven in FY2009.6

 During this five-year period, 

three small entities submitted a SNUN - the criteria for ‘small business’ was that the company 

checked the box on the PMN form, page 2, stating that it was a small business for the purpose of 

paying the $100 fee instead of the normal fee.7,8 

4.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

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 expect that any 

State, local, or Tribal government would be impacted by this proposed rulemaking. 

4.3 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 EPA’s regulations in title 40 

of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register, are listed in 40 CFR, part 9, and are 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). 

If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to average 97 

hours per response – 0.82 hours for rule familiarization (Section 2.2.1), 2.80 hours for CDX 

registration, CDX electronic signature, and pay.gov account setup (Section 2.2.2), 91.68 hours for 

form completion and submission (Section 2.2.3), and 1.36 hours for export notification (Section 

2.2.5). 

The annual agency burden is estimated to average 53.9 hours per response – 53.3 hours for 

review and processing (Section 3.2) and 0.60 hours for receiving an export notification (Section 

3.3). Table 15 presents the total agency burden per response (Section 3.4). 

 

6 February 5, 2009 email from Carol Rawie, EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, to Tulika 

Narayan and Kimberly Wilson, Abt Associates. The counts include both “valid” and “invalid” SNUNs. 

SNUN numbering is according to Federal fiscal year, ending September 30. 

7 February 5, 2009 email from Carol Rawie, EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics to Tulika 

Narayan and Kimberly Wilson, Abt Associates. 

8 In order to submit SNUN as a “small business” a company needs to be classified as small using the TSCA 

based definition of annual revenue of less than $4,000,000 per year. This definition is not consistent with 

the definition of a small business using Small Business Administration (SBA) NAICS based definitions. 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 23 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

4.4 National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 

The proposed SNUR does not involve any technical standards. 

4.5 Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations 

The proposed SNUR does not involve special considerations of environmental justice-related 

issues as required by Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice 

in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

4.6 Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental 

Health Risks and Safety Risks 

The proposed SNUR is not an economically significant regulatory action and does not address 

environmental health or safety risks disproportionately affecting children. 

4.7 Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

The proposed SNUR 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). 

4.8 Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian 

Tribal Governments 

This proposed SNUR would not have Tribal implications because it is not expected to have 

substantial direct effects on Indian Tribes. This proposed rule would not significantly or uniquely 

affect the communities of Indian Tribal governments, nor would it involve or impose any 

requirements that affect Indian Tribes. 

4.9 Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect Energy 

Supply, Distribution, or Use 

This proposed SNUR is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use. 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 24 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

APPENDIX – REFERENCES 

15 U.S.C. 272, National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public 

Law 104–113, Section 12(d). 

64 FR 43255, Federalism, Federal Register, Volume 65, August 10, 1999. 

ACC, 2011a. Personal communication with Jackson Morrill of the American Chemistry Council. 

February 16, 2011. 

ACC, 2011b. Personal communication with Jackson Morrill of the American Chemistry Council. 

February 25, 2011. 

Albemarle, 2010. Phone conversation between Kristen Loughery (EPA) and Marcia Hardy 

(Albemarle). April 7, 2010. 

BLS, 2011a. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation 

Supplementary Tables December 2010.” (March 9, 2011) at 

http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsuptc17.pdf. 

BLS, 2011b. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index – Total Compensation: 

Professional and Related Private Industry, Not Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: 

CIU2010000120000I), extracted March 9, 2011. 

Chemtura, 2010. Phone conversation between Kristen Loughery (EPA) and Caroline Maselli and 

Richard Heinrich (Chemtura). April 7, 2010. 

Chrysler, 2006. Environmental, Health, and Occupational Safety Requirements for Regulated 

Substances or Processes and Product Recycling Reporting Requirements. CS-9003. 

Daimler Chrysler. Revised March 9, 2006. 

CPSC, 2010. Phone conversation between HBCD Action Plan work group (EPA) and Dr. 

Michael Babich from the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). March 16, 

2010. 

CMA, 1991. Chemical Manufacturers Association. Responses to Questions on Burden Associated 

with PMN Submissions. Distributed by the Chemical Manufacturers Association,

Washington, DC. 

Dow Chemical, 2011. “Dow Develops New Polymeric FR Tech.” Downstream Today. March 29, 

2011. Available at: 

http://www.downstreamtoday.com/(X(1)S(vsqiddiudfyo5qyqz13fdr55))/news/article.asp

x?a_id=26172&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1. 

Dufton, 2003. PW Dufton, Flame Retardants for Plastics. Rapra Technologies, Shrewsbury UK 

2003. 

EPP, 2011. Personal communication between Emma Lavoie (EPA) and John Friddle (Eagle 

Performance Products). March 3, 2011. 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 25 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

ECHA, 2009. European Chemicals Agency, “Data on Manufacture, Import, Export Uses and 

Releases of HBCD as Well as Information on Potential Alternatives to its Use” 

December, 2009. 

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. U.S. 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. 

EPA, 2000. 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 

OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Attachment 5, Wage Rates Estimation, 

August 29, 2000. 

EPA, 2002a. 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, 2002b. 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-2002-0078 at 

http://www.regulations.gov.

EPA, 2005. U.S. EPA. 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. 

EPA, 2006. Inventory Update Reporting (IUR): Non-Confidential 2006 TSCA Inventory Update 

Rule (IUR) Records. Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/iursearch/index.cfm?s=chem. 

EPA, 2007a. 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 Reporting 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, 2009a. 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. 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 26 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

EPA, 2009b. 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 Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act. March 6, 2009 at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Federal Mogul, 2010. Restricted Substance Management Standard. January 19, 2010. 

Ford Motor Company, 2011. 2011 Restricted Substance Management Standard. WSS–

M99P9999–A1. Ford Motor Company. 

Global Automotive Declarable Substance List (GADSL) 2011 Version 1.0. Global Automotive 

Stakeholder Group (GASG). <http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/doc. 

asp?CID=1106&DID=9291>. 

GM, 2008. Restricted and Reportable Substances for Parts. Worldwide Engineering Standards. 

Material Specification General. GMW3059. General Motors Corporation. October 2008. 

Herman Miller, 2011. Personal communication with Gabe Wing of Herman Miller. March 30, 

2011. 

ICL, 2008. ICL Industrial Products. SaFRon 9025: Flame Retardant dispersion for Coating and 

Backcoating Formulations for Textile Fabrics. 

Morose, 2006. Gregory Morose. “An Overview of Alternatives to Tetrabromobisphenol A 

(TBBPA) and Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD)”. March, 2006. Available at 

http://www.chemicalspolicy.org/downloads/AternativestoTBBPAandHBCD.pdf 

Official Journal, 2011. Official Journal of the European Union. COMMISSION REGULATION 

(EU) No 143/2011 of 17 February 2011 amending Annex XIV to Regulation (EC) No 

1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Registration, 

Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (‘REACH’). Feb. 18, 2011. 

OPM, 2010. Office of Personnel Management, Salary Table 2010-DCB, WashingtonBaltimore/Northern Virginia, DC-MD-PA-VA-WV. Accessed from 

http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/pdf/DCB.pdf 

Posner, 2006. “Survey and technical assessment of alternatives to TBBPA and HBCDD.” Kemi 

PM. January 2006. 

UBA, 2000. Umweltbundesamt, German Federal Environmental Agency. Leisewitz, Andre et al. 

Substituting Environmentally Relevant Flame Retardants: Assessment Fundamentals. 

December 2000. 

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), 2010. “Exploration of management 

options for Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD).” August 18, 2010. 

USITC, 2010. US International Trade Commission “Interactive Tariff and Data Web: US Imports 

for Consumption” Available at http://dataweb.usitc.gov/ 
EO 12866 Draft – Do Not Cite, Quote or Release during Review

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

Hexabromocyclododecane 27 Economic and Policy Analysis Branch 

USPS, 2010. U.S. Postal Service Mailing and postage rates. <http://www.usps.com/prices>. 

Accessed 16 August 2010.