1 

# Economic Analysis o f the Proposed Significant New Use Rule f or Nonylphenols (NPs) and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates (NPEs)

(EPA DOCKET EPA

- HQ

- OPPT

- 2007

- 0490 )

RIN 2070

- AJ 96

September 26 , 2014

— Does not contain TSCA CBI

—

NPNPESNUR_NPRM_EA_2014_9_26.docx



## 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, D C 20460i 

## Contributors

Analytical and draft preparation support was provided by Abt Associates Inc. under EPA Contract No. EP

- W

- 08

- 010.ii 

## Executive Summary

This report estimates the costs of a Significant New U se Rule (SN UR) being proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for certain n onylphenol s (NPs) and n onylphenol

e thoxylates (NPEs )

. The proposed rule will apply to the 15 NP s and NPEs listed in Table ES

- 1 below. Note that the significant new uses (SNUs) being proposed are for: 1) any use of 13 NP s and NPE s ; and 2) any use of two NPs with some excluded uses.

The proposed SNUR requires manufacturers (including importers ) or processors of the 15 che mica ls to notify EPA at least 90 days prior to the occurrence of any significant new use. A significant new use is defined as:
( 1) any manufacturing (including import ing) or processing of a linear NP or NPE listed in Table ES

- 1 (CAS RN 104

- 40

- 5, CAS RN 20427

- 84

- 3, CAS RN 27176

- 93

- 8, CAS RN 7311

- 27

- 5, CAS RN 27177

- 05

- 5, CAS RN 26571

- 11

- 9, CAS RN 27177

- 08

- 8, CAS RN 26027

- 38

- 3
, CAS RN 37205

- 87

- 1
, CAS RN 51938

- 25

- 1 , CASRN 9016

- 45

- 9, CASRN 25154

- 52

- 3, and CASRN 27986

- 36

- 3 ) ; or (2 ) any use other than use as a chemical interm ediate or use as an epoxy cure catalyst for Phenol, 4

- nonyl

- , branched (CAS RN 84852

- 15

- 3) and Phenol, 2

- nonyl

- , branched (CAS RN 91672

- 41

- 2)

. A firm intending to engage in these activities would be required to submit a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN), in curring an estimated submission cost of $ 8, 589 per chemical, and potentially other minor costs . The required notification w ill provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prevent or limit potentially adverse effects from that activity before it occurs.

Table ES

- 1 : List of NP s and NPEs Subject to the Proposed SNUR
CAS RN Chemical Abstract Index Name Alkyl Groups Type

Manufacturing (

I ncluding I

mport ing) or P

rocessing 1 104

- 40

- 5 Phenol, 4

- nonyl

- Linear, para

- NP 2 20427

- 84

- 3 Ethanol, 2

- [2

- (4

- nonylphenoxy)ethoxy]

- Linear, para

- NPE 3 27176

- 93

- 8 Ethanol, 2

- [2

- (nonylphenoxy)ethoxy]

- Linear, unspecified NPE

4 7311

- 27

- 5 Ethanol, 2

- [2

- [2

- [2

- (4

-

nonylphenoxy)ethoxy]ethoxy]ethoxy]

- Linear, para

- NPE

5 27177

- 05

- 5 3,6,9,12,15,18,21

- Heptaoxatricosan

- 1

- ol, 23

-

(nonylphenoxy)

- Linear, unspecified NPE

6 26571

- 11

- 9 3,6,9,12,15,18,21,24

- Octaoxahexacosan

- 1

- ol, 26

-

(nonylphenoxy)

- Linear, unspecified NPE

7 27177

- 08

- 8 3,6,9,12,15,18,21,24,27

- Nonaoxanonaco san

- 1

- ol, 29

-

(nonylphenoxy)

- Linear, unspecified NPE

8 26027

- 38

- 3 Poly(oxy

- 1,2

- ethanediyl),  (4

- nonylphenyl)

-

 hydroxy

Linear, para

- NPE

9 37205

- 87

- 1 Poly(oxy

- 1,2

- ethanediyl),  (isononylphenyl)

-

 hydroxy

Single branching point, unspecified NPE

10 51 938

- 25

- 1 Poly(oxy

- 1,2

- ethanediyl),  (2

- nonylphenyl)

-

 hydroxy

Linear, ortho

- NPE

11 9016

- 45

- 9 Poly(oxy

- 1,2

- ethanediyl),  (nonylphenyl)

-  hydroxy

- Linear, poly NPE 12 25154

- 52

- 3 Phenol, nonyl

- Linear NP 13 27986

- 36

- 3 Ethanol, 2

- (nonylphenoxy)

- Linea r NPE

All Uses Except Use as a Chemical Intermediate or as an Epoxy Cure Catalystiii 14 84852

- 15

- 3 Phenol, 4

- nonyl

- , branched Branched NP 15 91672

- 41

- 2 Phenol, 2

- nonyl

- , branched Branched NP

In addition to any firms that may make a SNUN submission, the proposed SNUR may also affect firms that do not make a submission. By avoiding a significant new use, a firm can avoid submission and testing costs but may incur other compliance costs. The firm may also incur “hidden” costs; for example, it could forego profitable opportunities to use the chemical in an application that would be a significant new use
, or limit production volume to avoid a significant

new use.

Costs are estimated at the firm level and reflect the burden of a SNUR on the firms that make a

s ubmission. The hidden costs to the firms that do not make a submission are not quantified. EPA receives only a handful of SNUNs per yea r. T he number of firms affected by not making submissions to EPA is not known; therefore, costs are not aggregated across the affected entities.iv 

## Table of Contents

Contributors

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... i Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... ii 1 Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 1 

### 1.1 Statutory Authority

................................ ................................ ............................. 1 1.2 Summary of Methodology

................................ ................................ .................. 1 1.3 Organization of this Report

................................ ................................ ................. 2 2 Chemical Uses and Manufacturers

................................ ................................ ......................... 3 

### 2.1 Chemicals Subject to and Significant New Us es under the Proposed Rule

....... 3 2.2 Production and Uses of Chemicals Subject to the Proposed Rule

...................... 4 2.2.1 2012 CDR Data

................................ ................................ ........................... 4 2.2.2 Chemical Intermediates

................................ ................................ .............. 6 2.2.3 Epoxy Cure Catalysts

................................ ................................ ................ 10 2.3 Potentially A ffected Companies

................................ ................................ ....... 10 3 Industry Compliance Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 11 

### 3.1 Wage Rates

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 12 3.2 Unit Industry Compliance Costs

................................ ................................ ....... 13 3.2.1 Rule Familiarization

................................ ................................ .................. 13 3.2.2 CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.g ov Account Setup

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13 3.2.3 Form Completion and Submission Fee

................................ ..................... 14 3.2.4 Recordkeeping for Companies Choosing to Submit a SNUN

.................. 16 3.2.5 Recordkeeping for Companies That Do Not Submit a SNUN

................. 16 3.2.6 Customer Notification

................................ ................................ ............... 17 3.2.7 Import Certification

................................ ................................ .................. 17 3.2.8 Export Notification

................................ ................................ ................... 17 3.3 Summary of Per Submission Costs, by Opti on

................................ ................. 20 3.4 Likelihood of SNUN Submission

................................ ................................ ..... 21 3.5 Potential for Subsequent Regulatory Actions

................................ ................... 21 4 Agency Costs

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 22 

### 4.1 Labor Rates for EPA Staff

................................ ................................ ................ 22 4.2 SNUN Processing Costs

................................ ................................ ................... 22 4.3 Export Notification Cost

................................ ................................ ................... 25 5 Benefits

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 26 6 Additional Analyses

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 27 

### 6.1 Regulatory Flexibility Act

................................ ................................ ................ 27 6.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

................................ ...................... 28 6.3 Paper work Reduction Act (PRA)

................................ ................................ ...... 28 6.4 Executive Order 13132, Federalism

................................ ................................ . 29 6.5 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice

................................ ................ 2 9 6.6 Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children

................................ ............... 29 6.7 Executive Order 13175, Tribal Governments

................................ ................... 30 6.8 Executive Order 13211, Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

......................... 30 6.9 Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

......... 30 7 References

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 31 Appendix A: Inflators and Wage Rates

................................ ................................ ......................... 36v 

## List of Tables

Table ES

- 1: List of NPs and NPEs Subject to the Proposed SNUR

................................ .. ii Table 1: CASRN Number and Names for Chemicals Subject to the Proposed SNUR

...... 4 Table 2: U.S. Production/Importation Volumes by Chemical

................................ ............ 5 Table 3. Consumer and Commercial Uses of NP in the United States as Reported to CDR in 2 012

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 6 Table 4. Industrial Uses of NP in the United States as Reported to CDR in 2012

............. 7 Table 5: Manufacturers (Including Importers ) Potentially Affected by the Proposed SNUR

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 10 Table 6: Loaded Industry Wage Rates, December 2012

................................ .................. 12 Table 7: Rule Familiarization Burden and Cost for SNUR Submitters

............................ 13 Table 8: CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup Burden and Cost for First

- Time Submitters

................................ ................................ ...... 14 Table 9: Industry Cost Estimate to Complete the SNUN Form

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

.................. 16 Table 11: Annual Per

- Chemical Costs of Recordkeeping Requirement for Companies that Choose not to Submit a SNUN

................................ ................................ ......................... 17 Table 12: Derivation of Total Mailing Co st for 12 Notices

................................ .............. 19 Table 13: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost per Notification

................................ ... 20 Table 14: Compliance Options and Associated Costs Incurred by a Firm Due to the Proposed SNUR

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 20 Table 15: Derivation of Loaded Agency Wage Rates

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

......................... 23 Table 17: Agency Costs for SNUN and Other Submission Review and Processing

........ 24 Tab le 18: TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost: Agency Burden per Activity (2012$)

. 25 Table 19: Estimate of Impacts on Small Business

................................ ............................ 28 Table A

- 1: Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates

................................ ................................ . 38 Table A

- 2: Derivation of Inflation Factors

................................ ................................ ....... 401 

## 1 Introduction

This report estimates the costs of the proposed Sig nificant New Use Rule (SNUR) for 1 5 specific

n onylphenol s (NPs) and n onylphenol e thoxylates (NPEs ).

The proposed SNUR requires manufacturers (including importers ) or processors of the 1 5 chemicals to notify EPA through a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN) at least 90 days prior to the occurrence of any significant new use. A significant new use is defined as:

( 1) any manufacturing (including importing) or processing of a linear NP or NPE listed in Table 1 (CAS RN 1 04

- 40

- 5, CAS RN 20427

- 84

- 3, CAS RN 27176

- 93

- 8, CAS RN 7311

- 27

- 5, CAS RN 27177

- 05

- 5, CAS RN 26571

- 11

- 9, CAS RN 27177

- 08

- 8, CAS RN 26027

- 38

- 3
, CAS RN 37205

- 87

- 1
, CAS RN 51938

- 25

- 1 , CASRN 9016

- 45

- 9, CASRN 25154

- 52

- 3 and CASRN 27986

- 36

- 3 ) ; or
(2 ) a ny use other than us e as a chemical intermediate or use as an epoxy cure catalyst for branched 4

- nonylphenol (CAS RN 84852

- 15

- 3) and branched 2

- nonylphenol (CAS RN 91672

- 41

- 2)

. A firm intending to engage in these activiti es would be required to submit a SNUN

. The required noti fication w ill provide EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prevent or limit potentially adverse effects from that activity before it occurs.



### 1.1 Statutory Authority

Section 5(a)(2) of TSCA (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(2)) authoriz es 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 S ection 5(a)(2). Once EPA determines that a use of a chemical substance is a significant new use, TSCA S ection 5(a)(1)(B) requires persons to submit a SNUN to EPA at least 90 days before manufacturing (including importing ) or processing the chemical substance for that use (15 U.S.C. 2604(a)(1)(B)).

The general SNUR provisions are found at 40 CFR Part 721, Subpart A.



### 1.2 Summary of Methodology

This analysis quantifies, to the extent possible, the costs to society of the proposed rule by identifying the costs to industry associated with performing the required reporting an d recordkeeping, and the costs to EPA of administering the rule. Industry costs consist of rule familiarization; registration with the Central Data Exchange (CDX) electronic reporting tool; collection, compilation, and submission of required information fo r significant new uses of the subject chemicals ; export notification; and recordkeeping. Agency costs include reviewing and processing the data received because of the rule. For this analysis,

s mall entity impact is defined as a small business’ estimated c ost of compliance with the proposed rule as a percent of sales. 1 Data sources for this analysis include burden estimates derived from previous information collection requests and economic analyses for related rules, compensation data acquired from governme nt publications, and supplementary market research to produce an estimate of the universe of affected entities and measure the impact of the proposed rule on small entities.

In addition to costs, t his report qualitatively discusses the benefits of the prop osed rule based on the value of the information it will provide.

1 Certain small entities, such as local and state governments, are not expected to be impacted by the proposed rule.2



### 1.3 Organization of this Report

The remainder of this report provides EPA’s economic analysis in support of the proposed rule. The chemical substances and companies affected are characterized in Chapter 

### 2

. Chapter 

### 3 contains estimates of the industry cost s to comply with the proposed rule, and Chapter 

### 4 shows esti mates of the government costs associated with the administration of the proposed rule. Chapter 

### 5 addresses the benefits of the proposed rule. Several additional impact analyses are presented in Chapter 

### 6

, including: small entity impact analysis, as mandated by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) ; a burden

- hour analysis that responds to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA); an analysis of unfunded mand ates that pertains to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA); an analysis of environmental justice implications that addresses the requirements of Executive Order 12898; and a n analysis of children’s health pertinent to Executive Order 13045.

Note that all dollar amounts in this analysis are reported in 20 1 2 dollars.3 

## 2 Chemical Uses and Manufacturers

2.1 Chemicals Subject to and Significant New Uses under the Proposed Rule

This SNUR applies to 1 5 n onylphenol (NP) and n onylphenol e thoxylate (NPE) chemicals

. Nonylphenol is composed of a phenol group with a nine carbon alkyl chain. Commercial NP is not a single chemical structure, but rather a complex mixture of isomers due to variance in both the branching of the alkyl chain and the alkyl chain’s position on t he phenol ring. Nonylphenol ethoxylates are part of the alkylphenol ethoxylate (APE) group and are composed of nonylphenols with between one and approximately 80 ethoxylate groups, though NPEs typically have between six and 12 ethoxy groups (OSPAR, 200 4 ).

NPEs are surfactants, a functional class of chemicals that provide increased surface activity and reduce the surface tension of water, allowing easier spreading, wetting, and better mixing of liquids. NPEs are considered “ workhorse” surfactants given thei r cost

- effectiveness and high performance in multiple applications. NP s and NPEs are produced in large volumes, with uses that lead to widespread release to the aquatic environment (EPA, 2012c). NPs and NPEs with only one or two ethoxy groups are persisten t, low

- to

- moderately bioaccumulative, and highly toxic to aquatic organisms. In general, toxicity to environmental organisms increases with decreasing degrees of ethoxylation for nonylphenolic compounds, with NPs being most toxic. NPEs with greater degrees of ethoxylation, while less toxic, degrade to the more toxic and persistent, less ethoxylated forms of these chemical substances in the environment. Available data indicate that these chemical substances are highly toxic to fish and invertebrates, causing lethality on an acute basis and effects on survival, growth, development, metabolism, reproduction, and fecundity with low

- level chronic exposures (Staples et al., 2004; Servos, 1999). EPA recognizes that NPs and NPEs may be endocrine bioactive ( Balaguer et al., 1999; Blair et al., 2000; Bonefeld

- Jørgensen et al., 2007; Danzo. 1997; Gong and Han, 2006; Kornet et al. 2009; Lee et al., 2003; Legler et al.. 1999; RTI

- International, 2007; Satoh et al. 2001; White et al., 1994)

. Ecological receptors can potent ially be significantly exposed to NPs and NPEs under current manufacturing practices as a result of surface water discharges from facilities that manufacture products containing NPs or NPEs (Ellis et al., 1982). Once released into the environment, NPs and NPEs tend to partition to sediments and accumulate (Naylor et al., 1992) . Thus, even if the discharges decrease, or cease, environmental exposures can continue. A range of levels of NPs and NPEs have been measured in surface water and sediment in U.S. wate rs. Certain NPEs are widely used in industrial processes and cleaning products
, including industrial laundry detergents, and are frequently found in wastewater and sewage treatment plant effluents, with subsequent discharge into the environment ( Bennett an d Metcalf, 1997) . Localized monitoring studies have found surface waters and sediments near industrial discharges contained NPs and NPEs (Bennett and Metcalf, 1997; Shackelford et al. 1983; Rice et al. 2003; and Ferrey, 2013)

. NPs and NPEs in freshwater a nd saltwater ecosystems can potentially cause ecological effects on all trophic levels of aquatic species exposed to them (EPA, 2005c)

.

EPA may promulgate a SNUR for a substance when its potential use could result in significant changes in human exposure or environmental release levels and/or that concern exists about the substance’s health or environmental effects (40 CFR §721.170). According to TSCA Section 5(a)(2), the determination that a chemical use qualifies as a significant new use must consider a ll relevant factors, including:

 The projected volume of manufacturing (including import ing) and processing of the chemical substance;

 The extent to which a use changes the type or form of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance;4

 The extent to which a use increases the magnitude and duration of exposure of human beings or the environment to a chemical substance; and

 The reasonably anticipated manner and methods of manufacturing, processing, distribution in commerce, and disposal o f a chemical substance.

Because of the toxicity of NP s and NPEs to aquatic organisms, EPA is proposing a SNUR for t he 15 chemicals listed in Table 1

. For 13 of those 15 chemicals, E P A found no indication that they are currently used in commerce and therefore considers them “dead chemicals

. ” EPA is proposing a SNUR for any manufactur ing (including import ing) or processing of these chemicals, so that the Agency may be informed of any intended use of these chemicals. E PA is also proposing a SNUR for any commercial use other than use as a chemical immediate or use as an epoxy curing catalyst for two NPs; branched 2

- nonyl p henol (CAS RN 91672

- 41

- 2 ) , and branched 4

- nonyl p henol (CAS RN 84852

- 15

- 3)

. EPA is of the opinion that NPs are only used commercially as chemical intermediates or in epoxy resin systems

.
Table 1 : CAS RN Number and Name s for Chemicals Subject to the Proposed SNUR CAS RN Chemical Abstract Index Name Alkyl Groups Type

Manufacturin g (I

ncluding I

mporti ng) or P

rocessing 1 104

- 40

- 5 Phenol, 4

- nonyl

- Linear, para

- NP 2 20427

- 84

- 3 Ethanol, 2

- [2

- (4

- nonylphenoxy)ethoxy]

- Linear, para

- NPE
3 27176

- 93

- 8 Ethanol, 2

- [2

- (nonylphenoxy)ethoxy]

- Linear, unspecified NPE

4 7311

- 27

- 5 Ethanol, 2

- [ 2

- [2

- [2

- (4

-

nonylphenoxy)ethoxy]ethoxy]ethoxy]

- Linear, para

- NPE

5 27177

- 05

- 5 3,6,9,12,15,18,21

- Heptaoxatricosan

- 1

- ol, 23

-

(nonylphenoxy)

- Linear, unspecified NPE

6 26571

- 11

- 9 3,6,9,12,15,18,21,24

- Octaoxahexacosan

- 1

- ol, 26

-

(nonylphenoxy)

- Linear, unspecif ied NPE

7 27177

- 08

- 8 3,6,9,12,15,18,21,24,27

- Nonaoxanonacosan

- 1

- ol, 29

-

(nonylphenoxy)

- Linear, unspecified NPE

8 26027

- 38

- 3 Poly(oxy

- 1,2

- ethanediyl),  (4

- nonylphenyl)

-

 hydroxy

Linear, para

- NPE

9 37205

- 87

- 1 Poly(oxy

- 1,2

- ethanediyl),  (isononylphenyl )

-

 hydroxy

Single branching point, unspecified NPE

10 51938

- 25

- 1 Poly(oxy

- 1,2

- ethanediyl),  (2

- nonylphenyl)

-

 hydroxy

Linear, ortho NPE

11 9016

- 45

- 9 Poly(oxy

- 1,2

- ethanediyl),  (nonylphenyl)

-  hydroxy

- Linear, poly NPE
12 25154

- 52

- 3 Phenol, nonyl

- Linear NP 13 27986

- 36

- 3 Ethanol, 2

- (nonylphenoxy)

- Linear NPE

All Uses Except Use as a Chemical Intermediate or as an Epoxy Cure Catalyst 14 84852

- 15

- 3 Phenol, 4

- nonyl

- , branched Branched NP 15 91672

- 41

- 2 Phenol, 2

- nonyl

- , branched Branched NP

A com pany would be expected to submit a SNUN for any of the 1 5 chemicals include d in the proposed SNUR prior to initiating a new use.



### 2.2 Production and Uses of Chemicals Subject to the Proposed Rule

2.2.1 20 12 CDR Data

Table 2 below contains production volume data from EPA’s 2012 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) for all chemicals subject to the proposed SNUR

.5

Table 2 : U

. S

. Production/Importation Volumes by Chemical

CASRN Chemical Abstract Index Name Type 2012 CDR Report s (lbs) Manufacturing (including importi ng) or processing 1 104

- 40

- 5 Phenol, 4

- nonyl

- NP N/A 1 2 20427

- 84

- 3 Ethanol, 2

- [2

- (4

- nonylphenoxy)ethoxy]

- NPE N/A 1
3 27176

- 93

- 8 Ethanol, 2

- [2

- (nonylphenoxy)ethoxy]

- NPE N/A 1

4 7311

- 27

- 5 Ethanol, 2

- [2

- [2

- [2

- (4

-

n onylphenoxy)ethoxy]ethoxy]ethoxy]

- NPE N/A 1

5 27177

- 05

- 5 3,6,9,12,15,18,21

- Heptaoxatricosan

- 1

- ol, 23

-

(nonylphenoxy)

- NPE N/A 1

6 26571

- 11

- 9 3,6,9,12,15,18,21,24

- Octaoxahexacosan

- 1

- ol, 26

-

(nonylphenoxy)

- NPE N/A 1

7 27177

- 08

- 8 3,6,9,12,15,18,21,24,27

- Nonao xanonacosan

- 1

- ol, 29

-

(nonylphenoxy)

- NPE N/A 1

8 26027

- 38

- 3 Poly(oxy

- 1,2

- ethanediyl),  (4

- nonylphenyl)

-

 hydroxy

NPE N/A 1

9 37205

- 87

- 1 Poly(oxy

- 1,2

- ethanediyl),  (isononylphenyl)

-

 hydroxy

NPE N/A 1

10 51938

- 25

- 1 Poly(oxy

- 1,2

- ethanediyl),  (2

- nonylphenyl)

-

 hydroxy

NPE N/A 1

11 9016

- 45

- 9 Poly(oxy

- 1,2

- ethanediyl),  (nonylphenyl)

-  hy droxy

- NPE 10

– 50 M 2
12 25154

- 52

- 3 Phenol, nonyl

- NP 0 3 13 27986

- 36

- 3 Ethanol, 2

- (nonylphenoxy)

- NPE N/A 1

All Uses Except Use as a Chemical Intermediate or as an Epoxy Cure Catalyst 14 84852

- 15

- 3 Phenol, 4

- nonyl

- , branched NP 100

- 500 M 15 91672

- 4 1

- 2 Phenol, 2

- nonyl

- , branched NP 1

- 10 M Notes: 1 EPA understands that these are “dead chemicals” and are not produced for commercial consumption.
2 EPA understands that the linear NPE (CASRN 9016

- 45

- 9) should have been reported as a branched NPE, and thus is not commercially manufactured.
3 CASRN 25154

- 52

- 3 was initially reported to the 2012 CDR in the range of 25k

- 500k lbs , but 2012 CDR reporters have corrected their reports, which results in the chemical having no production volume on the 2012 CDR. Source: EPA. 201 4 . Chemical Data Reporting Retrieved September 26 , 2013, from http://www.epa.gov/cdr

Branched 4

- nonylphenol (CASRN 84852

- 15

- 3) was reported to the 2012 CDR at 100

- 500 million pounds production vol ume. Branched 2

- nonylphenol (CASRN 91672

- 41

- 2) was reported to the 2012 CDR at 1

- 10 million pounds production volume.

Linear NPE, Poly(oxy

- 1,2

- ethanediyl),  (nonylphenyl)

-  hydroxy

- (CASRN 9016

- 45

- 9), was reported to the 2012 CDR with a 2011 production v olume ranging from 10 million to 50 million pounds. However, EPA believes that this linear NPE was incorrectly identified and the manufacturer was
, in fact
, producing a branched NPE (i.e., another chemical entirely). The other 12 linear NPs and NPEs have no reported production volume on the 2012 CDR. Phenol, nonyl

- (CASRN 25154

- 52

- 3 ), was initially reported to the 2012 CDR, but EPA understands that the chemical should have been reported as either branched NP CASRN 84852

- 15

- 3 or branched NP CASRN 91672

- 41

- 2. Companies who reported CASRN 25154

- 52

- 3 to the 2012 CDR have corrected their reports , which results in the chemical having no production volume on the 2012 CDR.6

NPs and NPEs consist of a nine carbon nonyl group in either branched or linear form bound at various positions (ortho, meta, or para) around a phenol ring. Nonylphenol is produced by the acid

- catalyzed reaction of nonene and phenol. The degree of branching of the nonene used in that reaction determines the degree of branching in the product N P. EPA’s understanding of the chemistry and engineering of commercial NP production is that it starts with nonene that is produced by acid

- catalyzed propylene trimerization. Nonene produced in this way is a complex mixture of highly branched alkenes and contains negligible amounts of linear olefins. Manufacturers combine this highly branched nonene with phenol in an acid

- catalyzed reaction. This reaction pathway is described in the literature and industry publications. For example, the Kirk

- Othmer Encyc lopedia of Chemical Technology states, “All commercially produced PNP [ para

- nonylphenol, or 4

- nonylphenol] is made from nonene based on the trimerization of propylene” (and therefore is highly branched) ( Lorenc, 2000) . Similarly, industry assessments state that commercial none ne (used to make NP) does not contain linear C 9 H 18 alpha

- olefin; rather, it is a complex mixture of highly branched, predominantly nine

- carbon olefins known as propylene trimers ( Klecka, 2005 ) . Additionally, some industrial sources assert th at linear NP is a laboratory chemical substance that is not used in commerce and is not a degradant found in the environment ( APERC, 2010 ) . D uring the de velopment of a testing consent order on 4

- nonylphenol (EPA, 1990 ) , the Alkylphenols and Ethoxylates Panel of the American Chemistry Council (ACC) stated that, a s it is currently manufactured, nonylphenol is a substance comprising mostly branched C9

- alkyl phenols and is best represented by phenol, 4

- nonyl

- , branched, ( CASRN 84852

- 15

- 3 )

.

2.2.2 Chemical Intermediates
The majority of NP production is used as a chemical intermediate to produce NPEs , accounting for nearly 80 percent of NP consumption (ICIS, 2007) . Other uses include use in the manufacture of tris

- (4

- nonylphenol) phosphite (also known as tris nonylphenol phosphite , TNPP )
, CASRN 26523

- 78

- 4
, a plastics stabilizer, and in the production of other chemicals such as phenolic resins (EPA, 2010 )

.
The 2012 CDR collected use data for both NP s: CASRN 84852

- 15

- 3 and CASRN 91 672

- 41

- 2. However, only consumer and commercial use data was reported for CASRN 84852

- 15

- 3

. The data are presented in Table 3 and Table 4

.
Table 3

. Consumer and Co mmercial Uses of NP in the United States as Reported to CDR in 20 12

CASRN Product Category Consumer or Commercial

84852

- 15

- 3 Laundry and Dishwashing Products Commercial

Paints and Coatings Commercial Ink, Toner, and Colorant Products Commercial Sourc e : EPA. 2013. Chemical Data Reporting Retrieved May 16, 2013, from http://www.epa.gov/cdr7

Table 4

. Industrial Uses of NP in the United States as Reported to CDR in 20 128

CASRN Industrial Sect or Function Category Type of Processing

84852

- 15

- 3 Adhesive Manufacturing Adhesives and sealant chemicals Processing as a reactant

Intermediates Processing

- incorporation into formulation, mixture, or reaction product

All Other Basic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Dyes Processing

- repackaging

Intermediates Processing

- incorporation into formulation, mixture, or reaction product Processing

- repackaging Ion exchange agents Processing as a reactant Process regulators Processing as a reactant Surface active agents Processing

- repackaging
Construction Adhesives and sealant chemicals Processing as a reactant Mining (except Oil and Gas) and support activities Surface active agents Processing

- repackaging
Miscellaneous Manufacturing Intermediat es Processing as a reactant Oil and Gas Drilling, Extraction, and Support activities Surface active agents Processing

- repackaging

Paint and Coating Manufacturing Adhesives and sealant chemicals Processing

- repackaging
Intermediates Processing as a re actant Surface active agents Processing

- repackaging Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing Surface active agents Processing as a reactant

Plastics Material and Resin Manufacturing Adhesives and sealant chemicals Process ing

- repackaging

Intermediates Processing as a reactant Processing

- repackaging
Plasticizers Processing as a reactant Processing aids, specific to petroleum production Processing as a reactant

Plastics Product Manufacturing Intermediates Proce ssing

- incorporation into formulation, mixture, or reaction product

Printing Ink Manufacturing Intermediates Processing as a reactant9

CASRN Industrial Sect or Function Category Type of Processing Processing

- incorporation into formulation, mixture, or reaction product Pigments Processing

- repackaging

Soap, Cl eaning Compound, and Toilet Preparation Manufacturing Intermediates Processing

- incorporation into formulation, mixture, or reaction product
Surface active agents Processing as a reactant Processing

- repackaging

91672

- 41

- 2 All Other Basic Organic Che mical

Manufacturing

Intermediates Processing

- incorporation into formulation, mixture, or reaction product Soap, Cleaning Compound, and Toilet Preparation Manufacturing Adhesive Manufacturing Plastics Product Manufacturing Printing Ink Manufac turing Source : EPA. 2013. Chemical Data Reporting Retrieved May 16, 2013, from http://www.epa.gov/cdr10

2.2.3 Epoxy Cure Catalysts
Nonylphenol is also used as a catalytic diluent in epoxy resins in household products (E PA, 2010 )

. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Household Products Database lists the chemical as an adhesive epoxy resin in four household products ( D HH S , 2011). Based on use data, EPA concludes that both CASRN 84852

- 15

- 3 and CASRN 91672

- 41

- 2 variants of nonylphenol are currently used as epoxy cure catalysts.



### 2.3 Potentially Affected Companies

T he proposed SNUR applies to processors as well as to manufacturers (including importers ) (40 CFR §721.5)

. It would require manufacturers (including impo rters ) and processors to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing the manufacturing (including import ing) or processin g of any of the subject chemicals for any significant new use

.
Table 5 provides a list of manufacture r s (including importers ) that reported information for the chemicals subject to the proposed rule in 2006 IUR or 2012 CDR submissions

. Additional producers were identified using the Directory of World Chemical Producers and ICIS reporting

. This list may be incomplete because it does not include processors. Furthermore, a company may claim production or import of a chemical as TSCA C onfidential Business Information (CBI) and
, therefore , would be excluded from the list in Table 5 . In addition, any site that manufacture d (including import ed ) less than 25,000 pounds of a chemical during the reporting year (2006 or 2012 ) wa s not required to submit data. Furthermore, polymers w ere exempt from 2006 IUR and 2012 C DR reporting, and NPEs are polymers. The proposed SNUR may also impact firms that currently do not manufacture, import, or process any of the 1 5 chemicals, but who may be interested in manufacturing (including importing ) or processing these chemicals in th e future.

Table 5 : Manufacture r s (Including Importers ) Potentia lly A ffected by the P roposed SNUR

Company Location(s) Source Berryman Chemical Houston, TX CDR Chemorse LTD Des Moines, IA CDR Chemtura Corporation Morgantown, WV D WCP, ICIS, IUR
Cognis Corporation (purchased by BASF in 2010) Ambler, PA DWCP Cincinnati, OH DWCP, IUR Dover Chemical (ICC Industries) Dover, OH CDR, DWCP, ICIS, IUR
Huntsman Advanced Materials Corporation Port Neches, TX DWCP The Woodlands, TX 1 C DR, DWCP, IUR, ICIS Norman Fox & Co. Vernon, CA CDR Oxiteno USA, LLC Naperville, IL CDR Royce Associates East Rutherford, NJ DWCP
SI Group Freeport, TX CDR, DWCP, ICIS, IUR Rotterdam Junction, NY 2 DWCP, ICIS, IUR
Solvchem Inc. Pearland, TX CDR Weat herford International Houston, TX CDR Notes:
1 Huntsman Corporation identifies itself as an importer of nonylphenol on its IUR report and is confirmed for 2009 in its annual 10K annual report filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (Huntsman, 2010).
2 The Rotterdam Junction facility appears to have ceased alkylphenols production (SI Group, 2006). Sources: EPA, 2013 (CDR) ; EPA
, 2012b (IUR) ; DWCP, 2009 ; ICIS, 200711 

## 3 Industry Compliance Costs

The proposed SNUR discussed in this report specifi es that any manufacturing (including import ing) or processin g of the chemicals for a designated significant new use will require reporting under section 5(a)(1)(A) of TSCA

. Therefore, a firm intending to manufacture (including import ) and/or process any of th ese chemical s for these applications must submit a SNUN

. Alternatively, a firm can decide not to manufacture (including import ) and/or process th e s e chemical s or to manufacture (including import ) and/or process these chemicals in such a way that it is n ot considered a significant new use

. The firm, therefore, has two options:

 Option 1 : Submit a SNUN

. A SNUN indicates to EPA that the firm would like to manufacture (including import ) and/or process the chemical for a significant new use, which, in this ca se,
means ( 1) any manufacturing (including import ing) or processing of a linear NP or NPE listed in Table 1 (CAS RN 104

- 40

- 5, CAS RN 20427

- 84

- 3, CAS RN 27176

- 93

- 8, CAS RN 7311

- 27

- 5, CAS RN 27177

- 05

- 5, CAS RN 26571

- 11

- 9, CAS RN 27177

- 08

- 8, CAS RN 26027

- 38

- 3
, CAS RN 37205

- 87

- 1
, CAS RN 51938

- 25

- 1 , CASRN 9016

- 45

- 9, CASRN 25154

- 52

- 3, and CASRN 27986

- 36

- 3 ) ; or (2 any use other than use as a chemical intermediate or use as an epoxy cure catalyst for Phenol, 4

- nonyl

- , branched (CAS RN 84852

- 15

- 3) and Phenol, 2

- nonyl

- , branched (CAS RN 91672

- 41

- 2)

. The firm must submit the SNUN to EPA at least 90 days before it plans to commence the manufacture (including import ) and/or processing of the new use of the substance; the SNUN provides EPA wi th the opportunity to evaluate the intended use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs

. If EPA allows the manufacture (including import ) and/or processing of any of the 1 5 chemicals for a significant new use, then the costs associated with this opt ion are the costs of submitting the SNUN (including a user fee) plus, if there is any export of these chemicals, the export notification costs that result from TSCA Section 12(b) requirements that are automatically triggered for che micals regulated under TSCA Section 5 (see Section 3.2.8 for details).

 Option 2 : Comply with SNUR limits ( not manufacture (including import ) and/or process a new use of the chemical )

. A firm can avoid engaging in a Significant New Use and submitting a SNUN by not manufactur ing (including import ) and/or processing any of the 1 5 listed chemicals in a manner such that they would be considered new uses

. That is, if the firm d oes not undertake ( 1) any manufacturing (including import i ng) or processing of a linear NP or NPE listed in Table 1 (CAS RN 104

- 40

- 5, CAS RN 20427

- 84

- 3, CAS RN 27176

- 93

- 8, CAS RN 7311

- 27

- 5, CAS RN 27177

- 05

- 5, CAS RN 26571

- 11

- 9, CAS RN 27177

- 08

- 8, CAS RN 26027

- 38

- 3
, CAS RN 37205

- 87

- 1
, CAS RN 51938

- 25

- 1 , CASRN 9016

- 45

- 9, CASRN 25154

- 52

- 3, and CASRN 27986

- 36

- 3 ) ; or (2 ) any use other than use as a chemical intermediate or use as an epoxy cure catalyst for Phenol, 4

- nonyl

- , branched (CAS RN 84852

- 15

- 3) and Phenol, 2

- nonyl

- , branched (CAS R N 91672

- 41

- 2)
, it would meet all applicable SNUR requirements. While this option avoids the costs of submitting a SNUN, it may entail the “hidden” cost of the foregone profit result ing from not engaging in the commercial activity originally planned, and ma y involve substituting one of the subject chemicals for another, more costly substance. If the firm elects to produce the chemical for research and development (R&D) purposes only (an exemption for R&D purposes is provided in 40 CFR §721.47), it may have c osts associated with R&D recordkeeping

. In addition, if the firm exports any existing stockpiles of the chemicals, it will incur the export notification costs. The firm may also pursue this option temporarily by complying with SNUR restrictions while also pursuing Option 1. Due to the uncertainty related to this option, and EPA’s expectation that affected entities will select Option 1
, the costs of Option 2 are not fully quantified in this report.

The remainder of this chapter estimates the quantified porti on of costs associated with the proposed SNUR

. Section 3.1 summarize s the wage rates used in this chapter

. Section 3.2 provides the unit industry12

compliance costs , including the cost s of rule familiarization, registration with the Central Data Exchange (CDX) electronic reporting tool
, complet ing the SNUN form
, submission fee
, import certification, and export notification

. Total costs under each option are presented in Sectio n 3.3

.


### 3.1 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 requ ired 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 co mbining 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 201 2 are provided by the Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) Supplemental Tables available on the BLS website (BLS, 201 3a ). The loaded wage rate is $ 7 2.87 for managerial labor; $ 64. 38 for technical labor; and $ 29. 51 for clerical labor. Table 6 presents the basic data used to calculate the loaded wage rates for all three categories of labor. Appendix A 

### : provides more information on the wage rates and inflators used in this analysis.

Table 6 : Loaded Industry Wage Rates, December 201 2

Labor Category Data Sources Date Wage ( 201 2 $) Fringe

Benefit ( 2012$ ) Fringes

as % wage Over

head % wage 2 Fringe + overhead factor Loaded

Wages 1 ( 2012$ )
(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 Dec

12 $43.95 $21.45 48.81% 17% 1.66 $72.87

Professional/ Technical BLS ECEC , Private

Manufacturing industries, “Professi onal and related“ 3 Dec

12 $38.53 $19.30 50.09% 17% 1.67 $64.38

Clerical BLS ECEC , Private

Manufacturing industries, “Office and Administrative Support”
3 Dec

12 $17.64 $8.87 50.28% 17% 1.67 $29.51

Notes:

1 Wage data are rounded to the closest pennies in this table; however, in calculations using these numbers for this report, unrounded values were used.
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 2012, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 18, 2013 (BLS, 2013a).13



### 3.2 Unit Industry Comp liance Costs

3.2.1 Rule Familiarization
The proposed rule requires submitters and their staff to become familiar with the SNUR and its various requirements. Rule familiarization is estimated to require 0.55 hours of technical labor and 0.27 hours of managerial labor, as described in the Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009b ), which measures the costs of mandatory electronic reporting of SNUNs and other TSCA Section 5 notices. As shown in Table 7
, the total labor cost associated with rule familiarization is $ 54. 84

.
Table 7 : Rule Familiarization Burden and Cost for SNUR Submitters

Reporting Activity Clerical Labor (at $29.51/hour) Technical Labor

(at $64.38/hour) Managerial Labor

(at $72.87/hour) Total Labor Cost (2012 $ ) Burden Cost Burden Cost Burden Cost Burden Cost Rule Familiarization 0.00 $0.00 0.55 $35.41 0.27 $19.43 0.82 $54.84 Note: Costs may not equal labor wage rate times burden hours as shown, due to rounding. Unrounded estimates were used during the actual cost calculations. Source: See Table 6 ; EPA, 2009b

.
3.2.2 CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup
The pro posed SNUR requires submission of a SNUN for any firm that chooses to manufacture (including import ) and/or process a chemical for a significant new use

. F irst

- time submitters of any TSCA section 5 notice (including Premanufacture Notices ( PMNs), SNUNs, Te st Market Exemption (TME) applications, Low Volume Exemption (LVE) notices, Low Exposure/Low Release (LoREX) exemption notices, Biotechnology Notices for genetically modified microorganisms, Notices of Commencement of Manufacture or Import (NOCs), and supp ort documents to S ection 5 notices ) must 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. 2 These activities are only required of first

- time submi tters of any S ection 5 notice . These activities are estimated to require the following burdens, based on the estimates presented in the Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009b ):

 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

com pany.

 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 mem bers and one manager per company, totaling 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 autho rized submitters to EPA. The total burden incurred by companies submitting and then verifying electronic signature agreements is 1.75 hours. Note that

2 Although the proposed rule does not 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.14

this burden does not include any additional time required to contact EPA’s CDX help desk to notify a chan ge of submitter status, should one occur.

Filing the electronic signature agreement may be done either through mail or electronically. EPA is of the opinion that the cost of electronic filing to be negligible, and the cost of a paper filing via the U

. S

. P ostal Service to be $2. 60 per company (including five $0. 4 6 stamps and five $0.0 6 business envelopes).

 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 8
, the labor cost assoc iated with CDX registration, CDX electronic signature, and Pay.gov account setup by a first

- time submitter is $ 1 89.31 . As noted above, an additional $2. 60 in mailing cost per company is attributable to these activities, for a total cost of approximately $1 92 per company.

Table 8 : CDX Registration, CDX Electronic Signature, and Pay.gov Account Setup Burden and Cost for First

- Time Submitters

Reporting Activity Clerical Labor (at $29.51/hour) Technical Labor

(at $64.38/hour) Managerial Labor

(at $72.87/hour) Total Labor Cost (2012 $ )

Burden Cost Burde

n Cost Burde

n Cost Burden Cost CDX Registration 0.00 $0.00 0.73 $47.21 0.18 $13.36 0.92 $60.57 CDX Electronic Signature 0.00 $0.00 1 $64.38 0.75 $54.65 1.75 $119.03 Mailing Cost $2.60 E

- Payment (Pay.gov ID) 0.00 $0.00 0.00 $0.00 0.13 $9.71 0.13 $9.71 Total 0.00 $0.00 1.73 $111.59 1.07 $77.72 2.80 $191.91 Note: Costs may not equal labor wage rate times burden hours as shown, due to rounding. U nrounded estimates were used d uring the actual cost calculations. Source: See Table 6 ; EPA, 2009b

.
3.2.3 Form Completion and Submission Fee
Respondents who choose to submit a SNUN are required to gather and submit information regarding the data el ements 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 compl y 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 o f completing a PMN submission, since the data requirements are the same and the same form is used for both

. The PMN submission costs came from EPA ’ s 1994 Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notification s, which relied on industry estimates of the15

effort needed to collect and compile all data required for a PMN submission, prepare the form, submit the form and data to EPA, and maintain a file of the submission ( EPA , 1994, Table III

- 2 and pages III

- 11,

- 12 , and

- 13)

. The 1994 estimates were based on a survey conducted by the Chemical Manufacturers Association, which became the American Chemistry Council

. These burdens include “the time spent reading and becoming familiar with the form, gathering the require d information and preparing the report, producing sanitized responses for items claimed as confidential business information, and maintaining a file of the submission” (EPA, 1994. p. III 11

- 13)

. The burden associated with SNUN submission and preparation ha s 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 bu rden and reduce the recordkeeping burden associated with preparing a SNUN (EPA, 2009b ). 3 In addition, electronic submission is expected to generate and 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.

SNUN form completion and electronic submission is estimated to require approximately 74 hours of technical labor and 18 hours of managerial labor (EPA, 2009b ). Table 9 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 i s $ 6,0 89

.
Table 9 : Industry Cost Estimate to Complete the SNUN Form
Reporting Activity Clerical Labor

(at $29.51/hour) Technical Labor (at $64.38/hour) Managerial Labor

(at $72.87/hour) Total Labor Cost (2012 $ ) Burden Cost Burde n Cost Burden Cost Burden Cost Form Completio

n 0.00 $0.00 74.20 $4,777.00 18.00 $1,311.66 92.2 $6,08 9

Note: Costs may not equal labor wage rate multiplied by burden hours as shown, due to round i ng

. Source s : Loaded wages include fringe benefits and ov erhead

. See Table 6 of this report for derivation

. 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 no t equal the product of rounded values. The estimate of no clerical burden is taken from the Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notice Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009b , page 7) Technical and managerial labor burden is from the PMN Amendments RIA (EPA, 1994, Table III

- 2)

. An additional eleven minutes (0.18 hours) of technical burden is estimated to complete the User Fee Payment Identification Number and Email Address data elements on the Electronic SNUN form (EPA, 2009b page 15).

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 10 adds the labor cost and submission fee to estimate the total cost of a SNUN submission. The total cost of a SNUN submission is $ 8, 5 89 for large business submitters and $ 6,1 89 for small business submitters.

3 The Economic Analysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule (EPA, 2009 a ) estimates a 0.5 hour cl erical and a 0.5 hour technical burden associated with recordkeeping in addition to the burden estimates from the 1994 RIA, which include the burden for recordkeeping ( EPA, 1994 , p. III

- 14) . T hese burden estimates are based on the recordkeeping burden for polymer exceptions and not the recordkeeping burden associated with PMN submissions. Therefore
, for this analysis we assume that any reduction in recordkeeping burden is captured in the reduction of the clerical burden, and we do not consider the one hour recordkeeping burden from the ePMN EA in order to avoid double counting

.16

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

Reporting Population Labor Cost Submission Fee Total Cost (20 1 2 $ ) Large Business Submitters $6,089 $2,500 $8,589 Small Business Submitters $6,089 $100 $6,189 Source : Table 9 ; EPA, 1994

3.2.4 Recordkeeping for Companies Choosing to Submit a SNUN
Companies submitting a SNUN must
, under 40 CFR §721.40
, keep records of the information contained in the SNUN . Some EPA reports have assumed that SNUN recordkeeping hours would be five percent of SNUN submission hours, or about fi ve to six hours. 4 For this report, the SNUN recordkeeping hours were included in the SNUN submission hours (see Section 3.2.3 ) and the SNUN recordkeeping cost s under 40 CFR §721.40 were not separately estimated. 5

3.2.5 Recordkeeping for Companies T hat D o N ot Submit a SNUN

If a firm that manufactures (including imports ) or processes a substance subject to the proposed SNUR chooses not to submit a SNUN, they must keep records that document compliance with SNUR conditio ns for avoiding a Significant New Use. Such recordkeeping requirements essentially involve copying and filing relevant records, including those related to category of use and marketing
, and production volume

. Records must be maintained for five years from the date of their creation ( 40 CFR § 721. 40) . For firms that choose to not submit a SNUN, costs for compliance with the recordkeeping requirements are estimated to be five percent of the reporting burden for reporting information for a specific section of t he SNUN form (EPA, 2005b, pages 10 and 14). EPA expects this activity to be performed by professional/technical staff

. EPA used the per

- activity burden for reporting, human exposure, category of use and releases to the environment presented in the Informat ion Collection Request (ICR) for TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing Chemicals (Renewal) (EPA, 2005b, page 12). Any clerical burden associated with these activities was removed to reflect the burden r eduction associated with electro nic submissions (EPA, 2009b ). However, EPA expects that only manufactures of Phenol, 4

- nonyl

- , branched (CAS 84852

- 15

- 3) and/or Phenol, 2

- nonyl

- , branched (CAS 91672

- 41

- 2) , may choose to keep these records to show the chemicals are only being used as a che mical intermediate or as an epoxy cure catalyst.

The total recordkeeping burden for a company that does not submit a SNUN is estimated to be 0.15 hours and $ 9.66 and is derived in Table 11

.

4 For example, OPPT’s Information Collection Request (ICR) for TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing Chemicals (Renewal), October 11, 2005, estimates SNUN record keeping costs at 5.67 hours (ICR 118.08, page 1 5 ).
5 SNUN submission costs estimated in Section 3.2.3 of this report were based on PMN submission costs from a 1994 report, Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendmen ts 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 “maintai ning 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 (page III

- 10 of EPA 1994) included recordkeeping hours.17

Table 11 : Annual Per

- Chemical Costs of Recordkeeping Requirement for Companies that Choose not to Submit a SNUN

Reporting Activity Total Burden Associated per Activity (Hours) Percent of

Reporting Burden Attributed to Recordkeeping Recordkeeping Burden

(hours) ( 2012$ )

Category of use 1 3 5% 0.15 $9.66 Sources:
1 EPA, 2005 b Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Information Collection Request (ICR) for TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing Chemicals (Renewal) (page 13 )

3.2.6 Cust omer Notification

Manufacturers (including importers) and processors of chemicals subject to SNURs must notify recipients of such chemicals of the SNUR or verify that knowledge of the SNUR has been otherwise acquired by recipients, or that the recipients a re unable to engage in significant new uses. Since it is not expected that all such entities will have complete knowledge of all uses of any products subject to a SNUR, and because filing a SNUN could require significantly more burden, it is assumed that m anufacturers (including importers) and processors will most often choose to notify their customers of SNUR regulatory activities. As this notification may be accomplished by simply annotating an MSDS, EPA estimates the associated burden to be about one hou r of a technical employee ’ s time or $ 64. 38 per manufacturer (including importer) or processor per chemical. The proposed SNUR will cover a total of 1 5 chemicals; however
, EPA understands that 1 3 of these chemicals are not used in commerce and therefore hav e no manufacturer s (including importers) or processor s. Therefore, customer notifications will only be performed for two chemicals , CASRN 84852

- 15

- 3 and CAS RN 91672

- 41

- 2

.
3.2.7 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

- 12.127 and 19 CFR § 127.28 for all imports of the relevant chemical substances. Thus, any U.S. manufacturer (including importer ) or processor receiving an imported s hipment of chemicals subject to the proposed SNUR would have to certify that all chemical substances in the shipment either comply with all applicable rules and orders under TSCA or that all chemical substances in the shipment are not subject to TSCA. 6 The statement must be on or attached to a commercial invoice or entry document belonging to the imported shipment.

I mport certification is fulfilled by checking a box on an invoice or entry document and EPA assumes this generally imposes no additional burden or cost on the importer. Any potential burden associated with a submitter’s familiarization with this requirement is assumed to be included in the more general SNUR familiarization burden discussed above.

3.2.8 Export Notification

Under Section 12(b) of TSCA, ex porters must notify EPA if they export or intend to export a chemical subject to various TSCA sections (40 CFR § § 707.60

- 75)

. For TSCA 5(a)(2) (the section under which

6 The exact statements are as follows: For imports of chemical substances subject to TSCA, “I certify that all chemical substances in this shipment comply with all applicable rules or orders under TSCA and that I am not offering a chemical substance for entry in violation of TSCA or any applica ble rule or order under TSCA.” For imports of chemical substances not subject to TSCA (e.g., pesticides), “I certify that all chemicals in this shipment are not subject to TSCA.” ( 40 CFR 707.20 )18

EPA promulgates SNURs ) and certain other TSCA sections, this is a one

- time notification r equirement 7 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

. Department of State (40 CFR §707.70)

. To calculate the burden associated with making a single export notification, EPA first estimated the average annual number of export notifications made by an exporter

. EPA then derived the annual and per notification burden associated with preparing and submitting an export notification

.
EPA estimated the average burden associated with making a single notification, but did not estimate either the total number of exporters of a SNUR chemical or the number of notifications per SNUR chemical

. This is because the SNURs apply to a variety of different chemi cals with a variety of unrelated uses, manufacture r s, and processors, making it impractical within the resources available for this report to assess the potential number of exporters and importing countries per chemical

. Most underlying data in this secti on come from t he ( 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR )
, ICR No.: 0795.13 OMB Control Number 2070

- 0030 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports

- TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Red uction Act (EPA, 2009c )

. Estimated Number of Annual Export Notifications per Exporter
EPA’s 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR estimated that the average exporter making notifications will make 12 notifications per year

. 8 This includes notifications resulting f rom SNURs and notifications resulting from other TSCA activities

. Therefore, it is likely that an exporter will make less than 12 notifications per year as a result of this proposed SNUR. A notification is typically no more than one page per chemical/count

ry combination, and one notification mailing often includes multiple chemicals and/or destination countries. 9

The percent of notifications resulting from S NUR s in general is unknown, and it is also unknown how many notifications may result from this rulem aking, as not all manufacturers may choose to export a chemical, or they may make several notifications for a single chemical.

Exporter Costs

The 2009 TSCA Section 12(b) ICR (EPA, 2009b, page 11, Table 3), estimated the annual export notification cost for an exporter under the one

- time export notification requirement

. These costs include the cost to the exporter of compiling a list of their products that are subject to TSCA Section 12(b) requirements, writing or revising an export notification letter to EP A, checking the outgoing shipments, and sending the notification letters with the associated shipping costs

.
The per

- notification cost was calculated based on the average burden per firm

. Exporters who mak e a larger number of n otifications per year may ben efit from economies of scale and have lower costs per notification; conversely firms making fewer notifications may have a higher cost per notification.

7 On November 14, 2006, EPA revised the export notification r equirement for chemicals subject to TSCA §5(a)(2), 5(b), 5(e)(1) and 5(e)(2) from an annual to a one

- time requirement per destination country for each exporter (November 14, 2006, 71 FR 66234).
8 EPA calculated the average number of export notifications pe r exporter 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 ).
9 Based on review by an EPA economist of notifications received under TSCA Sections 4 , 5 and 6 over approximately three weeks in early 2010.19

Estimated Submission (Mailing) Costs

. Regulated companies will incur mailing costs for export notificat ions delivered to EPA

. Notifications are assumed shipped via the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) as first

- class registered mail with a return receipt (USPS, 201 2 )

. The estimated per

- shipment and annual mailing costs incurred by individual submitters are detaile d in Table 12

.

Table 12 : Derivation of Total Mailing Cost for 12 Notices Postal S ervice Cost Registered mail, regular, with $0 declared value $10.95 Return receipt, requested at time of m ailing (receive by mail) $2.35 Postage, regular First Class, up to 1 ounce $0.45 Cost per export notice

- Subtotal $13.75
× 12 Total Mailing Cost for 12 Notices $165
Source: Mailing rates are from the U

. S

. Postal Service web site as of March 2012 (h ttp://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, 2005a), as clarified in a later SNUR economic analysis (EPA, 2007c, Table 8)

.

Compile and Maintain the List of Products

. Since TSCA §12(b) information collection activity has been in place for twenty years, most respondents will have already developed a list of their products subject to TSCA §12(b) export notification

. Responde nts need only check for new regulations promulgated and any new products exported by the company

. Updating the list is estimated to take an average of one hour of technical time, which may also include some proportion of legal time (EPA, 2009c )

. The total burden can vary from two hours per year up to two hou rs per month, depending on the number of products exported by the company and the number of their products subject to TSCA §12(b) (EPA, 2009c ).

The number of submitters per year who report under TSCA §12 (b) has varied over time, rising from around 160 in 1991 to over 460 in 2000, and declining since

. In the most recent TSCA §12(b) ICR, EPA estimated there would be approximately 300 submitters per year in near

- future years (EPA, 2009c )

. Of these 300 submit ters, EPA estimated that 200 companies were near the lower burden estimate of two hours per year, and 100 companies were near the upper estimate of 24 hours per year

. Compiling the list for all respondents was therefore estimated to take 2,800 hours (2 hou rs x 200 firms plus 24 hours x 100 firms), or an average of about 9.3 hours of technical time per firm per year for 12 notifications per year (EPA, 2009c ).

Write or Revise Export Notification

. Companies that export chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) reportin g 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 a verage of one hour of technical time (which may also include some proportion of legal time) per firm per year for 12 notifications per year (EPA, 2009c ).

Check Orders and Send Notifications

. Companies that export chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) reporting must check outgoing shipments against the list of their products described above

. A form letter notifying EPA and providing the required data must be printed and mailed within the required time period

. This process is estimated to take an average one half hour of clerical time per export notification

or six hours for 12 notifications (EPA, 2009c )

. The burdens and associated costs for each notification activity are provided in Table 13

. EPA estimates that the burden associated with making one notification is approximately 1.36 hours and $ 83.76

.20

Table 13 : TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost per Notification Technical Clerical Total $/Hr Hours 201 2 $ $/Hr Hours 201 2 $ Hours 201 2 $ Compile li st $64.38 9.3 $599

-- -- -- 9.3 $599 Write letter $64.38 1 $64

-- -- -- 1 $64 Check order and send notice -- -- -- $29.51 6 $177 6 $177 Mailing cost 1

-- -- -- -- -- -- -- $165 Total per average facility 2` 10.30 $663.11 6.00 $177.06 16.3 0 $1,005 Total per Notification $0.86 $55.26 0.50 $14.76 1.36 $83.76 Notes: Costs may not equal labor wage rate times burden hours as shown due to round ing. U nrounded estimates were used during the actual cost calculations.
1 Mailing costs ref

lect March 2012 USPS rates and can be found in Table 12

. 2 An average facility submitting notifications is assumed to submit 12 export notifications per year. Source: Appendix A of this report derives technical and clerical hourly labor costs

. Other costs are from ICR No.: 0795.13 [Information Collection Request for] Notification of Chemical Exports

- TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (EPA, 2009c
, p.1 0), and are updated to 20 1 2 dollars

. 

### 3.3 Summary of Per Submission Costs, by Option

The number of firms affected by not making submissions to EPA is un known; therefore, costs are not aggregated across the affected entities

. The following table summarizes the costs to comply with the proposed rule amendment, as described in more detail in section 3.2 above.

Table 14 : Compliance Options and Associated Costs Incurred by a Firm Due to the Propos ed SNUR Option 1 Costs Quantified Costs per Chemical ( 2012$ ) 2

1. Electronic submission of a Significant New Use Notice (SNUN), indicating to EPA that the firm would like to manufacture (including import ) or process the chemical for a Significant New Use as defined in the SNUR. Costs of submitting a SNUN,

including rule familiarization, CDX registration (for companies that are first

- time submitters), form completion, user fee, export notification, and any test costs

. $54.84 rule familiarization cost; $8,589 submission cost (including SNUN recordkeeping and fee $2,500 for large businesses). EPA usually receives well under ten SNUNs per year. Export notifications costs are estimated at $ 83.76 per notification; total cost per company will vary. First time submi tters would incur $191.91 for CDX registration and associated activities. Companies manufacturing (including importing ) or processing a chemical currently used in commerce in the United States will incur a cost $ 64.38 for notifying consumers of SNUR regula tory activities.

2. Manufacture (including import ) or process in a way that avoids a Significant New Use. Cost of the profit foregone as

a result of not engaging in the commercial activity originally planned (opportunity costs), recordkeeping, and export notification costs. Opportunity costs are not quantified. Other costs include rule familiarization ($54.84), recordkeeping ($ 9.66 ), and

e xport notification costs ($ 83.76 per notification) may apply. Recordkeeping costs include costs for use type.

Notes : 1 Firms may be subject to both options at once since submission of a SNUN results in profits foregone as a result of not manufa cturing (including importing ) or processing the chemical.
2 Quantified costs are attributable to the SNUR only if a firm would not otherwise follow the specified practices. Costs are detailed in Section 3.2

. 3 EPA does not require the development of test data for submission of a SNUN, although a firm may submit test data already in i ts possession and/or describe any other available data. Because EPA does not require the development of test data, EPA assumes t hat no firms will incur testing costs as a result of the proposed SNUR.21



### 3.4 Likelihood of SNUN Submission

This analysis assumes that very few entities are expected to submit a SNUN

. EPA has, over the years, promulgat ed SNURs that cover a total of more than 1,000 chemicals

. In response , the Agency receives only a handful of SNUNs per year

. For example, the number of SNUNs received was si x in Federal fiscal year (FY) 2007, and eight in FY2008, seven in FY2009 , two in FY2010, and ten in FY2011

. 10 In addition,

as discussed in sections 2.2.1 through 2.2.2
, all of the chemicals subject to this proposed rule are currently not being used for any significant new use. This suggests that it is unlikely a firm will submit a SNUN

. 

### 3.5 Potential for Subsequent Regulatory Actions

The Agency recognizes that if submissi on of a SNUN does result from a 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 activ ity 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 SNUN

. Any such actions are highly dependent on the circumstances surrounding the individual SNUN (e.g., available information and scientific understanding about the chemical and its risks at the time the SNUN is being reviewed)

. Should the Agency’s review of the SNUN result in further reg ulatory 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.

10 Count of SNUN Submissions as tracked in EPA’s Confidential Business Information Tracking System (CBITS). February,February 2012 (EPA, 2012a).22 

## 4 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 costs to review PMNs

.


### 4.1 Labor Rates for EPA Staff

Agency labor costs are calculated based on annual Federal salaries for the Washington

- Baltimore area published by the O ffice of Personnel Management effective January 201 2 (OPM, 201 2 )

. 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. 11 The average salary for a GS

- 13 Step 5 employee was $ 100,904 in 201 2 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 (EPA, 20 09d ) , which results in a fully loaded annual salary of $ 161,446 (see Table 15 )

. Dividing the fully loaded annual salary by 2,080 hours (i.e., the number of hours in a work year) yields an hourly FTE wage rate of $ 7 7.62

. Fully loaded costs for Agency labor are shown in Table 15

.
Table 15 : Derivation of Loaded Agency Wage Rates

Labor Category Data Source for Wage

Information Date Wage Fringe Benefit Fri nges

as % wage Overhead

as % wage Fringe +

overhead factor Loaded

Wages
(a) (b) (c)=(b)/(a) (d) (e)=(c)+(d)+1 (f)=(a)*(e)

EPA staff FTE Annual Federal staff cost: OPM Washington

- Baltimore

Northern Virginia, DC

- MD

PA

- VA

- WV, area, GS

- 13 Step 5 pay rates , with 60% overheads a

. Jan

201 1 $100,904 (annual)

-- [Included

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

$48.51 (hourly) $77.62 (hourly)

Notes :

a The A gency salary is the unloaded federal GS

- 13 Step 5 salary ($100,904 for 201 2 ), from the OPM s alary table for the Washington

- Baltimore

- Northern Virginia Locality Pay Area (OPM, 20 1 2 )

. Hourly rates are based on annual salary divided by 2,080 hours.
b The 60% fringes

- and

- overhead rate is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Preparing Information Colle ction Requests (ICRs) (EPA, 2009d )

. 

### 4.2 SNUN Processing Costs

The list of review steps, estimates of extramural costs, and the percent of chemicals requiring a particular review step are derived from the costs for processing PMN submissions in Table VII

- 1 of a 1994 EPA report, Regulatory Impact Analysis of Amendments to Regulations for TSCA Section 5 Premanufacture Notifications (EPA, 1994 )

. The a gency burden associated with processing a PMN has been adjusted to reflect burden reductions resulting from the 20 09 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 A gency burden by 16.5 percent (EPA, 2009c , p.28 ).

11 The GS

- 13 Step 5 is consistent with ICR No. 0574.14 ( 12/18/2007) ( EPA, 2007a ), which covers PMN SNURs. Use of this grade level follows the approach introduced in EPA , 2007b . That report represented a change from an earlier PMN SNUR economic analysis ( EPA, 2003 ), which used an average of GS

- 12 Step 1 and GS

- 1 2 Step 10 salaries.23

For each review step, the “EPA staff” cost is calculated by multiplying the number of FTEs (in the first column) by the fully loaded hourly salary

. This shows EPA staff cost for chemicals requiring the selected review step.

The Extramural Cost column shows costs for contractor support and other outside purchases for chemicals requiring the selected review step , and is inflated from 1993 prices using the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index (ECI) data (BLS, 201 2 b ). T he not seasonal ly adjusted E CI for total compensation of private industry professional and related workers (Series ID CIU2010000120000I ) is used because it is the only series with continuous data since 1985, and that includes professional and technical labor, which perform the majority of Agency extramural ac tivities. Tab le 16 contains the derivation of inflation factors for Agency extramural costs.

Tab le 16 : Derivation of Inflation Factors for Agency Extramural Costs

Item Inflation Index S ource 1 Starting year Index for

starting year (a) Index

for 20 12 (b) Inflation factor (b)/(a) 2
Agency Extramural costs White collar labor; equipment; supplies BLS ECI, NSA, Total comp, Private industry, Professional and related
, 4 th Q [BLS 2012b] 3 1993 67.0 118.2 1.76

Notes:
1 In 2006, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index (ECI) series “were rebased to December 2005 = 100 from June 1989 = 100.” The change is reflected in the indices in this table and explained on the BLS website, Employment Cost Index News Release Text: Employment Cost Index, March 2006 (BLS, 2006b ). The Consumer Price Index (CPI) was not rebased

. 2 Inflation factors are rounded to three decimal places in this table, but calculations in this report use the unrounded values

. 3 Beginning with the report Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 25 Chemical Substances: EPA Docket OPPT

- 2009

- 0922 (EPA
, 2011 ), we began to use the not

- seasonally adjusted CIU2010000120000I for private industry Professional, and Related workers, instead of SA CIS2010000W00000I for private industry white collar workers because BL S retired the “white

- collar” series. Source: BLS, 2012 b . Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index

– Total Compensation: Professional and Related Private Industry, Not Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: CIU2010000120000I (B)), extracted March 22, 2012. http:/data.bls.gov/cgi

bin/srgate.

The Percent of Cases column in Table 17 is a weighting factor applied t o reflect the fact that not all chemicals require each review step

. For example, in the PMN process, all chemicals require Administrative Prescreening, but not all chemicals require the intensive scrutiny of “Standard Review.” The three types of submissio ns 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 requir e 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 li kelihood 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

. The refore, 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 percen tage of cases requiring this review step

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

. This calculation yields total Agency costs of $ 5,0 86 per SNUN, for submissio n review and processing, as shown in Table 17

.24

Table 17 : Agency Costs for SNUN and Other Submission Review and Processing

Review Steps EPA staff (FTE) Cost Extramural Cost
2 Unweighted

Cost Pct.

of Cases Weighted

Cost 3 ePMN

Burden Reduction 4 Weighted

Cost with ePMN Burden Reduction FTE fraction Cost per

FTE 1 FTE Total

($20 11 ) 1993

dollars 201 2

dollars (a) (b) (c)=(a)*(b) (d) (e) (f)=(c)+(e) (g) (h)=(f)*(g) (i) (j)=(h)*(1

- (i)) Pre

- n otice consultation 0.0024 $161,446 $387.47 $4.00 $7.06 $395 41% $161.76 0.165 $135 Administrative prescreen/ notice receipt/user fee 0.0024 $161,446 $387.47 $92.00 $162.30 $550 100% $549.78 0.165 $459
CRSS (Chemical Review and Search Strategy ) 0.0025 $161,446 $403.62 $268.00 $472.80 $876 100% $876.42 0.165 $732
SAT (Structure Activity Team) 0.0006 $161,446 $96.87 $14.00 $24.70 $122 100% $121.57 0.165 $102
Engineering/Exposure 0.0015 $161,446 $242.17 $56.00 $98.79 $341 100% $3 40.96 0.165 $285 Exposure/Fate 0.0008 $161,446 $129.16 $0.00 $0.00 $129 100% $129.16 0.165 $108
Focus 0.0009 $161,446 $145.30 $23.00 $40.58 $186 100% $185.88 0.165 $155 Standard Review Functions 0.0219 $161,446 $3,535.68 $511.00 $901.50 $4,437 29% $1,286.78 0.165 $1,074 Division Directors Meeting 0.0129 $161,446 $2,082.66 $113.00 $199.35 $2,282 15% $342.30 0.165 $286 Order Development/Negotiation Review 0.0171 $161,446 $2,760.73 $22.00 $38.81 $2,800 3% $83.99 0.165 $70

Post Order Data Review 0.0886 $161,446 $14,304.15 $0.00 $0.00 $14,304 3% $429.12 0.165 $358 Order Modification 0.2167 $161,446 $34,985.43 $0.00 $0.00 $34,985 3% $1,049.56 0.165 $876
New Chemical SNUR Development 0.0277 $161,446 $4,472.07 $8 5.00 $149.96 $4,622 7% $323.54 0.165 $270

Notices of Commencement 0.0012 $161,446 $193.74 $40.00 $70.57 $264 31% $81.93 0.165 $68 FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) Requests 0.0333 $161,446 $5,376.17 $287.00 $506.32 $5,882 1% $58.82 0.165 $ 49
CBI (Confidential Business Information) Substantiation 0.0004 $161,446 $64.58 $3.00 $5.29 $70 100% $69.87 0.165 $58

TOTAL $6,091 $5,086 Notes:
1 GS

- 13 Step 5 salaries loaded with benefits and overhead

. See Table 15 for derivation.
2 Extramural costs consist of contracting support and other purchases directly attributable to the PMN review process inflated from 1993 prices using Tab le 16

. 3 Weighted cost s were calculated using unrounded unit cost estimates, so results may differ from calculations using the rounded values shown in thi s table.
4 Electronic submission is expected to generate a cost savings of 16.5% to the Agency (EPA 2009c , p. 28). Sources: FTEs per review step, 1993 extramural costs, and percents of cases are from EPA, 1994 Table VII

- 1, GS

- 13 salaries are from OPM, 201 2

.25



### 4.3 Export Notification Cost

Under TSCA Section 12(b), exporters must notify EPA if they intend to export chemicals subject to S NURs, as described in Section 3.2.8

. The A gency burden and cost due to TSCA §12(b) export notification result from three tasks

. In the first task, EPA receives export notifications from companies that intend to export one of the chemicals subject to TSCA §12(b) (EPA, 2009c )

. 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 impor ting country’s US embassies (EPA, 2009c )

. (See Table 12 for the cost of mailing one notification). The third task is comprised of EPA staff responses to public inquiries and other TSCA 12(b) activities

. The work of responding to non

- routine requests for information and clarification from industry and importing countries, and of handling other tasks associated with the TSCA §12(b) program, was estimated to require roughly 400 hours per year (EPA, 2009c )

. Since the cu rrent rulemaking covers only a very small percent of the chemicals subject to TSCA 12(b) reporting, a very small percent of such activity will be attributable to the current rulemaking.

B ecause it is unknown how many, if any, notifications EPA will receiv e or send 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 18

. To estimate the Agency cost, hourly burde ns are multiplied by the loaded wage rate of a GS

- 13, Step 5, which is derive d in Table 18

.

Table 18 : TSCA 12(b) Export Notification Cost: Agency Burden per Activity ( 2012$ )

Agency Activity Hours per

Activity FTE per

Activity 1 Loaded Mailing Cost Total Agency Cost

per Activity GS

- 13, Step 5 FTE Wage Rate
(a) (b) =

(a)/2,080 (c) (d) (e) = ((b)*(c))+(d) Process an incoming notification from an exporting company 0.1 0.00005 $161,446 $ 0.00 $7.76

Prepare and mail a notification to an importing country 0.5 0.00024 $161,446 $14.21 $53.02

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: Appendix A of this report derives Agency labor costs

. Mailing costs are from Table 12 of this report. Other burdens are from ICR No.: 0795.13 [Information Collection Request for] Noti fication of Chemical Exports

- TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act (EPA 2009c ), updated for inflation.26 

## 5 Benefits

A SNUN submission provides EPA with the opportunity to evaluate the intend ed use and, if necessary, to prohibit or limit that activity before it occurs. It allows the Agency to take immediate action to mitigate an activity that the Agency deems harmful to the environment or human health. The proposed SNUR allows EPA to evaluate the use of, or exposure to these chemicals and allow the Agency to take preventive action to limit or prohibit any Significant New Use.

NPs and NPEs are produced in large volumes, with uses that lead to widespread release to the aquatic environment (EPA, 2012c). Ecological receptors can potentially be significantly exposed to NPs and NPEs under current manufacturing practices as a result of surface water discharges from facilities that manufacture products containing NPs or NPEs (Ellis et al., 1982), and c ertain NPEs widely used in industrial processes and cleaning products are frequently found in wastewater and sewage treatment plant effluents, with subsequent discharge into the environment ( Bennett and Metcalf, 1997). Once released into the environment, N Ps and NPEs tend to partition to sediments and accumulate (Naylor et al., 1992). A range of levels of NPs and NPEs have been measured in surface water and sediments in U.S. waters (Bennett and Metcalf, 1997; Shackelford et al. 1983; Rice et al. 2003; and F errey, 2013). NPs and NPEs in freshwater and saltwater ecosystems can potentially cause ecological effects on all trophic levels of aquatic species exposed to them (EPA, 2005c). In general, toxicity to environmental organisms increases with decreasing deg rees of ethoxylation for nonylphenolic compounds, with NPs being most toxic. NPEs with greater degrees of ethoxylation, while less toxic, degrade to the more toxic and persistent, less ethoxylated forms of these chemical substances in the environment. Avai lable data indicate that these chemical substances are highly toxic to fish and invertebrates, causing lethality on an acute basis and effects on survival, growth, development, metabolism, reproduction, and fecundity with low

- level chronic exposures (Balag uer et al., 1999; Blair et al., 2000; Bonefeld

- Jørgensen et al., 2007; Danzo. 1997; Legler et al.. 1999; Satoh et al. 2001; White et al., 1994; Lee et al., 2003; Gong and Han, 2006; Kornet et al. 2009; RTI

- International, 2007).

The proposed SNUR allows E PA to address the environmental effects that may result from releases of NP s and NPE s into aquatic environment s by allowing the Agency to evaluate the use of these chemicals
, and to take preventive action to limit or prohibit any Significant New Use

. EPA a lso expects that the proposed rule may restrict future uses of the chemicals, as a company may choose modify planned uses, in such a way that does not trigger a SNUR, as opposed to submitting a SNUN. Therefore, the proposed SNUR may limit future exposure t o the chemicals

.27 

## 6 Additional Analyses

6.1 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 regulati ons on small entities, in particular small businesses. The requirement to submit a SNUN applies to any person (including small or large entities) who intends to engage in any activity described in the rule as a significant new use. Where a use is new, by d efinition no small or large entities presently engage in such activities. Although some small entities may decide to manufacture or process a substance for the new use after the SNUR is promulgated, EPA receives very few SNUNs, and few of those are submitt ed by small entities. In response to the promulgation of SNURs covering over 1,000 chemical substances, the Agency receives only a handful of SNUNs per year. For example, the number of SNUNs was four in Federal fiscal year 2005, eight in FY2006, six in FY2 007, eight in FY2008, seven in FY2009, two in 2010, and ten in 2011 (EPA, 2012 a ), for an average of 6 per year from all SNURs. EPA has no reason to believe that this SNUR would alter the pattern of SNUN submissions that EPA has historically seen. In additi on, the estimated reporting cost for submission of a SNUN is minimal regardless of the size of the firm, averaging about $8, 6 00 including SNUN recordkeeping and reporting costs. The Agency currently offers some relief to certain small businesses with sales (including those of subsidiary/parent companies) of less than $40 million per year by reducing the SNUN submission fee from $2,500 to $100. This lower fee reduces the cost of submitting a SNUN to about $ 6
, 2 00 for smaller firms. During the six year period from 2005

- 2010, only three submitters self

- identified as small in their SNUN submission (EPA, 2012 a )

. 12

For this proposed SNUR
, EPA was able to identify manufacturer s (including importer s ) of the subject chemicals based on confidential IUR data

. EPA iden tified the ultimate parent company and obtained sales and employment data from Hoovers; a Dun & Bradstreet Company (Dun & Bradstreet, 201 3 ), 13 following a rigorous search and matching procedure . All thirteen companies identified as manufacturers (including importers were found in the Hoovers database, resulting in thirteen parent companies. EPA then identified

“ small ” parent companie s based on the Small Business Administration’s table of size standards in the Small Business Size Regulations, 13 CFR 121.201. These definitions for small business are provided for industries in each North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code
, and are based on either a company’s number of employees or its sales, depending on SBA’s criteria for that industry (SBA, 2 0 12 ). For the parent companies subject to this proposed rule, the size standards range from less than 100 employees to less than 1,000 employees ( SBA, 20 12 ). Based on these definitions, EPA identif ied seven small parent compan ies that manufacture (includin g import ) any of the chemicals subject to this rule

. The RFA does not analytically define the terms “significant” or “substantial” with regard to extent of economic impact and number of small entities affected. In past SNUR economic analys e s , EPA has defi ned a lower impact threshold as compliance costs of less than 1 percent of sales and a higher impact threshold as compliance costs of greater than 3 percent of sales to evaluate whether or not the economic impacts faced by the small entities are significan t. As shown in Table 14
, it is difficult to aggregate the total cost per SNUN for a company, as total cost is dependent on several factors including the number of

12 The three “small” submitters were identified by a review of actual SNUN submissions from the years 2005

- 201 1

. 13 Dun and Bradstreet is a New York

- based company that provides business information through a global commercial database; Ho overs. It assigns DUNS numbers to identify businesses around the world. These numbers are required for many U.S. federal government transactions and therefore are widely used and assigned. DUNS numbers are also frequently used in corporate research. Databa se entries provide legal and trade names, physical and mailing addresses, geographical descriptions, product and industry descriptors, sales and number of employees for three years and associated gro wth rates, as well as up to 40 vital statistics about eac h organization. While the reporting year varied by company, company sales and employment data were primarily retrieved from the database in 2011

.28

export notification and whether or not a company is a first time submitter of a Section 5 notice. However, assuming a company submits one SNUN, one export notification, and has a one

- time rule familiarization and CDX registration costs , and one time costumer notification costs, a company would have a total cost of $ 8,984 associated with submitting one SNUN . For this small entity analysis, the total cost of submitting a SNUN was annualized over a 15

- year time horizon using a 7 percent discount rate for an annual cost of approximately $ 986.43

. T o have a sales

- to

- cost ratio of greater than one percent a company must have less than $ 98,643 i n sales annually. The seven small compan ies that produce the subject chemicals are not expected to have an impact greater than one percent if they choose to submit a SNUN. EP A estimates that the small est small compan y would have to submit approximately 305 export notifications to have a sales

- to

- cost ratio of one percent. Therefore, EPA does not expect the proposed rule to have an impact of greater than 1 percent on any small business that chooses to submit a SNUN. These results are summarized in Table 19

.
Table 19 : Estimate of Impacts on Small Business

Economic Impact Type Cost

- to

- Sales Pct. Threshold Sales Doll ar Threshold ( 20 11 dollars) Number of Small Businesses with Impact Higher Impact > 3% <$ 32,881 0 Lower Impact 1% to 3% $ 32,881 to $98,643 0 Less than 1% Impact < 1% > $ 98,643 7

This leaves open the question of the impact on small businesses that are aff ected but do not submit SNUNs. For example, businesses may change their behavior in order to use a chemical in a manner that avoids triggering significant new use notification requirements and make no submission to EPA.

Small businesses may be affected by this proposed SNUR without EPA being aware; for example, if the firms have made no submissions or comments to EPA. However, even if a small business were interested in supplying a SNUR chemical, the SNUR’s impact on profits is generally expected to be min or. For example, the firm may have a small expense of keeping records (approximately $ 9.66 ) and/or of changing workplace practices to comply with any new restrictions

. If modifying practices would be overly costly, the small business may instead forego pro duction, thus sacrificing profits. The lost profits, if any, were not quantified for this report

.


### 6.2 Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

The proposed rule does not impose any enforceable duty, contain any unfunded mandate, or otherwise have any effect on sma ll governments because none of the current producers of the subject chemicals are governments. Additionally, it is not expected that any governments will initiate production of these chemicals.



### 6.3 Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

According to the Paperwork Reduc tion Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. , an A gency 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 C ontrol 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 P art 9 and included on the related collection instrument, or form, if applicable. The information colle ction requirements related to this action have already been approved by OMB pursuant to the PRA under OMB control number s 2070

- 0038 (EPA ICR No. 1188)29

and 2070

- 0030 (EPA ICR No. 0795).

If an entity were to submit a SNUN to the Agency, the annual burden is estimated to include 0.82 hours for rule familiarization (Section 3.2.1 ), 2.80 hours for CDX registration, CDX electronic signature, and pay.gov account setup (Section 3.2.2 ), 92.2 hours for form completion, submission and recordkeeping under CFR §721.40 (Sections 3.2.3 ), 1 hour for consumer notifications (Section 3.2.6 ) and 1.36 hours for expor t notification (Section 3.2.8 ). The burdens for rule familiarization, CDX registration, CDX electronic signature, pay.gov account setup form completion, submission, and recordkeeping consumer notifications are a pproved under EPA ICR No. 1188 (OMB control number 2070

- 0038 ). The burden for export notification is approved under EPA ICR No. 0795 (OMB control number 2070

- 0030)

.


### 6.4 Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” Policies that have federalism implications a re defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the 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” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).

The proposed rule establishes reporting and recordkeeping requirements that apply to manufacturers (including importers) and processors of certain chemicals. EPA has no information to indicate that any
state or local government manufactures or processes the chemical substances covered by this action.



### 6.5 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Popula tions (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low

- income populations in the United States.

The information co llected under this proposed rule, if finalized, will assist EPA and others in determining the potential hazards and risks associated with various chemicals manufactured and used at high production volumes. Although not directly impacting environmental just ice

- related concerns, this information will enable the Agency to better protect human health and the environment, including in low

income and minority communities.



### 6.6 Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children

Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), requires EPA to identify and assess environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children

. This type of analysis is required for rules that will hav e an impact of $100 million or more only

. The impact of this SNUR will be less than $100 million and therefore no analysis of such impacts on children is required.30



### 6.7 Executive Order 13175, Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175 d i scuss es Consultation and C oordination with Indian Tribal Governments (59 FR 22951, November 6, 2000)

. This rule does not have Tribal implications because EPA has no information to indicate that any tribal government manufactures or processes the chemical substances covered by this action

.


### 6.8 Executive Order 13211, Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because this action is not expected to affect energy supply, distribution, or use.



### 6.9 Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), requires EPA to : base regulations on the best available science, allow for public participation and the open exchange of ideas ; promote predictability and reduce uncertainty ; identify and use the best, most innovative and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory e nds ; consider both the costs and benefits qualitatively
, and quantitatively and ensure regulations are accessible, consistent, written in plain language and easy to understand.

The proposed rule establishes reporting and recordkeeping requirements that a pply to manufacturers (including importers) and processors of certain chemicals. Consistent with EO 13563, this document qualitatively and quantitatively describes both the costs and benefits of the proposed rule as well as the underlying data used in the analyses. EPA chose the best available data to analyze the costs and benefits described in this document and the best analytic approaches given the available data and other constraints.31 

## 7 References 40 CFR 721 Toxic Substances Control Act, Significant New Uses for Chemical Substances Code of Federal Regulations . Part 721 Title 40 , July 27, 1988, as amended, June 23, 1993

APERC
, (2010). Statement on EPA Estrogenic Screening Results for Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates. July 14, 2010. Balaguer, P., Fr anois, F., Comunale, F., Fenet, H., Boussioux, A.M., Pons, M., Nicolas, J.C., and Casallas, C. , 1999

. Reporter cell lines to study the estrogenic effects of xenoestrogens. Science Total Environment. 233: p. 47

- 56.

Bennett, E.R., and Metcalf, C.D. , 1997

. Distribution of Alkylphenol Compounds in Great Lakes Sediments. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. 17(7): p. 1230

- 1235.

Blair, R.M., Fang, H., Branham, W.S., Hass, B.S., Dial, S.L., Moland, C.L., Tong, W., Shi, L. ,Perkins, R. and Sheehan, D.M., 2000

. The estrogen receptor relative binding affinities of 188 natural and xenochemicals: Structural diversity of ligands. Toxicological Sciences. 54(138

- 153).

BLS, 2006a. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employer Costs for Employee Compensation: Changes to NAICS and SOC, Table 2. ECEC Occupational Comparability between SOC and OCS. Downloaded February 2006 from http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsm0003.htm. BLS, 2006b. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Cost Index News Release Text: Employment Cost Ind ex, March 2006 (April 28, 2006), at http://www.bls.gov. BLS, 2006c. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Change has Come to the ECI (June 14, 2006) at http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsm0001.htm BLS, 201 2 a . U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 201 1 .” Accessed March 21
, 201 2

. http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ect/sp/ecsuptc21.pdf . (Note: The BLS report title and content is updated periodically to include more recent data, on the same website.)
BLS, 2012 b . Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index

– Total Compensation: Professional and Related Private Industry, Not Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: CIU2010000120000I (B)), extracted March 22 , 2012. http:/data.bls.gov/cgi

- bin/srgate. (BLS 2012b) BLS, 201 2 b

. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment Cost Index

– Total Compensation: Professional and Related Private Industry, Not Seasonally Adjusted. (Series ID: CIU2010000120000I (B)), extracted Ma rch 20 , 201 2 . http:/data.bls.gov/cgi

- bin/srgate.

BLS , 2012a. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer Price Index

. All urban consumers, not SA. CUUR0000SA0, Annual Available through: http:/data.bls.gov/cgi

- bin/srgate BLS, 2013a

. Employer Costs for Employ ee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 2012 , U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 18, 2013

. Bonefeld

- Jørgensen, E., Long, M, Hofmeister, M.V., and Vinggaard, A. M., 2007

. Endocrine

- Disrupting Potential of Bisphenol A, Bisphenol A Dimethacrylate, 4

- n

- Nonylphenol, and 4

- n

- Octylphenol in Vitro: New Data and a Brief Review. Environmental Health Perspectives. 115(S

- 1): p. 69

– 76.

Branch, 2006. Raphael E. Branch and Lowell Mason. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Seasonal adjustment in the ECI and the c onversion to NAICS and SOC.” Monthly Labor Review . Vol. 129, No. 4, April 2006

. Available at www.bls.gov

.32

Caroll, 2006

. Richard E. Caroll. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Changes affecting the Employment Cost Index: an overview.” Monthly Labor Review

. Vol. 129, No. 4, April 2006

. Available at www.bls.gov Danzo, B.J., 1997 . Environmental xenobiotics may disrupt normal endocrine function by interfering with the binding of physiological ligands to steroid receptors and binding proteins. Environmental Health Perspectives. 105(3): p. 294

– 301.

DHHS, 2011. Department of Human Health and Services (DHHS). Household Products Database

. http ://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov/index.htm. Accessed July 2011

. DWCP, 2009. Chemical Information Services. Directory of World Chemical Producers (DWCP). CD Version 2009.2. Dun & Bradstreet (D&B)
, 201 3

. Hoovers; a Dun & Bradstreet Company

. Ellis, D.D., Jon es, C.M., Larson, R.A., and Schaeffer, D.J. , 1982 . Organic constituents of mutagenic secondary effluents from wastewater treatment plants. Archives of Enviromental Contamination and Toxicology. 11: p. 373

- 382.

EPA
, 1990. Testing Consent Order on 4

- Nonylp henol, Branched . 55 FR 5991(Final Rule). February 21, 1990. 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, D C, September 9, 1994. (OTS/RIB later became OPPT/EPAB.) EPA, 2000. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Tox ics, ICR No. 1139.06. OMB Control No.: 2070

- 0033 [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 Rat es 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 f or 65 Chemical Substances. Washington, DC, 2003. Available from the Federal Docket Management System as EPA

- HQ

OPPTS

- 2002

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

. EPA, 2005a. 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, 2005b. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ICR No. 118.08. OMB Control No.: 2070

- 0038 [Information Collection Request for] TSCA Section 5(a)(2) Significant New Use Rules for Existing Ch emicals (Renewal). Supporting Statement for a Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act , October 11, 2005.33

EPA, 2005c . U.S. EPA, Office of Waters

. Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria

- Nonylphenol. Final. EPA

- 822

- R

- 05

- 005 Available for download at: http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/nonylphenol/final

- doc.pdf EPA, 2007a. U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

, EPA ICR No. 0574.14. OMB Control No.: 2070

- 0014 [Information Collection Request for] Pre

- Manufacture Revi ew 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
t he Paperwork Reduction Act , December 6, 2007. EPA, 2007b. 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 (EPA Docket OPPT

- 2003

- 0063), December 4, 2006 (Revised March 12, 2007). EPA, 2007c. 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, 2009a. U.S. EPA. Testing of Cer tain Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylate Substances : Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), 40 CFR Part 799 (2009 June, 17, 2009).
EPA, 2009 b . U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Economic and Policy Analysis Branch . Economic An alysis of the Premanufacture Notification Electronic Reporting Final Rule

. (EPA

- HQ

- OPPT

- 2008

- 0296) . July 13, 2009
EPA, 2009 c . U.S. EPA, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. EPA ICR No.: 0795.13 OMB Control Number 2070

- 0030 [Information Collection Req uest for] Notification of Chemical Exports

- TSCA Section 12(b) Supporting Statement for Request for OMB Review under the Paperwork Reduction Act . March 6, 2009 at http://www.regulations.gov

. EPA, 2009d . U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division, ICR Handbook EPA’s Guide to Writing Information Collection Requests under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 199. Revised 10/2009.
EPA, 201 0 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics

. Nonylphenol (NP) and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates (NPEs) Action Plan ( RIN 2070

- ZA09 ). August 201 0

. EPA, 201 1 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics. Economic Analysis of Expedited Sign ificant New Use Rules for 25 Chemical Substances , (EPA Docket OPPT

- 2009

- 0922) August 2011. EPA, 2012 a

. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “ Count of SNUN Submissions as tracked in EPA’s Confidential Business Information Tracking System (CBITS) ” . February, 2012

E PA, 2012b . U

. S

. EPA, Inventory Update Rule (IUR) Database, “Non

- confidential 2006 IUR Company/Chemical Records”. Available at (http://cfpub.epa.gov/iursearch/index.cfm). Updated May 12, 2010. Accessed July 17, 2012

. EPA, 2012c . DfE Alternatives As sessment for Nonylphenol Ethoxylates. May
, 2012. Available for download at: http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/npe/aa

- for

- NPEs

- final

- version5

- 3

- 12.pdf

EPA, 201 4

. Chemical Data Reporting

. Retrieved September 2 6, 2013, from http://www.epa.gov/cdr Ferrey, M. (2013). Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine Active Chemicals in Minnesota Lakes. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency34

Gong, Y. , Han, X. D., 2006

. Effect of nonylphenol on steroidogenesis of rat Leydig cells. Journal of Environmental Science and Health. 41(5): p. 705

- 15.

Gutler Industries, Inc.
, 2010. http://www.gurtler.com/laundry_esp.html . Accessed March 4, 2010.

Huntsman
, 2010 . Annual Report Pursuant To Section 13 Or 15(D) Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934 For The Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2009. Form 10

- K. Accessed February 2010. ICIS, 2007. Nonylphenol. http://www.icis.com/Articles/2007/06/25/4503346/nonylphenol.html

. Accessed June 25, 2009. Kearney, 1988a. Memorandum to Bill Massouda, Reporting and recordkeeping costs for a generic SNUR, February 3, 1988. [Memo submitted to U.S. EPA/Offi ce of Toxic Substances (now OPPT) under contract 68

- 02

- 3980 with A. T. Kearney , Inc.]. Kearney, 1988b. Estimated Cost of the Final Comprehensive Assessment Information Rule, June 1, 1988. Prepared by Kearney/Centaur for US EPA. Klecka, G. M., C.A. Staples, B.S. Losey, and K.B. Woodburn
, 2005. APERC Assessment of the Persistence and Bioaccumulation Potential for Nonylphenol, Octylphenol, and Their Ethoxylates for Categorization and Screening of the Canadian Domestic Substance List (DSL). September 16, 2005.

Kortne r , T., Vang, S.H. , Arukwe, A., 2009

. Modulation of salmon ovarian steroidogenesis and growth factor responses by the xenoestrogen, 4

- nonylphenol. Chemosphere. 77(7): p. 989

- 98.

Lee, H., Chattopadhyay, Soma, Gong, Eun

- Yeung, Ahn, Ryun Sup, and Lee, Keesook , 2003

. Antiandrogenic Effects of Bisphenol A and Nonylphenol on the Function of Androgen Receptor. Toxicological Sciences. 75: p. 40

- 45.

Legler, J., Van Den Brink, C.E., Brouwer, A., Murk, A.J., Van Der Saag, P.T., Vethaak, A.D., and Van Der Bur g, B. , 1999 . Development of a stably transfected estrogen receptor

- mediated luciferase reporter gene assay in the human T47D breast cancer cell line. Toxicological Sciences. 48(55

- 66).

Lorenc, J. F., Lambeth, Gregory, Scheffer, William
, 2000. Alkylphenol s Kirk

- Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology : John Wiley & Sons, Inc. McCoy, Michael
, 2007. Going Green. Chemical and Engineering News. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/85/8505cover.html. Accessed January 29, 2010. Naylor, C.G., Mieure, J.P., Adams, W.J., Weeks, J.A., Castaldi, F.J., Ogle, F.D., and Romano, R.R.
, 1992

. Alkylphenol ethoxylates in the environment. Journal of the American Oil Chemists’ Society. 69: p. 695

- 708.

OPM, 2010. Office of Personnel Management, Salary Table 2010

- DCB, Washingto n

- Baltimore

- Northern Virginia, DC

- MD

- PA

- VA

- WV. Accessed from http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/pdf/DCB.pdf.
OSPAR Commission
, 2004. Nonylphenol/Nonylphenolethoxylates. Hazardous Substances Series. 2001 (2004 Update). Rice, C.P., Schmitz

- Afonso, I., Loyo

- Ros ales, J.E., Link, E., Thoma, R., Fay, L, Altfater, D., and Camp, M.J., 2003

. Alkylphenol and Alkylphenol

- Ethoxylates in Carp, Water, and Sediment from the Cuyahoga River, Ohio. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37(17): p. 3747

- 3754.35

RTI

- International, 2007

. Charact erization of the inhibition of aromatase activity by nonylphenol. EPA Task Order 3. p. 158.

Satoh, K., Nagai, F., and Aoki, N. (2001). Several environmental pollutants have binding affinities for both androgen receptor and estrogen receptor. Journal of He alth Science. 47(5): p. 495

– 501.

SBA
, 20 12 . United States Small Business Administration. Table of Small Business Size Standards Matched to North American Industry Classification System Codes. Available at: http://www.sba.gov/content/table

- small

- business

- size

- standards Shackelford, W.M., Cline, D.M., Faas, L., and Kurth, G. , 1983

. Evaluation of automated spectrum matching for survey identification of wastewater components by gas chromatography

- mass spectrometry. National Technical Information Service. (PB83

- 182931).

SI Group
, 2006. SI Group shuts down raw material unit at Rotterdam Junction. http://www.siigroup .com/pressrelease.asp?ArticleId=25 . Accessed July 11, 2011.
Sierra Club
, 2007. Re: Citizen Petition to EPA Regarding Nonylphenol and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates. Letter to USEPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, June 25. Sissell, Kara
, 2008. Wal

- Mart Modifies Pr eferred Chemicals Program. Chemical Week. http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/31994575/WalMart

- Modifies

- Preferred

Chemicals

- Program. Accessed July 14, 2011. Sleemi, 2006
, Fehimida Sleemi. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employment Cost Ind ex Publication Plans”. Monthly Labor Review. Vol. 129, No. 4, April 2006. available at www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2006/04/art2full.pdf Talmage, S.S., 1994. Environmental and Human Safety of Major Surfactants, Alcohol Ethoxylates and Alkylphenol Ethoxylates, The Soap and Detergent Association, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL., 191

- 364. Textile Rental Services Association of America (TRSA)
, 2010. Textile Rental Services Association of America webpage. http://www.trsa.org/ . Acce ssed March 3, 2010. 

### ToxEcology Environmental Consulting. 2002. Alternatives to Nonylphenol Ethoxylates. Review of Toxicity, Biodegradation, and Technical

- economic Aspects. Final Report Prepared for Environment Canada. Accessed May 28, 2010.

U.S. Postal Ser vice (USPS)
, 201 2 . “Prices” < http://www.usps.com/prices/ 

### >. Accessed March 201 2

. Weinstein, 2004. Harriet G. Weinstein and Mark A. Loewenstein, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. C omparing Current and Former Industr y and Occupation ECEC Series. Originally posted August 25, 2004 at h ttp://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/cm20040823ar01p1.htm White, R., Jobling, S., Hoare, S. , Sumpter, J, and Parker, M ., 1994. Envir onmentally persistent alkylphenolic compounds are estrogenic. Endocrinology. 135(1): p. 175

- 182.

Ying, 2002. Ying, G.G., B. Williams, and R. Kookana. Environmental fate of alkylphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates

– a review. Environment International . ( 28): 215

- 226. 2002.36 

## Appendix A: I nflators and Wage Rates

This appendix describes the derivation of the fully loaded labor rates and inflation factors used in calculating costs of labor, materials, and other inputs

. Costs for this report are for year

- end 2010

. 

### A.1 D erivation of Loaded Wage Rates
Unit labor costs are calculated by adding fringe benefits and overhead to the wage or salary to derive a fully loaded labor cost

. The basic method is described in Wage Rates for Economic Analysis of the Toxics Release Invent ory Program (EPA, 2002b)

. The resulting loaded labor rates are given in Table A

- 1

. Costs are calculated for several labor categories: Managerial, Professional/Technical, Clerical, and EPA staff.
In March 2004, BLS began using the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes instead of the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) System, and the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system instead of the Occupational Classification System (OCS)

. The following table shows the crosswalk between old and new occupational titles.

EPAB Reports Labor Category BLS Old Title (OCS) BLS New Title (SOC) Managerial Executive, administrative, and managerial Management, business, and financial Professional/T echnical Professional specialty and technical Professional and related

Clerical Administrative support, including clerical Office and administrative support

Source: Employer Costs for Employee Compensation: Changes to NAICS and SOC, Table 2 . ECEC Occupa tional Comparability between SOC and OCS (BLS, 2006a and Weinstein, 2004).


### A.1.1 Derivation of Labor Rates for Managerial, Professional/Technical, Clerical, and Production Labor
Wages and fringe benefits for managerial, professional/technical, clerical a nd production labor were taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC) data, 14 for December, for manufacturing industries. 15
The cost of fringe benefits such as paid leave and insurance, specific to each labo r category, are taken from the same ECEC series

. Fringe benefits as a percent of wages are calculated separately for each labor category

. For example, for December 201 2 , the average wage rate for professional/technical 16 labor was $ 38. 53 ; the average fringe benefit was $ 19. 30

. Fringe benefits as a percent of wages were $ 19.64 /$ 38.48
, or approximately 5 0 .0 9 percent. An additional loading factor of 17 percent is applied to wages to account for overhead

. This approach is used for consistency with Office of Poll ution Prevention and Toxics economic analyses for two major

14 This follows the approach introduced in Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules for 65 Che mical Substances: EPA Docket OPPT

- 2003

- 0063 (EPAB, 2007a)

. 15 Employer Costs for Employee Compensation Supplementary Tables December 20 11

. (BLS, 2012 a)

. This follows the approach introduced in EPAB, 2007a. Earlier PMN SNUR economic analyses, such as EPA, 2003 , used ECEC data for “All Goods Producing” sectors (manufacturing, mining, and construction)

. However, the manufacturing sector data seem more relevant since the SNURs mainly affect the chemicals industry.
16 This follows terminology introduced in EPAB , 2007a. Earlier SNUR economic analyses used the term “technical” labor. Here the category is called “professional/technical” labor, to make clear how it relates to BLS categories

. In 2004, BLS changed from the Occupational Classification System, OCS, to t he Standard Occupational Classification system, SOC

. In the process, the “Professional specialty and technical” category became the “Professional and related” category

. However, the coverage of the old and new occupational groups is approximately the same

. See the BLS article, C omparing Current and Former Industry and Occupation ECEC Series (Weinstein, 2004).37

rulemakings: 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, 2002 a)

. This overhead loading factor is added to the benefits loading factor, and the total is then applied to the base wage to derive the fully loaded wage

. For example, the December 201 2 fully loaded wage for professional/technical labor is $ 38. 53 × (1+0. 5 0 0 9 + 0.17) = $ 64. 38

. Fully loaded costs for managerial, clerical, and production labor are calculated in a similar manner, as shown in 

### Table A

- 1

. 

### A.1.3 Derivation of 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 201 2 (OPM, 201 2 )

. The average salary for one FTE staff member is estimated as the salary for a GS

- 13 Step 5 empl oyee. 17
Multiplying the annual pay by an assumed loading factor of 1.6 to reflect Federal fringe benefits and overhead, the loaded annual salary of EPA staff was calculated to be $ 161,446

. The Agency loading factor is from an EPA guide, Instructions for P reparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (EPA, 1992, page 30, footnote 9)

. The 60 percent assumption was labeled “the benefits multiplication factor” in the EPA Guide, but has been used in many EPA Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics ICRs to r eflect both fringe benefits and overhead for Federal staff

. For example, it was used in an August 2000 document supporting 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 b etween Carol Rawie (OPPT/EETD/RIB) and Carl Koch (OPPE/RMD/IMB) on May 3, 1994, indicated that the 1.6 factor included not only benefits but also overhead.” (ICR No.1139.06)

17 The GS

- 13 Step 5 is consistent with ICR No. 0574.14 (12/18/2007), which covers PMN SNURs. Use of this grade level follows the approach introduced in EPAB, 2007a. That report represented a change from the earlier PMN SNUR economic analysis (EPA, 2003), which used an average of GS

- 12 Step 1 and GS

- 12 Step 10 salaries.38



### Table A

- 1 : Derivation of Loaded Wage Rates

EPAB Lab or Category Data Sources Date Wage Fringe Benefit Fringes as %

Wage Over

head % Wage 2 Fringe +

Overhead Factor Loaded Wages 1

(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 Dec

- 12 $43.95 $21.45 48.81% 17% 1.66 $72.87

Professional/ Technical BLS ECEC , Private Manufacturing

industries , “Professional and related“ 3 Dec

- 12 $38.53 $19.30 50.09% 17% 1.67 $64.38

Clerical BLS ECEC , Private Manufacturing

industrie s, “Office and Administrative Support” 3 Dec

- 12 $17.64 $8.87 50.28% 17% 1.67 $29.51

EPA staff FTE Annual Federal staff cost: OPM

Washington

- Baltimore

- Northern Virginia, DC

- MD

- PA

- VA

- WV, area, GS

- 13 Step 5 pay rates, with 60% overhead. 4 Jan

- 12 $ 100,904 (annual) -- [Included in 60% overhead] 60% 1.6 $161,446.40 (annual)

Notes:

1 Wage data are rounded to the closest penny in this table; however, in calculations using these numbers for this report, unrou nded values were used.
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 Co mpensation Supplementary Tables December 2012, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, March 18, 2013 (BLS, 2013a).

4 3 The Federal salary is the unloaded Federal GS

- 13 Step 5 salary ($100,904) for 201 2 , from the Office of Personnel Management salary table for Was hington

- Baltimore

- Northern Virginia (OPM, 201 2 ). The 60% fringes

- and

- overhead rate is from an EPA guide, Instructions for Preparing Information Collection Requests (ICRs) (EPA, 1992, page 30, fo otnote 9).39



### A.2 Derivation of Inflation Factors Complete inf

ormation on the derivation of the inflation factors used is given in Table A

- 2

. In 2006, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) made several changes to the Employment Cost Index

. The changes are described on a BLS we b page, “Change has come to the ECI,” (BLS, 2006c ) and in several April 2006 Monthly Labor Review articles posted on the BLS web site: “Changes affecting the Employment Cost Index: an overview” (Caroll

, 2006 ); “Employment Cost Index Publication Plans” ( Sle emi, 2006 ); and “Seasonal adjustment in the ECI and the conversion to NAICS and SOC” ( Branch, 2006 ).
Under a mandate from OMB, BLS changed its classifica tion of industries and occupations from the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) and Occupational C lassification System (OCS) to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) system

. In 2006, BLS adjusted all ECI series to reflect this change.
In addition to changing the industry and occupation al classification systems, in 2006, BLS rebased the ECI from June 1989 = 100 to December 2005 = 100 for all current and historical non

- seasonally adjusted series, including the NAICS and SIC based series

. (Seasonally adjusted indices, including those in Table A

- 2 of this report, may not exactly equal 100 for December 2005 as a result of the seasonal adjustment

. Seasonal adjustments are explained in Branch, 2006.)
According to BLS, the official ECI for the years 197 5

- 2005 is the SIC

- OCS based series, and for subsequent years, the official ECI is the NAICS

- SOC based series (Sleemi, 2006, p.8). 18
“Starting year” indices in Table A

- 2 continue to be SIC

- OCS based

. Current year in dices are NAICS

SOC based

. We use indices from both the NAICS

- SOC and the SIC

- OCS based ECI series because neither series spans the entire period over which testing and other costs need to be inflated.

18 BLS has been publishing the NIACS

- SOC based ECI series since March 2001 and it be came official in March 2006. The SIC

OCS based series and NAICS

- SOC series have different series ID numbers, even when they describe essentially the same population. For example, the series ID for seasonally adjusted total compensation for all private indu stry workers is ECS10002I for the SIC

- OCS series and CIS2010000000000I for the NAICS

- SOC series

.40

Table A

- 2 : Derivation of Inflation Factors

Item Inflation Index Source 1 Starting Year Index for Starting Year (a) Index for

2012 (b) Inflation

Factor (b)/(a) 2

Export notification BLS ECI, ,Total comp, Private industry, Professional and related , 4 th Q [BLS, 201 2 b ] 3 1992 64.9 11 8.2 1.821

Agency Extramural costs White collar labor; equipment; supplies BLS ECI, Total comp, Private industry, Professional and related , 4 th Q [BLS, 201 2 b] 3 1993 67 118.2 1.76

Labels, placards etc. BLS CPI, All urban consumers, not SA. CUUR0000SA0, A nnual [BLS 2012a] 1997 160.5 229.594 1.430 File cabinet

Photocopies BLS CPI, All urban consumers, not SA. CUUR0000SA0, Annual [BLS 2012 a ] 1988 118.3 229.594 1.941 Record keeping materials

Key: BLS = Bureau of Labor Statistics . CPI = Consumer Price Index. ECI = Employment Cost Index. SA = Seasonally Adjusted. Total Comp = Total Compensation (wages/salaries and benefits)

. 4th Q = Fourth Quarter. Notes:

1 In 2006, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Employment Cost Index (ECI) s eries “were rebased to December 2005 = 100 from June 1989 = 100.” The change is reflected in the indices in this table and explained on the BLS website, Employment Cost Index News Release Text: Employment Cost Index, March 2006 (BLS, 2006b )

. The Consumer P rice Index (CPI) was not rebased

. “Starting year” ECI indices are SIC

- OCS based: Seasonally Adjusted (SA) ECS10002I for private industry All Workers, and not SA ECU11122I for private industry Professional and Related Workers.

After 2006, ECI indices ar e NAICS

- SOC based: Seasonally Adjusted (SA) CIS2010000000000I for private industry All Workers, and not SA CIU2010000120000I (B ) for private industry P rofessional, and Related workers

.

2 Inflation factors are rounded to three decimal places in this table , but calculations in this report use the unrounded values

. BLS CPI values were published with one decimal place through 2006 and with three decimal places after that.

3 Beginning with the report Economic Analysis of Expedited Significant New Use Rules f or 25 Chemical Substances: EPA Docket OPPT

- 2009

- 0922 ( EPA, 2011 ) we began to use the not

- seasonally adjusted CIU2010000120000I for private industry Professional, and Related workers, instead of S A CIS2010000W00000I for private industry white collar workers because BLS retired the “white

- collar” series

.